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.
J. W. Thomas.
Dewsbury.
Footnote 5:[(return)]
So says De Tott; Cantemir says it is red. But this discrepancy in the authorities is easily accounted for, since the Sanjak Cherif is so sacred that it must be looked upon by none but the Muslimans, the true believers. If seen by the eyes of giaours (unbelievers), it would be profaned. (De Tott, Memoirs, p. 3.)