http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/6189/sheildabbotmark2.jpg
Arms of the Rt. Rev. Mark Cooper, OSB of St. Anselm’s Abbey in New Hampshire. The abbatial crozier is facing the wrong direction and, yes, it matters. Also, how can there be one shade of gold for the arrow points and feathers, the field of the chief, the lion and the double-barred cross in base and another shade of gold for the crozier? In fact, the crozier looks like it’s depicted as copper, or is that an attempt to show the crozier as made of wood? Nice try but…no.
Dear Father, please tell us more regarding the crozier.
As to the crozier’s position, some authors believed that an abbatial crozier must "look inwards" unless the armiger enjoys any external jurisdiction; however this opinion refers to the croziers placed diagonally; a vertical crozier always looks outwards. I presume your remark have other reasons behind it.
As to the crozier’s tincture, I wonder if it must be of any fixed tincture at all. Are not a crozier Or and a crozier Or jewelled of various colours interchangeable? If so, why not a crozier Argent (which I met) or Azure or Vert or of any stain (apart of personal preferences, taking in consideration that some, like myself, are not fond of stains)?
Well, the crozier’s position on abbatial arms should always be "turned inward". I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to a diagonal vs. a vertical crozier. The direction of the crozier has nothing to do with the angle at which it is depicted. Rather, it refers to the position of the crook at the top. In ecclesiastical heraldry the crook turned to the dexter is considered an "inward’ facing crozier. One turned to sinister is an "outward" facing crozier.
Abbot’s croziers are turned inward because the jurisdiction as an Ordinary which the crozier represents is limited to the monastery of which they are abbot. In other words, their Ordinary jurisdiction is limited because the monks are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the local bishop in whose diocese their monastery is located. (this is why it is the local bishop who bestows the abbatial blessing on a new abbot). There are some Territorial Abbots who are not subject to the local bishop (they used to be called Abbot Nullius because that was short for Nullius Diocoesis, or, "outside of the diocese") but there are only a handful of them left because such a distinction is being slowly eliminated by the Church. (the most recent to have this status revoked were the Venerable Abbey of St. Paul-Outside-The-Walls in Rome and the ancient abbey of Subiaco where St. Benedict himself lived at one time).
So, generally speaking, what marks a crozier in heraldry as an abbatial crozier is 1) the inclusion of the sudarium, or veil attached to the crozier (which is depicted in Abbot Mark’s coat of arms) and 2) that the crook is turned inward, that is, to dexter. Abbot Mark’s crozier is turned to sinister.
As to its color, indeed a crozier may be any color. However, copper or brown aren’t acceptable colors. Originally, I thought it was supposed to be gold so I questioned why it was a different shade of gold that the other gold elements of the arms. Then it occurred to me that, perhaps, they were attempting to emblazon it as a wooden color. The crozier that Abbot Mark uses is made of wood but this depiction in his coat of arms is not a depiction of the actual crozier he uses (and that would be an incorrect thing to do anyway because heraldry is not portraiture and the external ornaments cannot be mandated to appear in a specific manner to be copied over and over). So, if it is an attempt to show a wodden crozier then "brown" is not a heraldic color. I agree that the use of stains (not a universally accepted custom, by the way) also does not justify this color because I’m not aware that stains could be applied to external ornaments as they are to charges on the shield. Besides, which stain would this be? It is not sufficient to blazon the crozier as "proper" because there is no proper appearance for a crozier. Some are gold, some silver, some brass, some aluminium, some are wood so there is no "proper" for a crozier. In addition, as I said this is not a drawing of Abbot Mark’s actual crozier either so "proper" wouldn’t work here.
Finally, one couldn’t really blazon it " a wooden crozier proper" because, again, the external ornaments are not subject to such specific description and depiction. Generally speaking, croziers are depicted as gold (just like the episcopal cross in the arms of a bishop). While I agree that they could be silver or black, or green, or blue, or red, or purple even though anything other than silver or gold would look odd in my opinion, this crozier which is either brown or copper colored just looks bizarre and, yes, incorrect.
As to your point about the difference between a crozier Or and a crozier Or jewelled of various colors I would like to point out that, for the most part, the crozier of an abbot is not depicted jewelled. Usually, abbatial symbols are depicted as simply as possible to represent monastic simplicity but that, again, is not a rule since the external ornaments’ appearance is not mandated. For example, back in the old days when the arms of bishops and abbots included not only the galero but also a cross, mitre and crozier (for bishops) and a mitre and crozier (for abbots) the custom, not the rule, but the custom was to depict the cross and crozier as studded with jewels and a mitra preciosa in the arms of a bishop while depicting a plain crozier and a mitra simplex in the arms of an abbot.
My point would be simply this: in my opinion the crozier should be of a gold color in the arms of abbot’s. It shouldn’t be up to the armiger. You might get a bishop who says, "I like the galero and it’s tassels but I don’t want it to be green." Well, in such a case the bishop would have to be told that’s just tough luck. In heraldry bishop’s hats are green. I once did a coat of arms for an abbot who said he didn’t like the veil attached to the crozier. I had to explain to him that such a decision wasn’t up to him. In heraldry abbot’s croziers have veils. In heraldry the crozier is a symbol of office, not a personal charge.
Interesting & informative discussion. I had always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the inward/outward distinction between the crozier of an abbot vs a bishop referred to the shape of the "hook" rather than which way it faced—i.e. the hook of an abbot’s crook would curl inward, while a bishop’s would do the same but then curl outward at the tip. And of course the abbot would have the veil & the bishop’s wouldn’t.
But if I’ve been wrong, I stand willingly corrected!
thank you, Fr Guy.
Fr. Guy, your explanation makes 100% sense, but a query if I may. I know it is not universally accepted, but could not the colour of the crozier have been intended as "brunatre". I realise it is a rare tincture, but it is more accepted in some cultures than others. Does Abbot Mark have Continental connections that may have suggested its use?
Fr. Guy,
In regards to the print itself, one should consider the printing process compared to the actual eencolor. For large format printing, a majority of shops/printers I have worked with charge per color used, so it might have been a cost issue. It may have been also been apart of the print process, ink used, or how the printer preflighted the file. I have seen preflighting software that adjusts the colors tones automatically and people never notice.
Snyder;95709 wrote:
Fr. Guy,
In regards to the print itself, one should consider the printing process compared to the actual eencolor. For large format printing, a majority of shops/printers I have worked with charge per color used, so it might have been a cost issue. It may have been also been apart of the print process, ink used, or how the printer preflighted the file. I have seen preflighting software that adjusts the colors tones automatically and people never notice.
My first reaction: Not to mention that’s what "gold" looks like when metallic ink isn’t used. I’m guessing the crozier is using a PMS gold color to look more "realistic" than the charges. Being a vinyl banner, however, it would have been printed in 4-color processing.
But: the white is whiter than the background. Printers don’t print white. So either this was printed on vinyl and then placed on a banner or it was painted. Hmmm.
Im not even sure if it is vinyl. The outer edges are hemmed, but you can tell they are folded over making it more brillant white. It may just be my phone, but it appears you can see the brick texture showing through on parts. I think it is cloth with vinyl or adhesive paper.
