SD Classic: "What's the origin of 'the finger'"?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

In this SD Classic Cecil gives a correct answer, but misses out, surely, on an opportunity to educate the Teeming Millions?

Apologies if this has been done to death before.

As you can see, the email that has given rise to the query suggests that the origin of flipping someone off dates back to Agincourt…what Cecil doesn’t mention is that although it doesn’t give rise to the ONE-fingered salute, it DID give rise to the two-fingered equivalent that any fan of the Sex Pistols or any of the 70’s UK punk bands will be instantly familiar with.

The English longbow was easily the most feared weapon of the day, capable of piercing armour, and French soldiers who DID capture an Englishman would indeed remove the index and middle fingers of his “bowing” hand - the hand you use to draw back the string of the bow.

It did, therefore, become a symbol of insult - originally used just by the English archers around the time (much in the way described in the mail, although all that nonsense about “I can still pluck yew” is total garbage) and then transmuted into general English use because even when we’re at peace with them, we still hate the French.

Sadly, the crazy one-fingered version so popular in America seems to have replaced our symbol of saggitarian superiority as the favoured playground insult…but there you go.

Not claiming that Cecil was wrong in any way (I know better than that…) just that where he would usually have taken the opportunity to enlighten people further, he didn’t do so. But now you know.

2

Yes, it has been done to death before. It has also been debunked before. Just take a look att what Snopes has to say about it.

3

As I said above, I’m making no claim about “plucking yew” - that seems particularly foolish. Just the gesture.

Snopes’s “debunking” isn’t particularly good, now is it? Although I understand that it isn’t on the web and therefore isn’t automatically true, a BBC History of the Longbow was shown recently and that DID contain the explanation of the two-fingered gesture arising out of mutilation of prisoners.

We therefore have two conflicting sources, neither of whom are naming THEIR sources in any great depth.

There seems, to me, to be too much “it stands to reason” in Snopes’s article and not enough actual evidence. Of course, he’s struggling with having to prove a negative. Which makes life tricky.

I’ll attempt to find the sources used by the BBC crew.

4

Bring it on

5

Armies only took hostages they could get money for, eh?

6

Actually, [catharsis], you’re struggling with having to prove something which, IMHO, ain’t gonna happen.

Give me a contemporary cite about the term. Heck, give me any cite before the “documentary” you saw.

7

I’m not entirely sure that I understand what you’re trying to say, there.

By putting the word documentary in quotation marks, are you trying to imply that it didn’t/doesn’t exist? I can assure you that it does - I sat and watched it. Largely a dry affair about the correct way of making a longbow, really, but the description of the battle itself was quite interesting. And it very definitely involved the two-fingered “reverse v for victory” arising out of the French practice of cutting off the index and middle fingers of English bowmen.

Then you also seem to be implying that we need to have a source earlier than a documentary if you’re to believe it. That puzzles me. This isn’t Billy-Bob and Joe-Joe’s Wacky Radio Fun Hour, son, this is the British Broadcasting Corporation - they’re gonna be basing it on SOMETHING a lot better than “it stands to reason” and a bunch of generalisations that are largely untrue. You don’t get four historians to stick their fingers up at cameras for no reason, and the historians all told the same story. This BBC companion book or what appears to be a video of the series will undoubtedly help you out with your ‘cites’ - but there’s no onus on me to spend money to prove my point.

Ultimately I’d be a lot more inclined to accept this “debunking” if it dealt in any way with the question that I am posing. Americans have a habit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and where they’re quite right to point out that flipping someone off with one finger goes back to classical times, that the “pluck yew” bit is just TOTAL crap and so on, they do absolutely no appreciable looking into the idea that the two-fingered salute comes from Agincourt.

Where is the alternative explanation? Where is the description of how this myth came about? Nowhere, that’s where.

In the absence of any explanation or evidence to the contrary, what conclusion can I draw? That the professional historians are more likely to be right than the clumsy “debunker” on the internet, that’s what. I’m not saying that I have absolute proof - I’m saying that given the standards of professionalism demanded by the BBC I have faith in THEIR proof. I will happily be contradicted by evidence - not by flimsy argument.

8

Well, Snopes did list these sources - which ones did you check, among them, to find lacking?

That’s quite a broad brush you’re using to paint Americans there. Cite?

9

A small point, but one worth making.

The article on Snopes correctly debunks the notion that the middle finger insult derives from the archers of mediaeval England. But, as the OP stated, the original myth was actually the basis for the two fingered salute.

He does also rightly ask that, if the two fingered salute did not originate from the archers, where did it originate from? We already have the correct origin of the middle finger insult, but what about the two fingered insult?

I don’t recall seeing the BBC documentaries cited by the OP, but I have seen many similar historical documentaries by both the (highly respected) BBC, and other independent documentaries from back in my old history classes at school (their titles escape me at the moment, so apologies for the lack of cite) that confirm this rumour.

Indeed, assuming Snopes was covering all fingered insults, it is the only website that debunks this notion. But, as it stands, it makes no mention of the “vicks”.

The archers origin neatly explains both the origin of the two fingers, and also explains why it is limited only to residents of Britain. Could it be because it is an insult of strictly British origin?? It is also logical that the middle finger would have more universal understanding, since it did not originate from the British archers.

10

[catharsis], you have to realize the culture of this board is based on getting the information correct. Providing proof of claims often requires providing scholarly cites of research of historical records. So a call for a cite is just a request for you to back up your claim. Given the nonsense that floats around and that we’ve seen here (try looking up “the whole nine yards” for a teaser), you will see why cites are important.

You do have a point about a bbc broadcast - they tend to be reliable. Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to check a broadcast you saw in the past, no? Your first cite to a bbc page has a disclaimer at the bottom stating the content is provided by the public, so while it may be well researched, it does not have the bbc’s seal of approval.

That said, what you say makes a lot of sense. The fun part is to find a cite that refers to records from the Battle of Agincourt that back it up.

11

Anthracite - of those three, I checked the Dictionary of Superstitions. I would reproduce the entry in full, but that wouldn’t really serve much of a purpose. Suffice to say that it doesn’t name any contemporary sources. I cheerfully withdraw the accusation about Americans having a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and amend it to Cecil and Snopes (who, I now realise, I only presume is American) having done so in this case.
Irishman - to an extent I see where you’re going with that, but there IS something of a problem. How many people who accept Snopes’s argument have, themselves, checked the sources that he names? Why, then, is my documentary that they haven’t seen any less valid than his books that they haven’t read?

But yes, I understand that ultimately I need to produce a reference to a source from Agincourt or the aftermath that proves my point if I want to win. The problem being that it really isn’t worth my money to prove this point - at BEST all I could hope for would be a retraction/amendment and that just isn’t worth me buying the book for.

For what it’s worth, I have no doubt that the BBC book of the series (linked above) will include the rumour and will include some references to source materials from the time period - whether or not those sources directly relate to the origin of the two-fingered gesture, I cannot say. But even if I COULD find reference to a source, surely I’m still relying on the truth the book’s author? I’m hardly likely to be able to go and inspect the herald’s report myself, after all.

What riled me, more than a request for sources, was the supreme and arrogant faith in a website that clearly hasn’t addressed the question. Moreover, the sources named (to explain what I meant by “any great depth”) are hardly the sorts of scholarly tomes that go and look at primary sources themselves. More than THAT, even, given that the question Snopes is addressing is not the RIGHT question, and that two of the sources named on there are American, my strong suspicion is that they too will be talking about the one-fingered (not two-fingered) gesture. Sadly my local library is unable to confirm the suspicion…and like I said, it’s not worth any financial investment on my part to find out. Perhaps one of the people who believes in Snopes can supply us with the salient points from the books?

Here, I fear, we reach an impasse. Without buying any of the books involved (the BBC book of the series that supports it or the other two books that Snopes cites) neither side of the argument can get down to primary sources. Without going to primary sources, neither side can prove anything. Which, I imagine, will mean that this side of the Atlantic will continue to believe that our insulting gesture echoes our supreme skill with arrows and the other side will continue to believe otherwise.
As an aside…when did “cite” become a noun? I understand that “citation” has the wrong sort of overtones over there, but isn’t it strictly a verb?

12

The presenter of the BBC documentary was a chap called Robert Hardy, a well-known British actor who has also written a book on the history of the longbow.

He describes an account of the Agincourt battle by Thomas Elmham, an English chronicler who travelled with Henry’s army to France:

There are a number of points to note regarding this article, however:

  1. One might wonder whether Henry was relaying a genuine French boast, or whether this was merely propaganda to stir up the troops.

  2. It does not necessarily follow that the archers would decide to wave two fingers at the French (why not all three…?).

  3. If they did decide to use two fingers, they may have employed a previously existing gesture of contempt (ie. although it might have achieved a certain notoriety at Agincourt, the two finger salute need not have originated there).

  4. Hardy is not the most rigourous of authors and does not reference his sources very tightly, so it is hard to check whether Elmham’s account is reported accurately.
    Anyways, this source certainly seems to lend some credence to the OP’s position, and even if it does not represent conclusive proof it certanly does not contradict it.

I shall be in the University Library this afternoon, so I shall see what else I can dig out on Thomas Elmham etc.
– Quirm
ps. My theory? I wouldn’t be surprised if the two-finger salute goes back a lot further than Agincourt. Maybe it represents the twin horns of the devil or something along those lines. No evidence at all for that though, just my pet theory!!

13

FWIW: Desmond Morris once wrote in a book about body language that he had no idea how the English way of using two fingers had originated as Englishmen don’t have two penises.

14

Easy… we need two fingers cos we have twice the average length below the belt… :wink:

Funny you should say that… :wink:

The two best known contemporary accounts of Agincourt are Thomas Elmham’s Liber Metricus de Henrico Quinto (c.1415) and the anonymous Gesta Henrici Quinti (c.1417).

You can find English translations of these works in the following texts:

F. Taylor and John S. Roskell (trans.): Gesta Henrici Quinti - The Deeds of Henry the Fifth (Oxford University Press, 1975)

C. A. Coll (ed.): Memorials of Henry the Fifth, King of England (Rolls Series Vol. 11, London 1858).
For an excellent overview of all the sources relating to Agincourt try:

A. Curry: The Battle of Agincourt: sources and interpretations (Boydell Press, Woodbridge 2000).
Some of these are easier to get hold of than others, but I shall try to locate the English version of Elmham’s account and will see if that provides any clues. If that doesn’t work, one of my professors has done a lot of research on the French sources and he might be able to suggest some sources to check :slight_smile:

– Quirm

15

Good work, Quirm - I may be able to track down one or more of those. The Curry book is the one that was recommended to me when I made some cursory enquiries…certainly the internet recommends it, but then every review of it I found also included a link to an online bookseller, so take what one will from that.

16

<ahem> longest finger.

<ahem> naughty uses.

17

I’m sure that’s incredibly profound, but I can’t for the life of me work out why.

Care to enlighten me?

18

Isn’t the two fingered version also considered obscene in Greece and a few other cultures?

19

[catharsis] asked:

The problem is not who has bothered to check, the problem is can they check. The book cites are given such that, if you so desired, you could locate the books in question. That I have not chosen to do so does not in any way preclude me from doing so in the future, should I so desire. Whereas a reference to a video program that does not include the title and only a vague mention of the topic and source as the bbc does not allow me to look up your reference, if I were to desire. See the difference? It doesn’t make the reference more accurate, but makes it better in the sense that it is more accessible.

The attitude of the response was a little arrogant. And you are correct, the snopes page did not address the two finger salute, only the bird. Are they connected? It certainly hasn’t been explained.

Hey, I think you might be correct. It certainly makes some sense. After all, as has been pointed out, why two fingers for a “fuck you”?

Technically, you are correct. Citation is the noun form, cite is the verb. However, it is becoming common shorthand parlance to use cite to mean citation. Is it correct? Not really.

cdhostage, we’re discussing the British two finger reverse V, not the American single finger bird.

20

Quirm. I certainly hope you report back on some of your excellent cites/ideas as they constitute the most practical thoughts so far on how to prove or disprove the Agincourt origin of the two fingered salute.

I am still of the personal opinion that such a gesture existed before the battle and was merely a rude gesture, perhaps related to being a cuckold.

Rabelais, the great French satirist, wrote Pantagruel in 1532. I’ll give you what I consider to be the most important cite from that work as it impacts this discussion.

From http://www.akirarabelais.com/francoisrabelais/chapterxviii.html
This is from a page of that work which is describing a duel of visual insults between an Englishman and a Frenchman.

Pantagruel, the Frenchman, is the originator of that gesture in this work. Not the Englishman. The gesture as described sure strikes me as the supposed English originated “two-fingered salute.”

None of this obviates the possibility that the story about Agincourt is true. But if the reported quote was

, then why did the archers offer the two fingers?