Roses are red, that much is true, but violets are purple, not fuc king blue. They are indeed purple, but one thing I've missed the concept of “purple” didn't always exist. Some cultures lack names for a colour, you see. Hence good old homer and his “wine dark sea”. A usage so quaint, a phrasing so old, for verses of romance is sheer fuc king gold. So roses are red, violets were once called blue. I”m hugely pedantic but what else is new? I’m not wrong about homer’s wine-ey sea! Colours are a matter of cultural contingency; words are in flux and meaning they drift but the word purple I’ve given short shrift. The concept of purple, my friends, is old and refers to a pigment once precious as gold. By crushing up molluscs from the wine-dark sea you make a dye: Imperial decree meant that in Rome, to wear purpura was a privilege reserved for only the emperor! The word ‘purple’, for clothes so fancy, Entered English by the ninth century. Why then are violets not purple in song? The dye from this mollusc, known for so long is almost magenta; more red than blue. The concept of purple is old, and yet new. The dye is red, so this might be true: roses are purple and violets are blue, and while this makes me merry, Tyrian purple dyes many a hue from magenta to berry and a true purple too. But as fun as it is to see me write these rhymes, the answer has been staring you right in the face this whole time: roses are red and violets are blue because nothing fuc king rhymes with purple