The Pseudo-Distinction Between Rose and Pink

After Gaudete Sunday I noticed a number of priests on social media posting on the supposed difference between rose and pink. I claim that this distinction has very little foundation in reality; it has more to do with contingent cultural associations with the word “pink” than with a fair reading of the rubrics of the Roman Missal, or of the actual tradition of vestment making in the Roman Rite. The rubrics indeed speak of rose, but this could just as well be translated pink, since Latin does not have a separate term for pink. Indeed many languages (eg. German) make no distinction between the two colors.

Both of the English words are derived from flowers, but roses and pinks come in myriads of overlapping shades.

Indeed, as soon as one begins to think about the naming of colors, one’s native Platonism begins to give way, and one begins to suspect that there is something to the structuralist argument for the division of reality by naming as being a bit arbitrary. One doesn’t have to swallow de Saussure’s theories whole to see that the imposition of color names involves a certain amount of arbitrary choice. To Homer, after all, the sea was the color of wine.

Father Edward McNamara gives a sort of Newtonian-objectivist account of the supposed distinction between rose and pink:

Rose (“rosaceo“) is defined by the dictionary as “a moderate purplish-red color; purplish pink.” The liturgical color is thus a lightened violet and is darker than the pale hue usually associated with pink. It is rather a tincture closer to that of a pale incarnadine or the reddish “Naples yellow” used by artists. Pink, “any of a group of colors with a reddish hue that are of low to moderate saturation and can usually reflect or transmit a large amount of light; a pale reddish tint,” is not counted among the liturgical colors.

If one takes a less Newtonian and more Goethian approach (surely more applicable in aesthetic matters), or simply the approach that one took as a child learning to mix paint, then one could say that on Fr. McNamara’s account rose is mixture of red, white, and a little blue, whereas pink is a mixture of only white and red. But persons who have made a study of Latin color names are by no means unanimous in confirming such a view. The Calabrian Renaissance poet Antonia Telesio, has the following to say about rose:

Iucundissimus omnium est color roseus, atque humano corpori, si id formosum est quam simillimus. Itaque os, cervicem, papillas, digitos roseos poetae dicunt: id est candidos, rubore sanguinis penitus diffuso cum venustate: isque color proprie est, quem communis sermo incarnatum vocat. Refert enim maxime omnium pueri nitorem ac virginis: rosam non Milesiam intelligo quae nimis purpurea ardere quodammodo videtur, nec rursus albam: sed quae utrinque decorem accepit, et quia corpus hominis imitatur, quod lingua vernacula carnem appellat, eadem id genus rosarum incarnatum nominavit. Cicero colorem hunc suavem dixit.

That is to say, rose according to Telesio, is the color of human flesh— resulting from the red blood shining through the white skin.

Learned bloggers have indeed argued that the history of dye making argues for an admixture of blue in liturgical rose, but if one looks at actual historical examples, one can find all manner of shades of rose from almost red to almost violet to the palest of pastel pink:

And such diversity is quite normal. Usually liturgical colors allow for a wide variety of shades; just consider the different shades of liturgical green that one can find often from the same place and time. So whence comes the pseudo-distinction of rose and pink? We can get a clue from a post from the early days of the excellent New Liturgical Movement blog:

I’ve often found too many “rose” vestments to be far less rose coloured than they are pink. It seems to me a deeper, almost purplish hue of rose (sometimes referred to as “dusty rose”) would be more befitting the sacred rites, and also the masculine nature of the priesthood, and that the other can be quite distracting and not as befitting the former.

The reference to “the masculine nature of the priesthood” is I think the key to the problem. In many parts of the world pink is considered a sort of effeminate, missish color unbefitting to men. This seems a rather arbitrary convention, but perhaps not entirely arbitrary, since the flesh that Telesio describes as candidos, rubore sanguinis penitus diffuso is found maxime in virginibus (though also, I note, in pueris).

12 thoughts on “The Pseudo-Distinction Between Rose and Pink

  1. Just how arbitrary a convention it is shown by the fact that less than a century ago, pink was considered the more appropriate color for boys, and blue for girls. Department store catalogs through the 1920s reflected this binary–pink being considered a stronger, less dainty color than blue. And before the close of the 19th century, it’s difficult to find any examples of pinkish hues being particularly associated with girls–our current practice of assigning one colors to young girls and another to young boys it itself the historical outlier.

    Speaking as a layman, I’ve always found priests’ insistence that they’re wearing rose and not pink (especially when made from the pulpit) to be extremely tiresome.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I’ve never understood this myself. English doesn’t make a distinction between rose and pink, either, although sometimes (but not always) ‘rose’ will be used for darker pinks rather than lighter ones.

    Using blue for pink colors is fairly standard in dying. It makes pinks pinker before it starts making them purple. It’s exactly how you get ‘hot pink’ (contrary to the impression conveyed by the link about added blue): you add about 1 part of rich and vivid blue to about every 20 or 30 parts of red.

    And in days when things were hand-dyed, you would expect a wide variation depending on local techniques and the skill of the dyer. We are also over-saturated with colors, culturally, I think; we can easily get fabrics in standards colors that would once have taken consummate skill even to approximate. Dyers in the Middle Ages would have been far more concerned with making every color vivid than meeting some impossible standard of exactness of hue.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: Neoplatonism and the rose/pink question | Semiduplex

  4. An interesting post Pater- but wasn’t it Chesterton who said “It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasised celibacy and emphasised the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colours, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colours which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers.”

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Pingback: Gaudete I – nicktomjoe

  6. Pingback: Gaudete – nicktomjoe

  7. Interesting discussion, especially as 1) my parish priest opened his homily with the joke about “rose” and “not pink” in regard to the gorgeous and very Roman chasuble he was wearing today in our by no means traditional parish, and 2) the sunset as I write this only 20 miles from Washington, DC, is distinctly pink, with ribbons of blue (or, more accurately, the other way around, I’d say).

    I wondered about Shakespeare and this color, and found this:

    “Shakespeare uses “pink” four times in his works: in The Taming of the Shrew (c. 1590-1591) to describe a pair of shoes that are un-pinked (undecorated) in the heel (4.1.119); in Romeo and Juliet (c. 1595) for wordplay over Pink the flower and courtesy (2.1.54-55); in Antony and Cleopatra (c. 1606) where reference to Bacchus (the God of wine) with “pink eyen” embellishes a drunken scene and mirrors, perhaps, the squinting eyes of inebriated revellers (2.7.110-11); and in All Is True (Henry VIII), written with John Fletcher (c. 1613), to describe a “pinked porringer”, i.e. a hat decorated with pinks, worn by a haberdasher’s wife (5.2.35-38). None of these references refer to ‘pink the colour’ because this colour term is not generally used as an adjective until at least the middle of the 17th century and, as a sole colour term, must wait for the Restoration of 1660. Marston’s use of “pinke collour” in 1601-1602 interrupts a straightforward chronological journey for ‘pink the colour’”

    from: “Pink Stockings, Yellow Stockings: the Use of Pink-Yellow in Marston and Shakespeare”
    Anita BUTLER

    Here’ the link:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.