(though the latter allows green as an alternative), we are following the most general authority in preferring yellow. Among the dioceses mentioned on p. 75, the only exceptions are Wells (blue and green), and Lichfield (varius, a word of uncertain meaning).
The use of white for Lent was practically universal in the sixteenth century and earlier. It was generally of plain stuff, fustian, linen, or canvas, with crosses, roses, or other devices of red or blue. But it is no where ordered, and seems to have been simply a popular custom. It is therefore not binding on us, though allowable; but as its revival now would be a very unpopular custom, confusing the much-tried layman, who naturally associates a dark colour with Lent, I submit that it has little chance of obtaining amongst us, and that its introduction would only increase the present confusion.
The 'violet' for Lent does not of course mean the unpleasant colour (so remote from the colour of the violet flower) at present provided by the shops. There is no such restriction as to tints, and dark blue or purple is equally suitable for Lent. It may be mentioned here that there is not a single authority—in the Sarum books or elsewhere—for the use of red either in Lent (except in Passiontide) or Advent.[1]
Here is the colour-sequence ordered in the latest Pontificals, those of London and Canterbury (1406-26, and 1414-43). The principal variants of other dioceses are given in brackets. Advent, violet or purple: Christmas, white: St. Stephen, red: St. John Evan., white; H. Innocents, violet (Exeter, and all others, red): Circumcision, white: Epiphany, white: Ep. oct. to Septuagesima, green: Septuagesima to Passion Sunday,
- ↑ The mistake was caused by a rubric in the Sarum missal which directs the priest to bless the ashes in a red cope on Ash Wednesday. But this was the ferial colour; for Ash Wednesday was not ritually considered part of Lent, which began on the Sunday following, the Lent veils being hung up then.
