(Vol. viii., p. 196.)
Your correspondent W. ROBSON, in asking to have pointed out "the period
at which the crescent became the standard of Mahometanism," appears
to assume, what is more than doubtful, that it _has been_, and still
_is_ so. For although "modern poets and even historians have named it
as the antagonistic standard to the cross," the crescent cannot be
considered as "_the_ standard" of Mahometanism--emphatically, much less
exclusively--except in a poetical and figurative sense. That it is
_one_ among several standards, I admit; it is used by {320} the Turks
as an ornament, and probably as a symbol, of their dominion, or in
connexion with their religion. This may have originated in the following
fact:--Mahomet, at the introduction of his religion, said to his
followers, who were ignorant of astronomy, "When you see the new moon,
begin the fast; when you see the moon, celebrate the Bairam." And at this
day, although the precise time of the lunar changes may be ascertained
from their ephemerides, yet they never begin either the Ramazan, or
the Bairam, till some have testified that they have seen the new moon.
(Cantemir's _History of the Othman Empire_, pref. pp. iv, v.) But the
ancient Israelites had precisely the same custom in commencing _their_
"new moons and appointed feasts." (See _Calmet_, art. "Month.") That
which may properly be called the standard of the Turks, is the _Sanjak
Cherif_, or Standard of the Prophet. It is of green silk[5], preserved in
the treasury with the utmost care, and never brought out of the seraglio
but to be carried to the army. This banner is supposed by the Turks to
ensure victory, and is the sacred signal to which they rally. (De Tott's
_Memoirs_, vol. ii. pp. 2, 3.)
The military ensigns which the grand seignior bestows on the governors of
provinces and other great men, include the following: 1. The _sanjak_,
or standard, only distinguished from that of Mahomet by the colour, one
being red and the other green. 2. The _tug_, or standard consisting
of one, two, or three horse-tails, according to the dignity of the
office borne by him who receives it. Pachas of the highest rank are
distinguished by three tails, and the title _beglerbeg_, or prince of
princes. Those next in rank are the pachas of two tails, and the beys
are honoured but with one. These tails are not _worn_ by the pachas,
but fastened at the end of a lance, having a gilt handle, and carried
before the pacha, or fixed at the side of his tent. 3. The _alem_ is a
large broad standard, which instead of a spear-head has a silver plate in
the middle, bored in the shape of a _crescent or half-moon_. (Cantemir,
_Hist. Oth. Emp._, p. 10.)
The sultan's barge, with canopy of purple silk, supported throne-like
by four gilt pillars, is adorned with _three gilt candlesticks_; and
only the capudan pacha, when going to sea, is allowed to have similar
ornaments, as he is then considered as _deriyá padishahi_, emperor of the
sea. Even the vizier is only permitted to display a canopy of green silk
on ivory pillars, but without candlesticks. (_Ib._, p. 424.)
Thus it appears that the crescent holds but a subordinate position
among the ensigns at present in use among the Turks. As to its history,
I have found no trace of it in connexion with that of the Crusades.
Tasso, in _La Gerusalemme Liberata_, mentions "the spread standards" of
the soldan's army "waving to the wind" ("Sparse al vento ondeggiando
ir le bandiere," canto xx. st. 28.), but he makes no allusion to _the
crescent_. I have not access to Michaud's _Histoire des Croisades_, and
shall be glad if your correspondent will quote the passage to which he
has referred. Does Michaud speak of it as existing _at that time_? This
does not clearly appear from the reference. There were several sultans
named Mahomet who reigned in or near the age of the Crusades, two of the
Seljak dynasty; the first the conqueror of Bagdad, the second cotemporary
with Baldwin III., king of Jerusalem. In the Carizmian dynasty, Mahomet
I. was cotemporary with Godfrey, Baldwin I., and Baldwin II.; and
Mahomet II. commenced his reign about A.D. 1206. But the conqueror of
Constantinople, Mahomet II., was of the Othman dynasty, and lived some
centuries later, the fall of that city having taken place A.D. 1453. _To
which_ of these eras does Michaud ascribe the use of _the crescent_ for
the first time?
After all, perhaps, the Turkish crescent, like the modern crown of
Western Europe, may be but a variation of the horn, the ancient symbol of
authority, so often alluded to in the Old Testament. The _two_ cusps or
horns of the crescent, and the circle of diverging _rays_ in the diadem,
suggest that the variation is simply one of number; and the derivation is
strongly corroborated by etymology. The Hebrew word קרן (_keren_) is
connected with, and possibly the original source of, our two words _horn_
and _crown_. Its dual (_karnaim_) signifies _horns_ or _rays_, as in
Habak. iii. 4.
A fact mentioned by D'Herbelot may have some connexion with the Turkish
crescent. When the celebrated warrior, Tamugin, whose conquests preceded
those of the Othman dynasty, assumed in a general assembly of the
Moguls and Tartars the title of _Ghenghis Khan_, or king of kings, "Il
y ordonna qu'une cornette blanche seroit dorénavant l'étendart général
de ses troupes" (_Bibliothèque Orientale_, p. 379.). Thus did the Mogul
conqueror (to use the words of the Psalmist) "lift up the horn on
high." (Psalm lxxv. 5.) About half a century after the death of Ghengis
Khan, Aladin, Sultan of Iconium, conferred on Othman, who afterwards
founded the Turkish empire, the _tabl alem_--the drum, standards, and
other ornaments of a general. (Cantemir, _Hist. Oth. Emp._, p. 10.) The
explanation of the _alem_ by the historian in his annotations, I have
already quoted. This is the only allusion to the crescent as an ensign
that I have met with in Cantemir.
{321}
The painters of Christendom (no high authorities in this matter) often
represent the crescent as a part of Turkish costume, worn in front
of the turban. But in the portraits of the Turkish emperors, "taken
from originals in the grand seignior's palace," there appears no such
ornament. (See the plates in Cantemir's _History_.) Many of them are
represented as wearing the _sorgus_, a crest of feathers adorned with
precious stones. Like the horn, it is an emblem of authority. Many of
them have two fastened to the turban.
Your correspondent states that "the crescent is common upon the reverses
of coins of the Eastern empire long before the Turkish conquest." I
think this highly probable, but would be glad to see the authorities for
the fact. I cannot admit, however, that the crescent was in any degree
"peculiar to Sclave nations" for, first, the Sclave nations reached
no farther south than Moravia, Bohemia, and their vicinity, they did
not occupy the seat of the Eastern empire, which was partly Greek and
partly Roman. Secondly, though I have no work on numismatics to consult,
I have casually met with instances in which the heavenly bodies are
represented on Persian, Phœnician, and Roman coins. As instances, in
Calmet's _Dictionary_, art. "Moloch," is represented a Persian coin with
the figures of a star and _crescent_; in the Pictorial Bible, 2 Chron.
xv. 16., a Phœnician coin bearing a _crescent_; and in Matt. xx. 1.,
on a Roman coin of Augustus, there is the figure of a star. The Turks,
however, stamp nothing on their coins but the emperor's name and the date
of coinage.
Again, in European heraldry, Frank, German, Gothic, and not Sclave, the
_crescent_ appears; in "common charges," for example, as one of the
emblems of power, glory, &c. and among "differences," to distinguish a
second son.
Should the above facts tend to throw any light on the subject of your
correspondent's inquiry, I shall be gratified; and if any of my views can
be shown to be erroneous, it will afford me equal pleasure to correct
them.