NIGEL F.

BARLEY

Two Anglo-Saxon Sign Systems Compared

The sign systems with which I shall be concerned are gestural systems,
neither of which would seem to be of purely Anglo-Saxon origin1 but
which are preserved in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts and were apparently
in use in England during the Anglo-Saxon period. The history of these
individual systems will lie outside the scope of the present work that
seeks merely to examine some of their semiotic qualities.
The first system is one of visual counting known as Bede's De Indiga-
tione or (in the De Temporum Ratione) as De computo vel loquela digi-
torum. It would seem to derive from Oriental counting systems and cer-
tainly goes back to the ancient world.2 The best visual representation of
the basic signs is preserved in a fairly late manuscript (Bodleian Ashmole
396) which I present in Fig. I.3
The second system, with which it is to be compared and contrasted, is
a monastic sign language for use in Benedictine monasteries during
periods of enforced silence. This is accessible in Kluge's transcription
with German translation. Since these are artificial systems, used when
other channels of communication are deliberately closed or fade into
the background, it would be interesting at the parole level to see how
much 'leakage' occurs between channels. In the present study, however,
we are operating at the level of langue and our concern with the internal
and external logic of the system enables us to avoid numerous methodo-
1
See Kluge (1885:116). For the historical background see Steele (1922: Introduction),
Friedlein (1869), Yeldham (1926).
2
See references given in Jones (1943) whose text I use, and especially Rödiger (1845).
3
Reproduced by kind permission of the Council of the Early English Text Society.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lava

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
228 NIGEL F. BARLEY

logical problems involved in the study of kinesics where simultaneous

transmission may occur in several channels (Birdwhistell, 1971).

De computo vel loquela digitorum

A prerequisite of comparison is a prior analysis of each system. Stokoe

(1972) has shown how gestural systems can be analysed in terms of TAB,
DEZ, and SIG. For the present system, tab would indicate the location
of the signal, where the hand was held and what it touched. Dez would
be the configuration of the fingers. Sig would be any significant action
they made. The sum of these CHEREMES (Stokoe, 1972: 20-44) would then
serve to define each sign.
As far as the signs of De computo vel loquela digitorum are concerned,
however, we should note that for the signs up to '9,000', tab is a neutral
position before the body while sig is reduced to a mere assumption of
the appropriate finger configuration. Only in the higher-value signs shown

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
TWO ANGLO-SAXON SIGN SYSTEMS COMPARED 229

in Fig. 2 (from MS Wien 12 600)4 can there be any question of motion,

and even here it is the final position of the active hand that is significant,
not its initial position or the nature of the contact. We can thus safely
discard sig as far as this sign system is concerned. We are left, then, with
dez and tab.

"Ytgmtt mi lu cu Aicif · ^
^<CP*W <*«*te;
fu x

Fig. 2

The signs of Fig. 1 up to '9,000' use a neutral position before the

body.5 Those for '10,000' to '1,000,000' are less clear. It is evident that
the manuscript illustrator of our Fig. 2 had little comprehension of what
he was supposed to be illustrating.6 The principles of the system remain
4
Reproduced by permission of the Bildarchiv der österreichischen Nationalbibh'o-
thek, Wien.
5
This is nowhere specified in the text but is true by default since the tab elsewhere is
specified, e.g., Fig. 2.
6
Compare the laterally reversed signs of Fig. 2 and the failure to distinguish between
relevant and nonrelevant hand in the illustrations.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
230 NIGEL F. BARLEY

clear, however, from the written text. We are here dealing with a series
of signs whose tab works down from chest to thigh as their value ascends.
'100,000' to '900,000' are represented by the preceding signs switched
from left to right hand. We also find the significance of the opposition
left/right in the lower-valued signs of Fig. 1. Thus, the sign for T
becomes that for ΊΟΟ' by a change of hands and similarly '10' can be
converted to '1,000'. This is difficult to handle in terms of dez and tab.
It intuitively belongs to neither. It is obviously a distinctive feature in its
own right and we shall specify it as LATERALiTY.7
Returning to the dez, we can perceive in the finger configurations of
Fig. 1 traces of their own internal logic. As a fifteenth-century recension
puts it (Steele, 1922: 67): "And this you may marke in these a certayne
order." It is clear that any adequate description would wish to account
for the MOTIVATION of finger positions and that we must consequently
take our analysis below the level of the dez.
Before we do so, however, there is another matter to decide upon.
Looking at the sign for T in Fig. 1 we see that tab would be specified as
'neutral position before the body', laterality as 'left', dez as 'bent little
finger'. We have not yet specified the general position of the hand. From
Fig. 2, we can observe the gross inaccuracy of much medieval manu-
script illustration. It seems that the illustrator of Fig. 1 was at pains to
make clear the significant positions of the fingers, and that to achieve
this he may well have sacrificed the depiction of the general position of
the hand. It is difficult to see how Ί0'-'90', Ί,000'-'9,000' would have
been intelligible to a receiver unless viewed sideways on. We may also
note that the higher-valued signs of Fig. 2. may sometimes be distin-
guished only by such features as whether the hand points up, down, or
sideways, and whether the front or the back of the hand faces outwards.
Since there is no reason why the same features should be distinctive
at all points of the system, we may deal with the general hand position
as part of the dez for the higher numbers and as a nondistinctive feature
of parole for the lower-valued signs.
As regards the problem of the motivation of the dez configurations,
we will note that they cohere as a system and lend themselves excellently
to a generative treatment. That there is also a degree of EXTERNAL
MOTIVATION or iconicity cannot be denied. Thus the signs for T, '2',
and '3' reapply the same rule offinger-RETRACTiONin a way that parallels
7
The attribution of value according to a local logic of situation finds its graphic
expression in the difference, in our own system, between 19 and 91 and in Anglo-
Saxon times had its concrete expression in the abacus.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
TWO ANGLO-SAXON SIGN SYSTEMS COMPARED 231

our modern habit of symbolising numbers up to ten by EXTENDING the

appropriate number of fingers. ς4', however, is formed from '3' by
raising the little finger (see Fig. 1) and here iconicity goes by the board
in favour of INTERNAL MOTIVATION of the most abstract kind, in that
each sign is justified by its place in a wider generative sequence.
As we glance down the first column of Fig. 1, it is clear that, with the
interesting exception of '6', the basis of this part of the system is a
recursive rule of finger-retraction that switches after each application
to a new finger. If *6' were regularly formed from '5' it would take the
form of a hand in the rest position, i.e., be valueless. This would consti-
tute an intolerable ambiguity, so the application of this rule is over-
ridden. It is interesting to note, however, that if we infer the rule that
generates '?' — '9' and erase its effects on '7', we have a hand in precisely
this position of rest.
We may sum up the system, then, as one where few of the signs are
individually iconic.8 We may therefore characterise it as one of INTERNAL
as opposed to EXTERNAL motivation.

Indicia Monasterialia

The second sign system is the Indicia Monasterialia of Cotton Tiberius

ΙΠ fol. 97-101.9
This is essentially a NOMENCLATURE and a motivated one. It totally
lacks any of the syntactic sophistications of the Trappist system, specifi-
cation of mood, etc. that have been so well analysed by Hutt (1968).
It would be quite possible to analyse the gestures here presented in terms
of dez, sig, and tab and Hutt's treatment of subsystems of the Trappist
gestures approximates to such a method. In the present case, however,
this would constitute a massive exercise in futility. It would be descending

8
Such a graphically iconic system of numerals is to be found in Kleinpaul (1972:
437) and was expanded into a numerical philosophy in the works of the Anglo-
Saxon scholar Byrhtferth (Crawford, 1929). The manual gestures for these numbers
were themselves reinterpreted in a sexual sense. Thus (Jones, 1943: 179) the sign for
thirty becomes a symbol of marriage, for sixty a symbol of widowhood, and for a
hundred a symbol of virginity. (See Fig. 1.)
9
On related signs systems see Van Rijnberk (1953) who offers a comprehensive
comparison of different signs for the same denotata. An excellent and instructive
analytical study is Hutt (1968). Buyssens (1956) is, to put it kindly, highly derivative.
See also Barakat (1969). — It is strange that Van Rijnberk refers to this manuscript
as being in the Bodleian* "Le Ms. Anglo-Saxon se trouve a la Bibliotheque Bodleienne"
(1953:9). I have had cause to consult the manuscript and it is quite definitely in the
British Museum.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
232 NIGEL F. BARLEY

to the level of Ardener's (1971: 451) 'micro-measurers' and not to the

level of significance. This sign system, unlike the last, is EXTERNALLY
motivated and lacks the somewhat 'phonological' nature of the previous
system. Let us look at some of the techniques involved.
People are often signified by a miming of their most distinctive func-
tion.10 Thus, the bursar is shown by miming the opening of a lock (4),11
the deacon by swinging a bell in gesture (2). This, then, is a sort of
metonymic semiotic.
Alternatively, the sender may symbolically transform part of his own
body into an object and act upon it in mime. Thus, (66) "If you desire
milk, then stroke your left finger with your right hand as if you were
milking."12 In other words the finger has become a cow's teat. This, then,
is a sort of metaphoric semiotic.
A more distinctly iconic form of semiotic occurs in the simulated
drawing of the desired object. Thus, (15) "If you desire a belt, put your
hands forward beneath the navel and stroke toward both hips."13
Let us now look at the degree of motivation and systematisation of
these signs. The degree of external motivation is extremely high. The
signs reproduce actual functions, forms, collocations that are para-
digmatically associated with their referents.
There remains the question of the degree of internal motivation.
Sometimes, for example, one classificatory system will be calqued on
another. Thus, we find that the ranks of people are symbolised by a
gestural depiction of their headgear. This is only possible because
Anglo-Saxon, and more generally medieval, society used headgear and
hairstyles as sumptuary signs. Thus, to signify a king one mimes a crown
(118). The queen can then be signified by prefixing this sign with one
depicting a headband worn only by women (119). In this way we pass
from simple to compound sign. I shall return to this later.
A monk is signified by pointing to one's hood (it being assumed that
the sender himself is a monk). This reflects the common Anglo-Saxon
linguistic distinction between 'hooded' (sacred) and 'unhooded' (secular).
Since pointing to one's hood signified 'monk', a compound sign was
10
These, then, are action equivalents of functional definitions, e.g. "A chair is
something you sit on".
11
Numbered sections refer to Kluge's (1885) division of the text. This is far from
satisfactory for many reasons but 1 shall retain it as a convenience.
12
Translations are my own and differ significantly from the German version of
Kluge.
13
This is the semiotic level of such works of art as the Fuller brooch (Wilson, 1964:
Appendix B). It corresponds to ostensive definitions, i.e., "This [pointing] is a chair".

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
TWO ANGLO-SAXON SIGN SYSTEMS COMPARED 233

necessary to refer to the article of clothing itself. This occurs in 106

where touching the hood is prefixed by waving the sleeve to indicate the
class 'clothing'.
We can see what is happening here. Objects are being reinterpreted,
reclassified, and associated metaphorically with other objects for which
signs exist. Since the elements of these compound signs also occur in-
dependently, we can gloss them in terms of the meanings of their imme-
diate constituents. Thus we have:
(1) "If you wish to signify something with the sign for sleep, then lay
your right hand under your left cheek" (87).
(2) "If you desire a shirt (hemepe), then take your sleeve in your hand
and wave it" (101).
(3) This gives us by fusion: "If you desire bedclothes (bedreaf\
wave your garment (reaf) and lay your hand on your cheek" (89).
This would seem to be a case where the classifications of the sign
language follow those of the natural language. This is not always so
however. Consider the following:
(1) Literal compound meaning of the sign for the Bible to be used at
matins can be rendered 'book-big-sleep' (29).
(2) Literal compound meaning of the sign for a lamp is 'candle-dish'
(34).
It is not necessary, of course, for both elements of the compound sign
to have the same semiotic status. Thus, one can be a basic externally
motivated sign that is used for a variety of related denotata through
prefixing by semantic markers while the other is simply an ad hoc iconic
addition. We find, for example, (77) that sloeberries are signified by the
use of the sign for cherries to which is affixed the mime "thrust your index
finger in your left hand to indicate the brambles on which they grow".
Similarly, a pear is signified by modifying the sign for an apple (73, 74).
It is at this point that Conklin's (1969: 44) distinction between unitary
and composite lexemes breaks down, since in Anglo-Saxon LINGUISTIC
classifications there is no question of sloeberries being a type of cherry.
Such a depiction of a sloeberry is an action equivalent of an ad hoc
translation definition, where one class A is equated to class B plus further
restriction.14
14
The relevant distinction here is that which Conklin makes between unitary com-
plex terms such as pineapple (which is NOT a kind of apple) and composite terms such as
pitch pine (which is a kind of pine). The compound gestures we are studying here erase
this distinction by the well-known use of 'Metapher mit Ablenkung' that is so common

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
234 NIGEL F. BARLEY

We should note, however, that the text is extremely corrupt15 and

sometimes the systematic nature of the signs is confused by the presen-
tation. Thus we find (31): "If you wish for any other book of an evangeli-
cal nature, then lay your right hand under your cheek and make the sign
of the cross on your forehead."
According to the meanings of these elements as inferred from elsewhere,
this should signify enigmatically 'Evangelium-sleep'. In fact, of course,
other semiotic elements are to be understood from the context and we
must assume that the normal hand movement signifying 'book' precedes
these motions as in 30, 8, 9, 10, etc. This then gives us the total explicit
meaning of 'book-Evangelium-sleep' that IN THE CONTEXT OF A MONASTERY
is quite adequate as a gloss for a religious work used at matins.
The processes by which an alternative nomenclature is thus developed
recall other aspects of Anglo-Saxon culture. The portrayal of a deacon
as a 'censer-swinger' or of a monk as a 'hood-wearer' parallels the
kennings of the Anglo-Saxon poetic system whereby a prince is called
'ring-giver' or 'sword-wielder'. Compound signs of the 'book-Evange-
lium-sleep' variety seem rather to resemble crossword clues (Greimas,
1970; 285) or riddles of generalisation (Barley, 1974) where various
allusions are given to the receiver who has to put them in a relationship
and assign further semantic markers from all aspects of his knowledge
until he arrives at an unambiguous solution.
We will note, however, that there always remains a gap between total
SIGNIFIED meaning and total INTERPRETED meaning. It is as if more is
being received than is actually transmitted. The difference, of course, is
supplied by the cognitive structures and factual knowledge of the receiver.
Since most of the signs we are dealing with are heavily externally moti-
vated, this element consists primarily in limiting the field of application
of signs. Thus, the simulated censer-swinging of our deacon (2) could
apply to a vast number of significata after the manner of a What's My
Line mime. It is the narrowed context of a monastery and his knowledge
of that context that is invoked by the receiver. This will enable him to

a device in the formation of kennings. The question is not whether an expression such
as 'heaven's candle' for 'sun' refers to a 'real' relationship but whether there is a
structural congruence of the form sun: heaven :: candle: house. It is the kind of
relationship that enables us to define a kennel, to a child for example, as a 'dog's
house', and so play fast and loose with normal classifications.
15
See Barley (1973) for a fuller treatment of some of the points that arise from this.
It is noteworthy that a full semiotic analysis of the underlying system enables us to
emend dubious hapax legomena, the original forms being revealed by the literal
meanings of the compounded constituents.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
TWO ANGLO-SAXON SIGN SYSTEMS COMPARED 235

identify the object intended by the sender even when the sign has not
become conventional.
This raises another point. Do we have here a totally conventional
vocabulary or simply the partial product of a generative system of sign
formation ? The distinction becomes relevant only when new signs have
to be produced. The presence of a much later English version using signs
that are often SUBSTANTIVELY different but FORMALLY the same (Kluge,
1885: 131) argues for the latter. We may also care to note how many of
the signs of this system are unique to Anglo-Saxon (Van Rijnberk,
1953). It is an axiom of common sense that a sign system that is heavily
motivated externally will generate new signs easily. Of course, the price to
be paid is ambiguity or redundancy as the same object is glossed again and
again to get the message across. Thus, we will note the presence of several
different signs for the same denotatum, 88 and 34 for 'lamp', 2 and 124
for 'deacon'. In such a small-scale sign system as we have here, inefficiency
of this kind would be unnecessary if that gap between transmitted
and interpreted message were entirely covered by convention.
At times we catch a glimpse of the sorts of cultural bias that are built
into the system. The problem appears, for example, in the familiar form
of MARKED versus UNMARKED, that Greenberg and others have shown to
be of such fundamental importance in other areas of linguistic research
(Greenberg, 1966).
At the most trivial level, we may note that there exist two ways of
asking for candles of different sorts. Small candles are signified by blowing
on the index finger (27). Tapers are denoted by this gesture plus the
raising of the thumb to signify size.16 It would have been theoretically
possible to reverse the relationship, tapers being signified by the blowing
on the forefinger, small candles by the addition to this gesture of the
raised little finger to signify smallness. In this case, taper would have been
the unmarked, candle the marked category. It seems reasonable to infer
that this solution was not chosen because it would have been opposed to
Anglo-Saxon classifications. We are then dealing with a phenomenon of
intraclass comparison of the kind remarked on by Osgood (1963: 248).
Turning again to the case of 'king' and 'queen' (above), we can now
see that the provisional gloss 'woman-king' that we might have been
tempted to give to the sign denoting 'queen' would have been incorrect.
'King' is already marked for sex in both Modern English and Anglo-
Saxon. The explanation for this is that a 'queen' (cweri) for the Anglo-
16
There occur only two nonsubstantival gestures, the little finger signifies 'small',
the thumb 'large*.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
236 NIGEL F. BARLEY

Saxons was not a 'female ruler' but a 'king's wife'. This is quite explicit
in out text where the Anglo-Saxon reads cyninges wif but it is quite
distorted by Kluge's rendering Königin. This view of queenship is well
represented in the Anglo-Saxon sign, since the gesture for a headband
that one adds to 'king' to convert it to 'queen' signifies an article of dress
reserved for MARRIED women.
I hope by now it is becoming clear how fundamentally different the two
sign systems are with which we have been concerned. The De computo
vel loquela digitorum shows particularly strong INTERNAL motivation.
It has a self-contained, closed nature that is completely alien to the
Indicia Monasterialia. Each sign is justified by its place in a generative
sequence and it therefore lends itself to a 'phonological' treatment
whereby components only attain significance through relationships
of mutual opposition and exclusion. The Indicia Monasterialia builds
with what are already meaningful units. It has an inherently ramshackle
air of bricolage about it. Anything may be seized on to convey informa-
tion. It is firmly rooted in the cultural systems of its users, calqued on
other sets of classifications such as headgear. The result is that the
counting system would have to be deliberately learnt to be understood
and further conventions would have to be developed to enable it to
expand. The Indicia Monasterialia retains an open-ended quality that
results in its constituting a lesser learning burden but a less precise
instrument.

REFERENCES

Ardener, Edwin
1971 "The New Anthropology and Its Critics", Man 6, 449-67.
Barakat, Robert A.
1969 "Gesture Systems", Keystone Folklore Quarterly, 105-21.
Barley, Nigel F.
1974 Structural Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon Riddle", Semiotica 10:2, 143-76.
1973 "Two Emendations to the Indicia Monasterialia" Neuphilologische Mittei-
lungen (forthcoming).
Birdwhistell, Ray L.
1971 "Kinesics: Inter- and Intra-channel Communication Research", Essays
in Semiotics, ed. by Julia Kristeva et al. (The Hague: Mouton), 527-48.
Buyssens, Eric
1956 "Le langage par gestes chez les moines", Revue de V Institut de Sociologie 29,
537-45.
Conklin, Harold C.
1969 "Lexicographical Treatment of Folk Taxonomies", Cognitive Anthropology,
ed. by Stephen A. Tyler (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston), 41-59.

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
TWO ANGLO-SAXON SIGN SYSTEMS COMPARED 237

Crawford, S. J.
1929 Byrhtferth's Manual (=Early English Text Society, Original Series 111)
(London).
Friedlein, G.
1869 Die Zahlzeichen und das elementare Rechnen der Griechen und Römer und des
christlichen Abendlandes vom 7. bis 13. Jahrhundert (Erlangen: Deichert).
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966 Language Universals (The Hague: Mouton).
Greimas, Algirdas J.
1970 "L'ecriture cruciverbiste", Du sens (Paris: fiditions du Seuil), 285-308.
Hutt, Clelia
1968 "fitude d'un corpus: Dictionnaire du langage gestuel chez les Trappistes",
Langages 10, 107-18.
Jones, Charles W.
1943 Bedae Operae de Temporibus (Cambridge, Mass.: Banta).
Kleinpaul, Rudolf
1972 Sprache ohne Worte (=Approaches to Semiotics 19) (The Hague: Mouton).
Kluge, F.
1885 "Zur Geschichte der Zeichensprache", Internationale Zeitschrift für allge-
meine Sprachwissenschaft II, 116-40.
Osgood, Charles E.
1963 "Language Universals and Psycholinguistics", Universals of Language, ed.
by Joseph H. Greenberg (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press).
Rödiger (no initial)
1845 "Über die im Orient gebräuchliche Fingersprache für den Ausdruck der
Zahlen", Jahresbericht der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 111-29.
Steele, Robert
1922 The Eearliest Arithmetics in English (= Early English Text Society, Extra
Series CXVTII) (London).
Stokoe, William C.
1972 Semiotics and Human Sign Languages (= Approaches to Semiotics 21) (The
Hague: Mouton).
Van Rijnberk, G.
1953 Le langage par signes chez les moines (Amsterdam: North-Holland).
Wilson, David M.
1964 Anglo-Saxon Ornamental Metalwork 700-1100 in the British Museum (Lon-
don).
Yeldham, Florence A.
1926 The Story of Reckoning in the Middle Ages (London: Harrap).

Nigel F. Barley holds a Nuffield studentship at the Institute of Social Anthropology,

Oxford University. His chief research interest lies in the anthropological aspects of
Anglo-Saxon symbolism. Among his recent publications are: "Revival of the Riddle"
(1972); Anglo-Saxon Magico-Medicine" (1972); "A Structural Approach to the
Proverb and Maxim" (1973); "Structural Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon Riddle" (1974);
"Anglo-Saxon Colour Classifications: Where Do Things Stand?" (forthcoming);
"Perspectives on Anglo-Saxon Names" (forthcoming); and "Structure in the Bolton
Gnomes" (forthcoming).

Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lava

Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM
Brought to you by | Bibliotheque de l'Universite Lav
Authenticated | 132.203.227.63
Download Date | 6/24/14 7:30 PM