[Illustration: NATURE SERIES]




                            THE RIGHT HAND:

                            LEFT-HANDEDNESS

                            [Illustration]




                            _NATURE SERIES_

                            THE RIGHT HAND:

                            LEFT-HANDEDNESS

                                   BY

                   SIR DANIEL WILSON, LL.D., F.R.S.E.

                 PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
             AUTHOR OF ‘THE PREHISTORIC ANNALS OF SCOTLAND’
                 ‘PREHISTORIC MAN: RESEARCHES INTO THE
                     ORIGIN OF CIVILISATION,’ ETC.

                                 London
                           MACMILLAN AND CO.
                              AND NEW YORK
                                  1891

                         _All rights reserved_




                                   TO

                              HIS GRANDSON

                       OSWALD GEORGE WILSON BELL

                           THIS LITTLE VOLUME

                      IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED

                                   BY

                               THE AUTHOR




                                PREFACE


The following treatise includes data originally accumulated in a
series of papers communicated to the Canadian Institute and the Royal
Society of Canada, aiming at determining the cause of Left-handedness
by a review of its history in its archæological, philological, and
physiological aspects. In revising the materials thus accumulated in
illustration of the subject, with a view to their publication in a
connected form, the results of later investigation have been embodied
here, not only with the aim of tracing Left-handedness to its true
source, and thereby proving the folly of persistently striving to
suppress an innate faculty of exceptional aptitude, but also to enforce
the advantages to be derived by all from a systematic cultivation of
dexterity in both hands.

                                                      BENCOSIE, TORONTO,
                                                      _24th April 1891_.




                               CONTENTS

                                                                   PAGE

CHAPTER I

THE HAND                                                               1

CHAPTER II

THE EDUCATED HAND                                                     12

CHAPTER III

THE WILLING HAND                                                      23

CHAPTER IV

PALÆOLITHIC DEXTERITY                                                 31

CHAPTER V

THE DISHONOURED HAND                                                  62

CHAPTER VI

THE PRIMITIVE ABACUS                                                  77

CHAPTER VII

THE COMPASS POINTS                                                    89

CHAPTER VIII

HANDWRITING                                                           97

CHAPTER IX

PSYCHO-PHYSICAL ACTION                                               119

CHAPTER X

CONFLICT OF THEORIES                                                 149

CHAPTER XI

HAND AND BRAIN                                                       183




                               CHAPTER I

                               THE HAND


The hand is one of the most distinctive characteristics of man. Without
its special organisation he would be for all practical purposes
inferior to many other animals. It is the executive portion of the
upper limb whereby the limits of his capacity as “the tool-user” are
determined. As such, it is the active agent of the primary sense of
touch, the organ of the will, the instrument which works harmoniously
with brain and heart, and by means of which imagination and idealism
are translated into fact. Without it man’s intellectual superiority
would be to a large extent abortive. In its combination of strength
with delicacy, it is an index of character in all its variations
in man and woman from childhood to old age. It is an exponent of
the refinement of high civilisation, no less than the organ of all
dexterity and force of the skilled inventor and mechanician. In the art
of the true painter, as in works of Titian and Vandyke, the portraiture
of the hand is no less replete with individuality than the face.

In so far as the hand is to be recognised as the organ of touch or
feeling, it plays a different part from the other organs of the senses.
It is no mere passive recipient of impressions, but selects the objects
to be subjected to its discrimination, and communicates the results
to the central organ: the seat of intelligence. As a responsive
agent of the mind it is the productive artificer. In its independent
estimate of form and texture it performs for all of us the function
of sight in the darkness; and to the blind it is an eye wherewith
they are enabled to receive correct impressions of external nature,
and to read for themselves the lettered page. The hand, moreover, has
an utterance of its own. The unpremeditated actions of the orator
harmoniously emphasise his speech; and in strong emotional excitement,
the movements of the hands are scarcely less expressive than the
tongue. There are, indeed, occasions when its symbolic speech needs
no audible accompaniment. The repelling action of the out-stretched
palm, accompanied by the averted head, can dispense with words; and
the hand in benediction has no need of them. The imagination realises
the amplest significance of such gestures, as in the final parting of
Arthur and Guinevere--

    She in the darkness o’er her fallen head
    Perceived the waving of his hands that blest.

In discussing the specialty of right-handedness, either as an expansion
or limitation of the use of the hand, it is not necessary to enlarge on
the distinctive anatomical relations of the human hand to the fore-limb
of other animals; for if the final results here set forth are correct,
the preferential and instinctive employment of one limb and extremity
is not an exclusive attribute of man. Nevertheless the hand is one
of the most characteristic human features. The practical distinction
between man and any approximate living creature lies in the fact that
the most highly developed anthropoid, while in a sense four-handed, has
no such delicate instrument of manipulation as that which distinguishes
man from all other animals. In most monkeys there is a separate and
movable thumb in all the four limbs. The characteristic whereby their
hallux, or great toe, instead of being parallel with the others, and so
adapted for standing and walking erect, has the power of action of a
thumb, gives the prehensile character of a hand to the hind-limb. This
is not confined to the arboreal apes. It is found in the baboons and
others that are mainly terrestrial in their habits, and employ the four
limbs ordinarily in moving on the ground.

The human hand is an organ so delicately fashioned that the biologist
has, not unnaturally, turned to it in search of a typical structural
significance. By reason of its mobility and its articulated structure,
it is specially adapted to be an organ of touch; and the fine sense
which education confers on it tends still further to widen the
difference between the human hand and that of the ape. Hence Cuvier’s
long-accepted determination of a separate order for man as bimanous.
But this classification is no longer tenable. Man is, indeed, still
admitted to form a single genus, _Homo_; but in the levelling process
of scientific revolution he has been relegated to a place in the
same order with the monkeys and, possibly, the lemurs, which in the
development of the thumb are more manlike than the apes. In reality,
looking simply to man as thus compared with the highest anthropoid
apes, the order of Quadrumana is more open to challenge than that of
the Bimana. The hind-limb of the ape approaches anatomically much more
to the human foot than the hand; while the fore-limb is a true though
inferior hand. The ape’s hind-limb is indeed prehensile, as is the
foot of man in some degree; but alike anatomically and physiologically
the fore-limb of the ape, like the hand of man, is the prehensile
organ _par excellence_; while the primary function of the hind-limb is
locomotion.

There are unquestionably traces of prehensile capacity in the human
foot; and even of remarkable adaptability to certain functions of the
hand. Well-known cases have occurred of persons born without hands, or
early deprived of them, learning to use their feet in many delicate
operations, including not only the employment of pen and pencil, but
the use of scissors, with a facility which demonstrates the latent
capacity for separate action of the great toe, and its thumblike
apposition to the others. In 1882 I witnessed, in the Museum at
Antwerp, an artist without arms skilfully use his brushes with his
right foot. He employed it with great ease, arranging his materials,
opening his box of colours, selecting and compressing his tubes,
and “handling” his brush, seemingly with a dexterity fully equal to
that of his more favoured rivals. At an earlier date, during a visit
to Boston, I had an opportunity of observing a woman, under similar
disadvantages, execute elaborate pieces of scissor-work, and write not
only with neatness, but with great rapidity. Nevertheless the human
foot, in its perfect natural development, is not a hand. The small
size of the toes as compared with the fingers, and the position and
movements of the great toe, alike point to diverse functions and a
greatly more limited range of action. But the capacity of the system of
muscles of the foot--scarcely less elaborate than that of the hand,--is
obscured to us by the rigid restraints of the modern shoe. The power of
voluntary action in the toes manifests itself not only in cases where
early mutilation, or malformation at birth, compels the substitution
of the foot for the hand; but among savages, where the unshackled
foot is in constant use in climbing and feeling its way through brake
and jungle, the free use of the toes, and the power of separating
the great toe from the others, are retained in the same way as may be
seen in the involuntary movements of a healthy child. When camping out
in long vacation holidays in the Canadian wilds, repeated experience
has proved to me that the substitution for a few weeks of the soft,
yielding deerskin moccasin of the Indian, in place of the rigid shoe,
restores even to the unpractised foot of civilised man a freedom of
action in the toes, a discriminating sense of touch, and a capacity for
grasping rock or tree in walking or climbing, of which he has had no
previous conception. The Australian picks up his spear with the naked
foot; and the moccasin of the American Indian scarcely diminishes the
like capacity to take hold of stick or stone. The Hindu tailor, in like
manner, sits on the ground holding the cloth tightly stretched with his
toes, while both hands are engaged in the work of the needle.

Such facts justify the biologist in regarding this element of
structural difference between man and the apes as inadequate for the
determination of a specific zoological classification. Nevertheless man
still stands apart as the tool-maker, the tool-user, the manipulator.
A comparison between the fore and hind limbs of the Chimpanzee, or
other ape, leaves the observer in doubt whether to name them alike as
hands or feet, both being locomotive as well as prehensile organs;
whereas the difference between the hand and foot of man is obvious,
and points to essentially diverse functions. The short, weak thumb,
the long, nearly uniform fingers, and the inferior play of the wrist
in the monkey, are in no degree to be regarded as defects. They are
advantageous to the tree-climber, and pertain to its hand as an organ
of locomotion; whereas the absence of such qualities in the human hand
secures its permanent delicacy of touch, and its general adaptation for
many manipulative purposes.

The hand of man is thus eminently adapted to be the instrument for
translating the conceptions of intelligent volition into concrete
results. Dr. George Wilson in his fine prose poem: “The Five Gateways
of Knowledge,” speaks of it as giving expression “to the genius and the
wit, the courage and the affection, the will and the power of man....
The term handicraftsman or hand-worker belongs to all honest, earnest
men and women, and is a title which each should covet. For the Queen’s
hand there is the sceptre, and for the soldier’s hand the sword; for
the carpenter’s hand the saw, and for the smith’s hand the hammer;
for the farmer’s hand the plough, for the miner’s hand the spade,
for the sailor’s hand the oar, for the painter’s hand the brush, for
the sculptor’s hand the chisel, for the poet’s hand the pen, and for
the woman’s hand the needle. If none of these, or the like, will fit
us, the felon’s chain should be round our wrist, and our hand on the
prisoner’s crank. But for each willing man and woman there is a tool
they may learn to handle; for all there is the command: ‘Whatsoever thy
hand findeth to do, do it with all thy might.’”

Other animals have their implements for constructive skill, and their
weapons, offensive and defensive, as parts of their organic being; and
are armed, equipped, clad, and mailed by no effort of their own. But
man, inferior to all in offensive and defensive appliances, is a match
for his most formidable assailants by means of appliances furnished
by his dexterous hand in obedience to the promptings of intelligent
volition.

The matured capacity of the hand is the necessary concomitant of man’s
intellectual development; not only enabling him to fashion all needful
tools, and to place at a disadvantage the fiercest of his assailants
armed by nature with formidable weapons of assault; but also to respond
no less effectually to every prompting of the æsthetic faculty in
the most delicate artistic creations. The very arts of the ingenious
nest-makers, the instinctive weavers or builders, the spider, the
bee, the ant, or the beaver, place them in striking contrast to man
in relation to his handiwork. He alone, in the strict sense of the
term, is a manufacturer. The Quadrumana, though next to man in the
approximation of their fore-limbs to hands, claim no place among the
instinctive architects, weavers, or spinners. The human hand, as an
instrument of constructive design or artistic skill, ranks wholly apart
from all the organs employed in the production of analogous work among
the lower animals. The hand of the ape accomplishes nothing akin to
the masonry of the swallow, or the damming and building of the beaver.
But, imperfect though it seems, it suffices for all requirements of
the forest-dweller. In climbing trees, in gathering and shelling nuts
or pods, opening shell-fish, tearing off the rind of fruit, or pulling
up roots; in picking out thorns or burs from its own fur, or in the
favourite occupation of hunting for each other’s parasites: the monkey
uses the finger and thumb; and in many other operations performs with
the hand what is executed by the quadruped or bird less effectually
by means of the mouth or bill. At first sight we might be tempted to
assume that the quadrumanous mammal had the advantage of us, as there
are certainly many occasions when an extra hand could be turned to
useful account. But not only do man’s two hands prove greatly more
serviceable for all higher purposes of manipulation than the four hands
of the ape: a further specialty distinguishing him as he rises in the
scale of intellectual superiority is that he seems to widen still
more the divergence from the quadrumanous anthropoid by converting
one hand into the favoured organ and servant of his will, while the
other is relegated to a wholly subordinate place as its mere help and
supplement.




                              CHAPTER II

                           THE EDUCATED HAND


The reign of law is a phrase comprehensive enough to embrace many
points of minor import; and among those assigned to its sway the
prevalent habit of right-handedness has been recognised as one of too
familiar experience to seem to stand in need of further explanation.
It has been accepted as the normal usage and law of action common
to the whole race; and so no more in need of any special reason for
its existence than any other function of the hand. Nevertheless it
has not wholly eluded investigation; nor is it surprising that the
exceptional but strongly marked deviations from the normal law should
have attracted the notice of thoughtful observers to the question of
right-handedness as a curious and unsolved problem. A philosophic
speculator of the seventeenth century, the famous old Norwich
physician, Sir Thomas Browne, reverts characteristically to the mystic
fancies of the Talmud for guidance, as he turns to the question in its
simplest aspect, and quaintly ignores the existence of its foundation.
With his strong bent towards Platonic mysticism, this question, like
other and higher speculations with which he dallied, presented itself
in relation to what may well be called “first principles,” as an
undetermined problem. “Whether,” says he in his _Religio Medici_, “Eve
was framed out of the left side of Adam, I dispute not, because I stand
not yet assured which is the right side of a man, or whether there be
any such distinction in nature.” That there is a right side in man is
a postulate not likely to be seriously disputed; but whether there is
such a distinction in nature remains still unsettled two centuries
and a half after the inquiry was thus started. The same question was
forced on the attention of an eminent philosophic speculator of our own
day, under circumstances that involved a practical realisation of its
significance. Towards the close of a long life in which Thomas Carlyle
had unceasingly plied his busy pen, the dexterous right hand, that had
unflaggingly toiled for upwards of threescore years in the service of
his fellow-men, was suddenly paralysed. The period of life was all too
late for him to turn with any hope of success to the unaccustomed and
untrained left hand; and more than one entry in his journal refers to
the irreparable loss. But one curious embodiment of the reflections
suggested by this privation is thus recorded by him upwards of a year
after experience had familiarised him with all that the loss involved:
“Curious to consider the institution of the Right hand among universal
mankind; probably the very oldest human institution that exists,
indispensable to all human co-operation whatsoever. He that has seen
three mowers, one of whom is left-handed, trying to work together,
and how impossible it is, has witnessed the simplest form of an
impossibility, which but for the distinction of a ‘right hand,’ would
have pervaded all human things. Have often thought of all that,--never
saw it so clearly as this morning while out walking, unslept and
dreary enough in the windy sunshine. How old? Old! I wonder if there
is any people barbarous enough not to have this distinction of hands;
no human Cosmos possible to be even begun without it. Oldest Hebrews,
etc., writing from right to left, are as familiar with the world-old
institution as we. Why that particular hand was chosen is a question
not to be settled, not worth asking except as a kind of riddle;
probably arose in fighting; most important to protect your heart and
its adjacencies, and to carry the shield on that hand.”

This idea of the left hand being preoccupied with the shield, and so
leaving to the other the active functions of the sword and spear hand,
is familiar to the classical student, and will fitly come under review
at a later stage. Nor can such secondary influences be overlooked.
Whatever may prove to be the primary source of right-handedness, it
cannot be doubted that, when thoroughly developed and systematically
recognised as determining the character of many combined operations,
the tendency would inevitably be to foster the preferential use of
the right hand even in indifferent actions. Two causes have thus to
be recognised as operating in the development of right-handedness,
and begetting certain differences in its manifestation under varying
social influences. There is a progressive scale, from the imperfect
to the more perfectly developed, and then to the perfectly educated
hand: all steps in its adaptation to the higher purposes of the
manipulator. The hand of the rude savage, of the sailor, the miner,
or blacksmith, while well fitted for the work to which it is applied,
is a very different instrument from that of the chaser, engraver, or
cameo-cutter; of the musician, painter, or sculptor. This difference
is unquestionably a result of development, whatever the other may be;
for, as we have in the ascending scale the civilised and educated man,
so also we have the educated hand as one of the most characteristic
features of civilisation. But here attention is at once called to the
distinctive preference of the right hand, whether as the natural use
of this more perfect organ of manipulation, or as an acquired result
of civilisation. The phenomenon to be explained is not merely why each
individual uses one hand rather than another. Experience abundantly
accounts for this. But if it can be shown that all nations, civilised
and savage, appear to have used the same hand, it is vain to look for
the origin of this as an acquired habit. Only by referring it to some
anatomical cause can its general prevalence, among all races and in
every age, be satisfactorily accounted for. Nevertheless this simple
phenomenon, cognisant to the experience of all, and brought under
constant notice in our daily intercourse with others, long baffled the
physiologist in his search for a satisfactory explanation.

The sense of touch--“The Feel-Gate” of Bunyan’s famous Town of
Mansoul,--is not limited, like the other senses, to one special organ,
but pervades the entire body; and in its acute susceptibility to
every irritant contact, communicates instantaneously with the vital
cerebral centre of the whole nervous system by means of the electric
chords or nerves. So effectual is this that “if one member suffer,
all the members suffer with it.” Nevertheless the hand is correctly
recognised as the active organ of feeling; and by the delicately
sensitive and well-trained fingers impressions are promptly conveyed
to the brain and to the mind, relative to the qualities of all bodies
within reach of the unfailing test of touch. In hearing and seeing the
dual organs are in constant co-operation, and the injury of either
involves a loss of power. But though we have two hands sensitive to
all external impressions, only one of them is habitually recognised
as the active agent of the brain; and except in a comparatively small
number of cases, this is the hand on the right side of the body. It
is surprising that this phenomenon so universally recognised as what
may be styled an instinctive attribute of man, should not long since
have been traced to its true source. Yet, as will be seen, some among
the ablest anatomists have been content to refer it to mere habit,
stereotyped by long usage and the exigencies of combined action into a
general practice; while others have referred it to the disposition of
the viscera, and the place of the heart on the left side.

The hand is the universal symbol of amity; at once the organ and the
emblem of friendly co-operation and brotherhood. The mystic grip of
the freemason is older than the builder’s art. In the gesture-language
so largely in use among savage tribes the hands take the place of the
tongue; and the relations of the right and left hand acquire fresh
significance in the modification of signs. Mr. Garrick Mallery gives
the expression of amity among the Otos thus: “The left and right
hands are brought to centre of the chest open, then extended, and the
left hand, with palm up, is grasped crosswise by right hand with palm
down, and held thus.” So in like manner among the Dakotas: “The left
hand held horizontal, palm inward, fingers and thumb extended and
pointing towards the right, is clasped by the right hand.” In those and
other expressive gestures the left hand is employed to indicate the
_non ego_: the other than the gesture-maker.

 [Illustration: SYMBOLIC MONOGRAPH, MORO INSCRIBED ROCK, RIO DE ZUÑI.

                          _To face page 19._]

So also among other rude Indian tribes of North America, no less
than among the civilised and lettered nations in the centres of
native civilisation in Mexico, Central America, and Peru, the hand
is familiarly employed not only as a graven or written symbol, but
is literally impressed, apparently as the equivalent of a signet.
The sign of the expanded right hand touching the left arm occupies
a prominent place among the graven hieroglyphics on an Aztec stone
hatchet shown by Humboldt in his _Vues des Cordillères_. The graven
Moro Rock in the valley of the Rio de Zuñi includes more than one
similar device among its elaborate inscriptions and pictographs; one of
which is specially noticeable. Inscriptions in the Spanish language,
some of them with dates referable to the first intrusion of European
explorers, are intermingled with the native hieroglyphs. In one example
the sacred monograph I.H.S. is enclosed in the same cartouch with
an open hand characterised by a double thumb,--possibly the native
counterpart to the Christian symbol,--a hand of superhuman capacity
and power. Schoolcraft says: “The figure of the human hand is used
by the North American Indians to denote supplication to the Deity or
Great Spirit; and it stands in the system of picture-writing as the
symbol for strength, power, or mastery thus derived.” But the use of
the hand as the chief organ of gesture-language shows how varied are
the applications that it admits of as a significant emblem. Washington
Irving remarks in his _Astoria_: “The Arickaree warriors were painted
in the most savage style. Some had the stamp of a red hand across
their mouths, a sign that they had drunk the life-blood of a foe.”
Catlin found the same symbol in use not only for decoration, but as
the actual sign-manual among the Omahaws and the Mandans. I have
repeatedly observed the red hand impressed on the buffalo robe, and
also occasionally on the naked breast of the Chippewas of Lake Superior.

In the sculptured hieroglyphics of Central America, and in the Mexican
picture-writings, the human and other profiles are introduced in the
large majority of examples looking to the left, as would be the natural
result of the tracings of a right-handed draftsman. But the hand is
also employed symbolically; while, among the civilised Peruvians,
the impress of the naked hand was practised in the same way as by the
Indians of the northern continent. Among an interesting collection of
mummies recovered by Mr. J. H. Blake of Boston from ancient Peruvian
cemeteries on the Bay of Chacota, one is the body of a female wrapped
in parti-coloured garments of fine texture, and marked on the outer
woollen wrappings with the impress of a human hand. The same impress of
the red hand is common on Peruvian mummies.

The hand or the thumb as a signet possesses a specific individuality.
The lines on the surface of the thumb, as also on the finger-tips, form
a definite pattern; and there is some reason for believing that it is
perpetuated, with slight modifications, as an element of heredity.
But apart from this, the individual hand is replete with character
when carefully studied; and the impress of the native hand on dress
and buildings attracted the notice of Stephens in his exploration of
the antiquities of Central America. The skulls and complete mummies
recovered from Peruvian tombs show them to pertain to a small race; and
the impress of the little hand made on the mummies with red pigment
recalls the _mano-colorado_ described by Stephens as a common feature
amid the ruins of Uxmall: the impression of a living hand, but so
small that it was completely hid under that of the traveller or his
companion. It afterwards stared them in the face, as he says, on all
the ruined buildings of the country; and on visiting a nameless ruin
beyond Sabachtsché, in Yucatan, Stephens remarks: “On the walls of
the desolate edifice were prints of the _mano-colorado_, or red hand.
Often as I saw this print, it never failed to interest me. It was the
stamp of the living hand. It always brought me nearer to the builders
of these cities; and at times, amid stillness, desolation, and ruin, it
seemed as if from behind the curtain that concealed them from view was
extended the hand of greeting. The Indians said it was the hand of the
master of the building.”




                              CHAPTER III

                           THE WILLING HAND


The human hand is not only the symbol of the intelligent artificer,
“the hand of the master,” the sign and epitome of the lord and ruler;
it is the instrument of the will alike for good and evil deeds. The
idea of it as the active participator in every act embodies itself
in all vocabularies. The imperial mandate, the lordly manumission,
the skilled manufacturer, the handy tool, the unhandy workman, the
left-handed stroke, the handless drudge, with other equally familiar
terms, all refer to the same ever-ready exponent of the will; so
that we scarcely recognise the term as metaphorical when we speak
of the “willing hand.” The Divine appeal to the wrathful prophet of
Nineveh is based on the claim for mercy on behalf of those who had
not yet attained to the first stage of dexterity which pertains to
childhood. “Should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are
more than sixscore thousand that cannot discern between their right
hand and their left?” To this same test of discernment poor Cassio
appeals when, betrayed by the malignant craft of Iago, he would fain
persuade himself he is not enslaved by the intoxicating draught: “Do
not think, gentlemen, I am drunk. This is my right hand, and this is
my left!” Only the infant or the drunkard, it is thus assumed, can
fail to mark the distinction; and to select the true hand for all
honourable service. It is the sceptred hand; the hand to be offered in
pledge of amity; the one true wedding hand; the hand of benediction,
ordination, consecration; the organ through which human will acts,
whether by choice or by organic law. The attempt, therefore, to claim
any independent rights or honourable status for the sinister hand seems
an act of disloyalty, if not of sacrilege.

But hand and will have co-operated from the beginning in good and in
evil; even as in that first erring deed, when Eve--

            Her rash hand, in evil hour
    Forth reaching to the fruit, she pluck’d, she ate;
    Earth felt the wound; and Nature from her seat
    Sighing through all her works gave signs of woe.

The symbolic and responsible hand accordingly figures everywhere. The
drama of history and of fiction are alike full of it. Pilate vainly
washes his hands as he asserts his innocence of the blood of the Just
One. “All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand!”
is the agonised cry of Lady Macbeth. “This unworthy hand!” exclaims
the martyr, Cranmer, as he makes it expiate the unfaithful act of
signature, as though it were an independent actor, alone responsible
for the deed. In touching tenderness the venerable poet Longfellow thus
symbolised the entrance on life’s experiences--

    Oh, little hands that, weak or strong,
    Have still to rule or serve so long;
      Have still so much to give or ask;
    I, who so long with tongue and pen
    Have toiled among my fellow-men,
      Am weary thinking of your task.

But childhood speedily reaches the stage when the privileged hand
asserts its prerogative, and assumes its distinctive responsibility.
For good or evil, not only does the right hand take precedence in the
established formulæ of speech, but the left hand is in many languages
the symbol or equivalent of impurity, degradation, malice, and of evil
doings.

Looking then on right-handedness as a very noticeable human attribute,
and one that enters largely into the daily acts, the exceptional
manifestations of skill, and many habits and usages of life: the
fact is indisputable that, whether we ascribe its prevalence solely
to education, or assign its origin to some organic difference, the
delicacy of the sense of touch, and the manipulative skill and mobility
of the right hand, in the majority of cases, so far exceeds that of the
left that a term borrowed from the former expresses the general idea of
dexterity. That education has largely extended the preferential use of
the right hand is undoubted. That it has even unduly tended to displace
the left hand from the exercise of its manipulative function, I fully
believe. But so far as appears, in the preference of one hand for the
execution of many special operations, the choice seems, by general
consent, without any concerted action, to have been that of the right.

The proofs of the antiquity of this consensus present themselves in
ever-increasing amplitude, leading finally to an investigation of
traces apparently showing a prevalent _dexterity_ among palæolithic
artificers. The paintings and intaglios of ancient Egypt, the
sculptures of Nineveh and Babylon, and the later products of Hellenic
and Etruscan art, when carefully studied, all yield illustrations
of the subject. But the disclosures of archæology in its later
co-operation with the researches of the geologist have familiarised us
with phases of human history that relegate the builders of the Birs
Nimrud, and the sculptors of Nineveh or Thebes, to modern centuries.
The handiwork of the palæolithic cave-dwellers and the primitive
drift-folk produce to us works of industry and skill, fashioned when
art was in its infancy, and metallurgy unknown.

It is unnecessary here to aim at even an approximate estimate of the
remoteness of that strange epoch when the cave-dwellers of the Vézère
and the northern slopes of the Pyrenees were the contemporaries of
the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros, and the long-extinct carnivora of
the caves; and the fossil horse, with the musk-sheep, reindeer, and
other Arctic fauna, were objects of the chase among the hunters of the
Garonne.

The assignment of the primitive relics of human art to a period when
the use of metals was unknown, and man had to furnish his implements
and weapons solely from such materials as wood, horn, bone, shell,
stone, or flint, has naturally given a novel importance to this
class of relics; and we owe to the pen of Dr. John Evans not only
an exhaustive review of the ancient implements and weapons of Great
Britain, but also, incidentally, of the world’s Stone Age, in nearly
all countries and periods. In that work, accordingly, some of the
earliest traces of man’s handiwork, as the manipulator and tool-maker,
are described. Of those the implements of the River-drift Period are
at once the rudest and most primitive in character. They occur in
vast numbers among the rolled gravel of the ancient fresh water or
river-drifts, of what has received from the included implements the
name of the _Palæolithic Period_; and if they are correctly assumed
to represent the sole appliances of the man of the Drift Period, they
indicate a singularly rude stage. In reality, however, the large, rude
almond and tongue-shaped implements of flint are nearly imperishable;
while trimmed flakes, small daggers or arrow-heads, and other
delicately fashioned flint implements,--as well as any made of more
perishable materials, such as shell, wood, or bone,--must have been
fractured in the violence to which the rolled gravels were subjected,
or would perish by natural decay.

But the same period is no less definitely illustrated by deposits
sealed up through unnumbered centuries under the stalagmitic flooring
of limestone caves, or in the deposits of river gravels and silt,
filling in many of the caves with red earth and gravel embedding
implements closely resembling those of the drift. The ossiferous
deposits, moreover, found in some of the oldest caves of England,
France, and Belgium, which have disclosed palæolithic tools, include
also remains of the mammoth, cave-bear, fossil-horse, hyæna, reindeer,
and other animals either wholly extinct, or such as prove by their
character the enormous climatic changes referred to. In so far,
therefore, as they afford any indication of the antiquity of man, they
point to ages so remote that it is unnecessary to investigate the
bearings of evidence suggestive of comparative degrees in time. Every
new discovery does, indeed, add to our means of determining a relative
prehistoric chronology which for some aspects of the inquiry is replete
with interest and value. But the subject is referred to now solely in
its bearing on the subordinate yet significant question relative to
the manipulation of the primitive tool-maker.

Here then, if anywhere, we may hope to find some of the earliest
evidences of dexterity, alike in its technical and its popular sense.
The primitive Troglodytes of Europe have not only transmitted to us
abundant evidence of their industry as tool-makers, but also remarkable
illustrations of their imitative art, and of an æsthetic faculty
developed into rare excellence under all the disadvantages of the
cave-dweller fashioning his own artistic implements in a palæolithic
age. In such a stage of social life man was uninfluenced by any
necessity for concerted action, and so was free to follow inclination
or instinct in the preference for either hand.




                              CHAPTER IV

                         PALÆOLITHIC DEXTERITY


Archæology has undertaken novel duties as the handmaid of history.
With its aid we have acquired more definite ideas of the men of
Western Europe in its pleistocene or quaternary epoch than we possess
of the contemporaries of Greece and Rome in the centuries preceding
the Christian era. The huge cave-bear, the cave-lion, with their more
formidable congener, the sabre-toothed _Machairodus latidens_, preyed
on the mammoth, the woolly rhinoceros, the reindeer, musk-sheep, and
other fauna of a semi-arctic climate; and the men of that same epoch,
while still ignorant of the very rudiments of metallurgy, fashioned
for themselves sufficiently effective weapons to contend successfully
with the fiercest of the carnivora, and secure for their own use the
spoils of the chase. Palæolithic man made his home in the deserted
rock-shelters and caves of the hyæna and cave-bear; and in spite of the
privations of a rigorous climate, found leisure not only to fashion
his ingenious tools, but to indulge a taste for art, alike in carving
and in etching on ivory and stone, to an extent altogether remarkable
when the whole attendant circumstances are duly estimated. Specimens
of those primitive works of art, including ingenious carvings in
bone and ivory, and lances, daggers of deers’ horn, maces and batons
carved in bone, and decorated in some cases with artistic skill, have
been recovered from the cave-drift, or more securely sealed up in the
cave-breccia. The evidences of skill are unmistakable. Within the last
thirty years repeated discoveries of such ancient cave-dwellings, and
the investigation of their contents, have familiarised us with the
workmanship of their primitive artificers. The evidence which these
ingenious products furnish in proof of the dexterity of the ancient
cave-men, in the more comprehensive sense of that term, is universally
recognised; but my attention was first directed to the possible clue
which they might furnish to the prevalent use of one or other hand in
that remote age, by what on further investigation proved to be an
error in the reproduction of the famous drawing of the mammoth on a
plate of its own ivory, found in La Madelaine Cave, in the Valley of
the Vézère. In M. Louis Figuier’s _L’Homme Primitif_, for example,
which might be assumed as a reliable authority in reference to the
illustrative examples of French palæolithic art, the La Madelaine Cave
sketch is incorrectly reproduced as a left-hand drawing; that is to
say, the mammoth is looking to the right. This is a nearly unerring
test of right or left-handedness. The skilled artist can, no doubt,
execute a right or left profile at his will. But an unpremeditated
profile-drawing, if done by a right-handed draftsman, will be
represented looking to the left; as, if it is the work of a left-handed
draftsman, it will certainly look to the right.

The drawings of those contemporaries of the mammoth and other extinct
fauna of Europe have naturally excited attention on various grounds.
They furnish no uncertain evidence of the intellectual status of the
men of that remote age who constituted the population of Southern
France, and of neighbouring regions, under climatic conditions
contrasting as strangely with those of the sunny land of the vine
and the olive, as did the contemporary fauna and flora with those of
Guyenne or Gascony at the present day. Any evidence therefore of their
mode of working derived from their carvings and drawings has a special
bearing on an inquiry into the antiquity and assumed universality of an
instinctive habit.

The examples of primitive art are of varying degrees of merit. Some of
them may be compared to the first efforts of an untutored youth; while
others, such as the La Madelaine mammoth and the grazing reindeer from
Thayngen, show the practised hand of a skilled draftsman. Among the
fanciful illustrations introduced by M. Louis Figuier in his _L’Homme
Primitif_ is a picture showing the arts of drawing and sculpture as
practised during the reindeer epoch. Three men of fine physique,
slightly clad in skins, stand or recline in easy attitudes, sketching
or carving as a modern artist might do in the lighter hours of his
practice. One stands and sketches a deer, with free hand, on a piece
of slate, which rests against a ledge of rock as his easel. Another,
seated at his ease, traces a miniature device with, it may be, a
pointed flint, on a slab of bone or ivory. The third is apparently
carving or modelling a deer or other quadruped. All are, as a matter
of course, represented with the stylus, graver, or modelling tool in
the right hand, the question of possible left-handedness not having
occurred to the modern draftsman.

All experience points to the conclusion that the primitive artificer
habitually used one hand, whether the right or the left. Even when the
naturally left-handed have acquired such facility in the use of the
right hand, by persevering compliance with the usage of the majority
in many customary practices of daily life, as to be practically
ambidextrous, each hand is still employed by instinctive preference
in certain definite acts; as with all, the knife is habitually used
in one hand and the fork in the other. The result never leads to an
indiscriminate employment of either hand. The necessity for promptness
of action in the constantly recurring operations of daily life is
sufficient to superinduce the habitual employment of one or the other
hand with no more conscious selection than in the choice of foot,
when not under command of a drill sergeant. Indeed, the experience
of many readers, whose training as volunteers has included that
important branch of education styled “the goose step,” must have
convinced them that few questions are more perplexing to the novice
than, “Which is the right foot, and which is the left?” In football
no player is in doubt as to the foot he shall use. In cricket there
is no uncertainty as to the choice of hand for the bat. In digging
the action is so certain, though unpremeditated, that in Ireland,
and probably elsewhere, “the spade-foot” is a term in general use.
It is not necessarily the right foot, but it is always the same. The
unpremeditated action of hand or foot is uniform, as the reader will
find by clasping his hands with the fingers interlaced, or inviting
another to do so. It is no matter of chance which thumb shall be
uppermost. But combined operations involving close unity of action are
rare in savage life; and man in the hunter stage is little affected in
his habits by social usage. Hence spontaneous left-handedness may be
looked for more frequently in such a stage, and even in peasant life,
than in cultured society; though the occasions for its manifestation
are more rare.

Attention has already been directed to the test of the diverse
direction in which a profile is most readily, and therefore most
naturally, drawn if executed by the right or the left hand. In so far
as the drawings or etchings of the palæolithic age are available for
the application of this test, the following data may be adduced:--

The mammoth drawing from La Madelaine Cave; the bison, imperfect,
showing only the hind-quarters; and the ibex, on reindeer-antler, from
Laugerie Basse; the group of reindeers from the Dordogne, two walking
and one lying on its back; the cave-bear of the Pyrenees, from the cave
of Massat, in the department of Ariége; and another sketch representing
a hunter stalking the Urus: may all be regarded as right-hand drawings.
But the horses from La Madelaine, engraved on reindeer-antler,
specially noticeable for their large heads; the horse, from Creswell
Crags; and, above all, the remarkably spirited drawing of the reindeer
grazing, from Thayngen in the Kesserloch--a sketch, marked by incident,
both in the action of the animal and its surroundings, suggestive of an
actual study from nature,--all appear to be left-hand drawings.

The number of examples thus far adduced is obviously too small to
admit of any general conclusions as to the relative use of the right
or left hand being based on their evidence; but so far as it goes,
while it presents one striking example of a left-handed drawing, it
confirms the idea of the predominance of right-handedness at that
remote stage in the history of European man. It confirms, moreover, the
correctness of the distinction already made between the preferential
use of either hand by the cultured and skilled workman, or the artist,
and its employment among rude, unskilled labourers engaged in such
toil as may be readily accomplished by either hand. That the use of
the left hand is transmitted from parent to child, and so, like other
peculiarities, is to some extent hereditary, is undoubted. This has,
therefore, to be kept in view in drawing any comprehensive deductions
from a few examples confined to two or three localities. It may be
that the skilled draftsman of the Vézère, or the gifted artist to whom
we owe the Kesserloch drawing, belonged to a family, or possibly a
tribe, among whom left-handedness prevailed to an unusual extent; and
so might be developed not only hereditarily but by imitation. But on
the other hand, even among those palæolithic draftsmen, there is a
distinct preference for the right hand in the majority of cases; and
this is just what was to be expected. The more the subject is studied
it becomes manifest that education, with the stimulus furnished by
the necessities arising from all combined action, has much to do with
a full development of right-handedness. The bias is unquestionably in
that direction; but with many it is not so active as to be beyond the
reach of education, such as the habit and usage of companions would
supply, to overcome it. But with a considerable number the preferential
use of the right hand is prompted by a strong, if not unconquerable
instinctive impulse. A smaller number are no less strongly impelled
to the use of the left hand. In the ruder conditions of society each
man is free to follow the natural bias; and in the absence or rare
occurrence of the need for combined action, either habit attracts
little attention. But so soon as co-operation begins to exercise its
restraining and constraining influences, a very slight bias, due
probably to individual organic structure, will suffice to determine
the preference for one hand over the other, and so to originate the
prevalent law of dexterity. The results shown by the ancient drawings
of Europe’s cave-men perfectly accord with this. In that remote dawn
every man did that which was right in his own eyes. Some handled their
tools and drew with the left hand; a larger number used the right hand;
but as yet no rule prevailed. In this, as in certain other respects,
the arts and habits of that period belong to a chapter in the infancy
of the race, when the law of dexterity, as well as other laws begot by
habit, convenience, or mere prescriptive conventionality, had not yet
found their place in that unwritten code to which a prompter obedience
is rendered than to the most absolute of royal or imperial decrees.

But we are not limited to the comparatively rare and exceptional
examples of primitive dexterity which the works of the palæolithic
carver and etcher supply for illustrations of the special habit now
under consideration. The graceful proportions and delicate manipulation
of many of the chipped implements of flint have, not unnaturally,
excited both admiration and wonder, in view of the very limited
resources of the worker in flint.

But the process of the ancient arrow-maker is no lost art. It has been
found in use among many barbarous races; and is still practised by
some of the American Indian tribes, to whom the art has doubtless been
transmitted through successive generations from remotest times. The
modes of manufacture vary somewhat among different tribes; but they
have been repeatedly witnessed and described by explorers who have
watched the native arrow-maker at work; and his operations no longer
present the difficulties which were long supposed to beset this “lost
art” of prehistoric times. Among the rarer primitive implements are
hammer-stones, oblong or rounded in shape, generally with cavities
worked in two faces, so as to admit of their being conveniently held
between the finger and thumb. Implements of this class have been
repeatedly recovered from the French caves. An interesting example
occurred among the objects embedded in the red cave-earth of Kents’s
Hole, Devonshire; and others of different periods, usually quartzite
pebbles or nodules of flint, have been found in many localities. Some
of them were probably used in breaking the larger bones to extract the
marrow, but the battered edges of others show their contact with harder
material. Similar hammer-stones occur in the Danish peat-mosses, in the
Swiss lake-dwellings, in sepulchral deposits, and are also included
among the implements of modern savage art. They vary also in size, and
were, no doubt, applied to diverse purposes.

The mode of fashioning the large, tongue-shaped implements and rude
stone hatchets, which are among the most characteristic drift
implements, it can scarcely be doubted, was by blows of a stone or
flint hammer; as was obviously the case with large unfinished flint
or horn-stone implements recovered by me from some of the numerous
pits of the Flint Ridge, a siliceous deposit of the Carboniferous Age
which extends through the State of Ohio, from Newark to New Lexington.
At various points along the ridge funnel-shaped pits occur, varying
from four or five to fifteen feet deep; and similar traces of ancient
mining may be seen in other localities, as at Leavenworth, about three
hundred miles below Cincinnati, where the gray flint or chert abounds,
of which large implements are chiefly made. The sloping sides of the
pits are in many cases covered with the fractured flints, some of them
partially shaped as if for manufacture. The work in the quarry was, no
doubt, the mere rough fashioning of the flint by the tool-makers, with
a view to facility of transport, in many cases, to distant localities.
But the finer manipulation, by means of which the carefully-finished
arrow-heads, knives, lances, hoes, drills, scrapers, etc., were
manufactured, was reserved for leisurely and patient skill. Longfellow,
in his Indian epic, represents the Dacotah arrow-maker busy plying
his craft. It was no doubt pursued by specially skilled workmen; for
considerable dexterity is needed in striking the flakes from the flint
core, and fashioning them into the nicely-finished edged tools and
weapons to be seen in many museums. The choice of material is by no
means limited to flint.

    At the doorway of his wigwam
    Sat the ancient Arrow-maker,
    In the land of the Dacotahs,
    Making arrow-heads of jasper,
    Arrow-heads of chalcedony.

Beautifully-finished arrow-heads and other smaller implements,
fashioned of jasper, chalcedony, white quartz, and rock-crystal, are
among the prized relics of many collections. The diversity of fracture
in such materials must have taxed the skill of the expert workman,
familiar chiefly with the regular cleavage of the obsidian, chert,
or flint. But it is now known that the more delicate operations in
the finishing of the flint implements were done by means of pressure
with a horn or bone arrow-flaker; and not by a succession of blows
with a chisel or hammer. The process has been repeatedly described
by eye-witnesses. Dr. Evans quotes more than one account of methods
pursued among the Eskimo, the native Mexicans, and the Shasta Indians
of California. Another, and in some respects more minute account of
the process, as it is in use by the Wintoon Indians, is furnished by
Mr. B. B. Redding, in the _American Naturalist_, from his own personal
observation. The material, as among the Shasta Indians, was obsidian;
but the process is equally applicable to flint, the cleavage of which
is nearly similar.

The artificer was Consolulu, the aged chief of the Wintoon Indians. His
implements consisted of a deer-horn prong split lengthwise, four inches
long and half an inch thick, with the semicircular end at right angles;
two deer-horn prongs, one smaller than the other, with the ends ground
down nearly to the shape of a square sharp-pointed file; and a piece
of well-tanned buckskin, thick, soft, and pliable. Laying, as we are
told, a lump of obsidian, about a pound in weight, in the palm of the
left hand, he placed between the first and second fingers of the same
hand the semi-cylindrical deer-horn implement, so that the straight
side of one of the ends rested about a quarter of an inch from the edge
of the block of obsidian. With a small water-worn stone in his right
hand, he struck the other end of the prong, and a flake of obsidian
was severed, well adapted for the arrow-head. On the buckskin, in the
palm of his left hand, he laid the obsidian flake, which he held in
place by the first three fingers of that hand, and then took such a
position on the ground that the left elbow could rest on the left knee
and obtain a firm support. Holding in his right hand the larger of
the two pointed prongs, and resting his thumb on the side of his left
hand to serve as a fulcrum, he brought the point of the prong about
one-eighth of an inch within the edge of the flake; and then, exerting
a firm downward pressure, fragment after fragment was broken off until
the edge of the arrow was made straight. As all the chips came off the
lower edge, the cutting edge was not yet in the centre of the side. But
the Wintoon arrow-maker rubbed the side of the prong repeatedly over
the sharp edge, turned over the flake, and, resuming the chipping as
before, brought the cutting edge to the centre. In a similar manner,
the other side and the concave base of the arrow-head were finished.
The formation of indentations in the sides near the base for the
retention of the tendons to bind the arrow-head securely to the shaft,
apparently the most difficult process, was in reality the easiest. The
point of the arrow-head was held between the thumb and finger of the
left hand, while the base rested on the buckskin cushion in the palm.
The point of the smaller deer-horn prong, not exceeding one-sixteenth
of an inch square, was brought to bear on the part of the side where
the Indian arrow-maker considered the notch should be. A sawing motion
made the chips fly to right and left, and in less than a minute it
was cut to the necessary depth. The other side was then completed in
like manner. The entire process was accomplished, and the arrow-head
finished, in about forty minutes.

This account of the process of the Wintoon arrow-maker refers, it
will be seen, with a marked though probably undesigned emphasis, to
the use of the right hand in all his active manipulations. Its minute
details are in other respects full of interest from the light we may
assume them to throw on the method pursued by the primitive implement
makers of the earliest Stone Age. Dr. Evans describes and figures a
class of flint tools recovered from time to time, the edges of which,
blunted and worn at both ends, suggest to his experienced eye their
probable use for chipping out arrow-heads and other small implements
of flint, somewhat in the fashion detailed above, with the tool of
deer’s horn. To those accordingly he applies the name of flaking
tools, or fabricators. But whether fashioned by means of flint or horn
fabricator, it is to be noted that the material to be operated upon
has to be held in one hand, while the tool is dexterously manipulated
with the other. Signor Craveri, whose long residence in Mexico gave him
very favourable opportunities for observing the process of the native
workers in obsidian, remarks that, when the Indians “wish to make an
arrow or other instrument of a splinter of obsidian, they take the
piece in the left hand, and hold grasped in the other a small goat’s
horn. They set this piece of obsidian upon the horn, and dexterously
pressing it against the point of it, while they give the horn a gentle
movement from right to left, and up and down, they disengage from it
frequent chips; and in this way obtain the desired form.”[1] Again, in
an account communicated to Sir Charles Lyell by Mr. Cabot, of the mode
of procedure of the Shasta Indian arrow-makers, after describing the
detachment of a piece from the obsidian pebble with the help of an
agate chisel, he thus proceeds: “Holding the piece against the anvil
with thumb and finger of his left hand, he commenced a series of blows,
every one of which chipped off fragments of the brittle substance.”
The patient artificer worked upwards of an hour before he succeeded
in producing a perfect arrow-head. His ingenious skill excited the
admiration of the spectator, who adds the statement that among the
Indians of California arrow-making is a distinct profession, in which
few attain excellence.

[1] Translated from Gastaldi. See Evans’s _Stone Implements_, p. 36.

The point noticeable here in reference to the accounts given by the
various observers is the uniform assumption of right-handedness. Mr.
Redding, Signor Craveri, and Mr. Cabot not only agree in describing
the block of obsidian as held in the left hand, while the tools are
employed in the right hand to fashion it into shape; but the whole
language, especially in the description given by Signor Craveri,
assumes right-handedness as not only the normal, but the invariable
characteristic of the worker in stone. In reality, however, an
ingenious investigator, Mr. F. H. Cushing of the Smithsonian
Institution, while engaged in a series of tentative experiments
to determine the process of working in flint and obsidian, had his
attention accidentally called to the fact that the primitive implements
of the Stone Age perpetuate for us a record of the use of one or
the other hand in their manufacture. With the instinctive zeal of
youthful enthusiasm Mr. Cushing, while still a boy on his father’s
farm in Western New York, carried out a systematic series of flint
workings with a view to ascertain for himself the process by which
the ancient arrow-makers fashioned the flint implements that then
excited his interest. After repeated failures in his attempts to chip
the flint into the desired shape by striking off fragments with a
stone hammer, he accidentally discovered that small flakes could be
detached from the flint core with great certainty and precision by
pressure with a pointed rod of bone or horn; and, as I have recently
learned from him, the instrument employed by him in those experiments
was the same as that which Dr. John Evans informs me he accidentally
hit upon in his earliest successful efforts at flint-arrow making,
viz. a tooth-brush handle. In thus employing a bone or horn flaker,
the sharp edge of the flake cuts slightly into the bone; and when the
latter is twisted suddenly upward, a small scale flies off at the
point of pressure in a direction which can be foreseen and controlled.
With this discovery the essential process of arrow-making had been
mastered. Spear and arrow-heads could be flaked with the most delicate
precision, with no such liability to fracture as leads to constant
failure in any attempt to chip even the larger and ruder spear or
axe-heads into shape. The hammer-stone only suffices for the earlier
processes, including the detachment of the flake from the rough flint
nodule, and trimming it roughly into the required form, preparatory
to the delicate manipulation of edging, pointing, and notching the
arrow-head. The thinning of the flint-blade is effected by detaching
long thin scales or flakes from the surface by using the flaker like
a chisel and striking it a succession of blows with a hammer-stone.
The marks of this delicate surface-flaking are abundantly manifest on
the highly-finished Danish knives, daggers, and large spear-heads, as
well as upon most other flint implements of Europe’s Neolithic Age.
The large spear and tongue-shaped implements of the drift are, on the
contrary, rudely chipped, evidently by the blows of a hammer-stone;
although some of the more delicately fashioned drift implements seem
to indicate that the use of the flint or bone flaker was not unknown
to the men of the Palæolithic Age. But the chipping-stone or hammer
was in constant use at the later period; and the small hammer-stone,
with indentations on its sides for the finger and thumb, and its
rounded edges marked with the evidence of long use in chipping the
flint nodules into the desired forms, abounds both in Europe and
America, wherever the arrow-maker has carried on his primitive art. The
implements in use varied with the available material. A T-shaped wooden
flaker sufficed for the Aztecs in shaping the easily-worked obsidian.
The jasper, chalcedony, and quartz, in like manner, yield readily to
the pressure of a slender flaker of horn; whereas Mr. Cushing notes
that the “tough horn-stone of Western Arctic America could not be
flaked by pressure in the hand, but must be rested against some solid
substance, and flaked by means of an instrument, the handle of which
fitted the palm like that of an umbrella, enabling the operator to
exert a pressure against the substance to be chipped nearly equal to
the weight of the body.” One result of Mr. Cushing’s experiments in
arrow-making was to satisfy him that the greatest difficulty was to
make long narrow surface-flakes. Hence, contrary to all preconceived
ideas, it is easier to form the much-prized, delicately-finished small
arrow-head, with barbs and stem, than larger and seemingly ruder
implements which involve much surface-flaking.

It is interesting to learn of the recovery of this lost art of the
ancient arrow-makers by a series of tentative experiments independently
pursued by different observers. Before Mr. Cushing’s attention had
been directed to any of the descriptions of the process of modern
flint-workers, now familiar to us, he aimed at placing himself in the
same condition as the primitive manufacturer of Europe’s Stone Age,
or of the ancient Mound Builders of North America, devoid of metallic
tools, and with the flint, obsidian, jasper, or hornstone, as the
most available material out of which to fashion nearly all needful
implements. He set to work accordingly with no other appliances than
such sticks and variously shaped stones as could be found on the banks
of the streams where he sought his materials. The results realise to
us, in a highly interesting way, the earliest stages in the training
of the self-taught workman of the Palæolithic Age. After making
various implements akin to the most rudely fashioned examples from the
river-drift or the old flint pits, by means of chipping one flint or
stone with another, he satisfied himself that no amount of chipping,
however carefully practised, would produce surfaces like the best of
those which he was trying to imitate. He accordingly assumed that there
must be some other process unknown to him. By chance he tried pressure
with the point of a stick, instead of chipping with a stone, and the
mystery was solved. He had hit on nearly the same method already
described as in use by Aztecs, Eskimos, and Red Indians; and found
that he could fashion the fractured flint or obsidian into nearly any
shape that he desired. As has been already noted, Mr. Cushing, like Dr.
Evans, resorted subsequently to the easily available tool furnished
by the handle of a tooth-brush. Having thus mastered the secret of
the old flint-workers, he succeeded before long in the manufacture
of well-finished arrows, spear-heads, and daggers of flint, closely
resembling the products of the primitive workmen both of the Old and
the New World.

Thus far the results accord with other investigations; but in the
course of his operations Mr. Cushing also noted this fact, that the
grooves produced by the flaking of the flint or obsidian all turned
in one direction. This proved to be due to the constant use of his
right hand. When the direction of pressure by the bone or stick was
reversed, the result was apparent in the opposite direction of the
grooves. So far as his observations then extended, he occasionally
found an arrow-head or other primitive stone implement with the
flake grooves running from left to right, showing, as he believed,
the manipulation of a left-handed workman; but, from the rarity of
their occurrence, it might be concluded that, as a rule, prehistoric
man was right-handed. When Mr. Cushing reported the results of those
investigations into the arts of the Stone Age, at a meeting of the
Anthropological Society of Washington in May 1879, Professor Mason
confirmed from his own observation the occurrence of flint implements
indicating by the reversed direction of the bevelling that they were
produced by left-handed workmen. Mr. Cushing further notes that
“arrow-making is accompanied by great fatigue and profuse perspiration.
It has a prostrating effect upon the nervous system, which shows itself
again in the direction of fracture. The first fruits of the workman’s
labour, while still fresh and vigorous, can be distinguished from the
implements produced after he had become exhausted at his task; and it
is thus noteworthy that on an unimpressible substance like flint even
the moods and passions of long-forgotten centuries may be found thus
traced and recorded.”

In an ingenious brochure by Mr. Charles Reade, styled “The Coming
Man,” specially aiming at the development in the rising generation
of the use of the left hand, so that the man of the future shall be
ambidextrous or “either-handed,” he remarks: “There certainly is
amongst mankind a vast weight of opinion against my position that
man is by nature as either-handed as an ape; and that custom should
follow nature. The majority believe the left arm and hand inferior
to the right in three things: power, dexterity, and dignity. Nor is
this notion either old-fashioned or new-fangled. It is many thousand
years old; and comes down by unbroken descent to the present day.”
The writer then goes on to affirm: “It has never existed amongst rank
barbarians; it is not indicated in the genuine flint instruments; but
only in those which modern dexterity plants in old strata, to delight
and defraud antiquarians; and the few primitive barbarians that now
remain, living relics of the Stone Age, use both arms indifferently.”
The conclusions here assumed as established by evidence derived
from the study of “the genuine flint instruments” imply, I presume,
that they do embody indications of right and left-hand manipulation
in nearly equal proportions; whereas the forgeries of the modern
“Flint Jack” all betray evidence of right-handed manufacture, and of
consequent modernness. This, however, must have been set forth as a
mere surmise; for, as now appears, it is in conflict with the results
of careful investigations directed to the products of the primitive
flint workers. The opinion adopted by Mr. Cushing, after repeated
observation and tentative experiment, is that primitive man was,
as a rule, right-handed. The evidence adduced is insufficient for
an absolute determination of the question; but any strongly-marked
examples of the left-handed workman’s art thus far observed among
palæolithic flint implements appear to be exceptional. No higher
authority than Dr. John Evans can be appealed to in reference to the
manipulations of the primitive flint-worker, and, in writing to me on
the subject, he remarks: “I think that there is some evidence of the
flint-workers of old having been right-handed; the particular twist,
both in some palæolithic implements, as in one in my own possession
from Hoxne, and in some American rifled arrow-heads, being due to the
manner of chipping, and being most in accordance with their being
held in the left hand and chipped with the right.” In the detailed
description, given in his _Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain_,
of the example from Hoxne above referred to, Dr. John Evans remarks:
“It presents the peculiarity, which is by no means uncommon in ovate
implements, of having the side edges not in one plane, but forming a
sort of ogee curve. In this instance the blade is twisted to such an
extent that a line drawn through the two edges near the point is at
an angle of at least 45° to a line through the edges at the broadest
part of the implement. I think,” he adds, “that this twisting of the
edges was not in this case intended to serve any particular purpose,
but was rather the accidental result of the method pursued in chipping
the flint into its present form.”[2] A similar curvature is seen in
a long-pointed implement from Reculver, in the collection of Mr. J.
Brent, F.S.A., and again in another large example of this class, from
Hoxne in Suffolk, presented to the Society of Antiquaries of London
upwards of eighty years ago. This, as Dr. Evans notes, exhibits the
same peculiarity of the twisting of the edges so markedly, and indeed
so closely resembles the specimen in his own collection, that they
might have been made by the same hand. Of another example, from Santon
Downham, near Hetford, Suffolk, almond-shaped, and with dendritic
markings in evidence of its palæolithic date, Dr. Evans remarks: “It
is fairly symmetrical in contour with an edge all round, which is
somewhat blunted at the base. This edge, however, is not in one plane,
but considerably curved, so that when seen sideways it forms an ogee
curve;” and he adds: “I have other implements of the same, and of
more pointed forms, with similarly curved edges, both from France and
other parts of England, but whether this curvature was intentional
it is impossible to say. In some cases it is so marked that it can
hardly be the result of accident; and the curve is, so far as I have
observed, almost without exception [Illustration: backwards S], and not
[Illustration: S]. If not intentional, the form may be the result of
all the blows by which the implement was finally chipped out having
been given on the one face on one side, and on the opposite on the
other.”[3] In other words, the implement-maker worked throughout with
the flaker in the same hand; and that hand, with very rare exceptions,
appears to have been the right hand. The evidence thus far adduced
manifestly points to the predominance of right-handed men among the
palæolithic flint-workers. For if the flint-arrow maker, working
apart, and with no motive, therefore, suggested by the necessity of
accommodating himself to a neighbouring workman, has habitually used
the right hand from remote palæolithic times, it only remains to
determine the origin of a practice too nearly invariable to have been
the result of accident. This, however, has long eluded research; or
thus far, at least, has been ascribed to very different causes. But to
any who regards the special inquiry now under review as one worthy of
further consideration, the class of implements referred to offers a
trustworthy source of evidence whereby to arrive at a relative estimate
of the prevalent use of one or the other hand among uncultured races of
men, alike in ancient and modern times.

[2] _Ancient Stone Implements_, p. 520.

[3] _Ancient Stone Implements_, p. 501.

Dr. Evans has figured and described what he believes to have been the
flaking tools or fabricators in earliest use among the flint-workers
for chipping out arrow-heads and other small implements. They are
fashioned of the same material; and some of them are carefully wrought
into a form best adapted for being held in the hand of the workman.
Specimens of the bone arrow-flakers in use by the Eskimo workers in
flint are also familiar to us. Different forms of those instruments
are engraved among the illustrations to _The Ancient Stone Implements,
Weapons, and Ornaments of Great Britain_, from specimens in the
Blackmore Museum and the Christy Collection;[4] and Dr. Evans describes
the mode of using them as witnessed by Sir Edward Belcher among the
Eskimo of Cape Lisburne, but without reference to the point now alluded
to. Dr. John Rae, who, like myself, is inveterately left-handed,
informs me that, without having taken particular notice of Indian
or Eskimo practice in the use of one or the other hand, he observed
that some among them were markedly ambidextrous. But, he adds, “from
a curious story told me by an Eskimo about a bear throwing a large
piece of ice at the head of a walrus, and telling me as a noteworthy
fact that he threw it with the left forepaw, as if it were something
unusual, it would seem to indicate that left-handedness was not very
common among the Eskimos.” It shows, at any rate, that the Eskimo noted
the use of the left paw as something diverse from the normal practice.
But if the deductions based on the experimental working in flint are
well founded, the test supplied by the direction of the flaking grooves
of obsidian, chert, or flint implements will be equally available
for determining the prevalent use of one or other hand by the Eskimo
and other modern savage races, as among those of the Palæolithic and
Neolithic Periods.

[4] _Ancient Stone Implements_, figs. 8, 9, 10.




                               CHAPTER V

                         THE DISHONOURED HAND


An interesting discovery made in recent years in the course of some
researches into the traces of the neolithic flint-workers of Norfolk
invites attention from the evidence it has been thought to furnish of
the traces of a left-handed workman of that remote era.

The Rev. William Greenwell carried out a series of explorations of
a number of flint-pits, known as Grimes’s Graves, near Brandon, in
Norfolk; and in a communication to the Ethnological Society of London
on the subject, he states that in clearing out one of the primitive
subterranean galleries excavated in the chalk by the British workmen
of the Neolithic Age, in order to procure flint nodules in a condition
best adapted for their purpose, it was found that, while the pits were
still being worked, the roof of the gallery had given way and blocked
up its whole width. The removal of this obstruction disclosed three
recesses extending beyond the face of the chalk, at the end of the
gallery, which had been excavated by the ancient miners in procuring
the flint. In front of two of these recesses thus hollowed out lay two
picks corresponding to others found in various parts of the shafts and
galleries, made from the antlers of the red deer. But Canon Greenwell
noted that, while the handle of each was laid towards the mouth of the
gallery, the tines which formed the blades of the picks pointed towards
each other, showing, as he conceived, that in all probability they had
been used respectively by a right and a left-handed man. The day’s
work over, the men had laid down their tools, ready for the next day’s
work; meanwhile the roof had fallen in, and the picks were left there
undisturbed through all the intervening centuries, till the reopening
of the gallery in our own day.

The chronicles of the neolithic miners of Norfolk, as of the greatly
more ancient flint-workers of the drift, or the draftsmen of the
Dordogne, are recorded for us in very definite characters, more
trustworthy, but unfortunately as meagre as other early chronicles.
But when we come within the range of written records, or analyse the
evidence that language supplies among unlettered races, a flood of
light is thrown on the subject of a discriminating choice in use of
one or the other hand. The evidence derived from this source leaves no
room for doubt that the preferential choice is no mere habit; but that
everywhere, among barbarous and civilised races alike, one specific
hand has been assigned for all actions requiring either unusual force
or special delicacy.

Even among races in the rudest condition of savage life, such as the
Australians and the Pacific Islanders, terms for “right,” the “right
hand,” or approximate expressions show that the distinction is no
product of civilisation. In the Kamilarai dialect of the Australians
bordering on Hunter’s River and Lake Maquaria _matara_ signifies
“hand,” but they have the terms _turovn_, right, on the right hand,
and _ngorangón_, on the left hand. In the Wiraturai dialect of the
Wellington Valley the same ideas are expressed by the words _bumalgál_
and _miraga_, dextrorsum and sinistrorsum.

The idea lying at the root of our own decimal notation, which has long
since been noted by Lepsius, Donaldson, and other philologists, as the
source of names of Greek and Latin numerals, is no less discernible
in the rudest savage tongues. Among the South Australians the simple
names for numerals are limited to two, viz. _ryup_, one, and _politi_,
two; the two together express “three”; _politi-politi_, four; and then
“five” is indicated by the term _ryup-murnangin_, _i.e._ one hand; ten
by _politi-murnangin_, _i.e._ two hands. The same idea is apparent in
the dialects of Hawaii, Raratonga, Viti, and New Zealand, in the use of
the one term: _lima_, _rima_, _linga_, _ringa_, etc., for hand and for
the number five. _Fulu_ and its equivalents stand for “ten,” apparently
from the root _fu_, whole, altogether; while the word _tau_, which
in the Hawaiian signifies “ready,” in the Tahitian “right, proper,”
and in the New Zealand, “expert, dexterous,” is the common Polynesian
term for the right hand. In the Vitian language, as spoken in various
dialects throughout the Viti or Fiji Islands, the distinction is still
more explicitly indicated. There is first the common term _linga_, the
hand, or arm; then the ceremonial term _daka_, employed exclusively
in speaking of that of a chief, but which, it may be presumed, also
expresses the right hand; as, while there is no other word for it, a
distinct term _sema_ is the left hand. The root _se_ is found not only
in the Viti, but also in the Samoa, Tonga, Mangariva, and New Zealand
dialects, signifying “to err, to mistake, to wander”; _semo_, unstable,
unfixed; while there is the word _matau_, right, dexter, clearly
proving the recognition of the distinction. In the case of the Viti
or Fijian, this is the more noticeable, as there appears to be some
reason for believing that left-handedness is exceptionally prevalent
among the natives of the Fiji Islands. In 1876 a correspondent of the
_Times_ communicated a series of letters to that journal, in which
he embodied anthropological notes on the Fijians, obtained both from
his own observations during repeated visits to the Islands, and from
conversation with English, American, and German settlers, at the port
of call, and on the route between San Francisco and the Australian
colonies. “The Fijians,” he says, “are quite equal in stature to white
men; they are better developed relatively in the chest and arms than
in the lower limbs; they are excellent swimmers, and, if trained, are
good rowers. Left-handed men are more common among them than among
white people; three were pointed out in one little village near the
anchorage.” Yet here, as elsewhere, it is exceptional. Vague statements
from time to time appear, affirming a prevalence of left-handedness
among certain barbarous races. A writer in the _Medical Record_ in 1886
says: “No purely left-handed race has ever been discovered, although
there seems to be a difference in different tribes. Seventy per cent
of the inhabitants of the Punjab use the left hand by preference; and
the greater number of the Hottentots and Bushmen of South Africa also
use the left hand in preference to the right.” But such statements,
to be of any value, must be based on carefully accumulated evidence,
such as is scarcely accessible in relation to nomad savage tribes.
Such comprehensive generalisations generally prove to have no better
foundation than the exceptional and chance observations of a traveller.
It is otherwise when the evidence is derived from language, or from the
observation of traders or missionaries long resident among the people.

Throughout the widely scattered islands of the Pacific the recognition
of native right-handedness as the normal usage is confirmed alike
by trustworthy witnesses and by the definite evidence of language.
The Samoan word _lima_, hand, also signifying “five,” and the terms
_lima maira_, right hand, and _lima woat_, left hand, are used as the
equivalents of our own mode of expression. But also the left hand is
_lima tau-anga-vale_, literally, the hand that takes hold foolishly.
In the case of the Samoans, it may be added, as well as among the
natives of New Britain and other of the Pacific islands, the favoured
hand corresponds with our right hand. My informant, the Rev. George
Brown, for fourteen years a missionary in Polynesia, states that the
distinction of right and left hand is as marked as among Europeans; and
left-handedness is altogether exceptional. In the Terawan language,
which is spoken throughout the group of islands on the equator
called the Kingsmill Archipelago, the terms _atai_ or _edai_, right,
dexter, (entirely distinct from _rapa_, good, right,) and _maan_,
left, sinister, are applied to _bai_, or _pai_, the hand, to denote
the difference, _e.g._ _te bai maan_, the left hand, literally, the
“dirty hand,” that which is not used in eating. The languages of the
American continent furnish similar evidence of the recognition of the
distinction among its hunter-tribes. In the Chippeway the word for
“my right hand” is _ne-keche-neenj, e_ being the prenominal prefix,
literally, “my great hand.” “My left hand” is _ne-nuh-munje-neenj-ne_.
_Numunj_ is the same root as appears in _nuh-munj-e-doon_, “I do not
know;” and the idea obviously is “the uncertain or unreliable hand.”
Again, in the Mohawk language, “the right hand” is expressed by the
term _ji-ke-we-yen-den-dah-kon_, from _ke-we-yen-deh_, literally, “I
know how.” _Ji_ is a particle conveying the idea of _side_, and the
termination _dah-kon_ has the meaning of “being accustomed to.” It is,
therefore, the limb accustomed to act promptly, the dexterous organ.
_Ske-ne-kwa-dih_, the left hand, literally means “the other side.”

Analogous terms are found alike in the languages of civilised and
barbarous races, expressing the same inferiority of one hand in
relation to the other which is indicated in the classical _sinistra_
as the subordinate of the _dextra manus_. The honourable significance
of the right hand receives special prominence in the most sacred
allusions of the Hebrew scriptures; and in mediæval art the right
hand in benediction is a frequent symbol of the First Person of the
Trinity. In the Anglo-Saxon version of the New Testament the equivalent
terms appear as _swythre_ and _wynstre_, as in Matthew vi. 3:
“Sothlice thonne thu thinne aelmessan do, nyte thin wynstre hwaet do
thin swythre;” “When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what
thy right hand doeth.” Again the distinction appears in a subsequent
passage thus: “And he geset tha scep on hys swithran healfe, and tha
tyccenu on hys wynstran healfe” (Matthew xxv. 34). Here the derivation
of _swythre_ from _swyth_, strong, powerful, _swythra_, a strong one,
a dexterous man, _swythre_, the stronger, the right hand, is obvious
enough. It is also used as an adjective, as in Matthew v. 30: “And gif
thin _swythre hand_ the aswice, aceorf hig of;” “And if thy right hand
offend thee, cut it off.” The derivation of _wynstre_ is less apparent,
and can only be referred to its direct significance, _se wynstra_, the
left. In the Greek we find the isolated ἀριστερός, ἀριστερά, left, ἡ
ἀριστερά, the left hand. Whatever etymology we adopt for this word,
the depreciatory comparison between the left and the more favoured
δεξιά, or right hand, is obvious enough in the σκαιός, the left, the
ill-omened, the unlucky; σκαιότης, left-handedness, awkwardness; like
the French _gauche_, awkward, clumsy, uncouth. The Greek had also the
term derived from the left arm as the shield-bearer; hence ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα,
on the left or shield side.

The Gaelic has supplied to Lowland Scotland the term _ker_, or
carry-handed, in common use, derived from _lamh-chearr_, the left hand.
In the secondary meanings attached to _ker_, or carry, it signifies
awkward, devious; and in a moral sense is equivalent to the English
use of the word “sinister.” To “_gang the kar gate_” is to go the left
road, _i.e._ the wrong road, or the road to ruin. There is no separate
word in the Gaelic for “right hand,” but it is called _lamh dheas_ and
_lamh ceart_. Both words imply “proper, becoming, or right.” _Ceart_
is the common term to express what is right, correct, or fitting,
whereas _dheas_ primarily signifies the “south,” and is explained by
the supposed practice of the Druid augur following the sun in his
divinations. In this it will be seen to agree with the secondary
meaning of the Hebrew _yamin_, and to present a common analogy with
the corresponding Greek and Latin terms hereafter referred to.
_Deisal_, a compound of _dheas_, south, and _iùl_, a guide, a course,
is commonly used as an adjective, to express a lucky or favourable
occurrence. The “left hand” is variously styled _lamh chli_, the wily
or cunning hand, and _lamh cearr_, or _ciotach_. _Cearr_ is wrong,
unlucky, and _ciotach_ is the equivalent of _sinister_, formed from
the specific name for the left hand, _ciotag_, Welsh _chwithig_.
According to Pliny,[5] “the Gauls, in their religious rites, contrary
to the practice of the Romans, turned to the left.” An ancient Scottish
tradition traces the surname of Kerr to the fact that the Dalriadic
king, Kynach-Ker or Connchad Cearr, as he is called in the _Duan
Albanach_, was left-handed; though the name is strongly suggestive of a
term of reproach like that of the Saxon Ethelred, the Unready.

[5] _Hist. Nat._ lib. xxviii. c. 2.

Milton in one of his Sonnets plays in sportive satire with the name
of another left-handed Scot, “Colkitto, or Macdonnel, or Galasp.”
The person referred to under the first name was the Earl of Antrim’s
deputy, by whom the invasion of Scotland was attempted in 1644 on
behalf of the Stuarts. The name is scarcely less strange in its genuine
form of Alastair MacCholla-Chiotach; that is, Alexander, son of Coll,
the left-handed. This was the elder Macdonnel, of Colonsay, who was
noted for his ability to wield his claymore with equal dexterity in the
left hand or the right; or, as one tradition affirms, for his skill as
a left-handed swordsman after the loss of his right hand; and hence his
sobriquet of Colkittock, or Coll, the Left-handed. The term “carry” is
frequently used in Scotland as one implying reproach or contempt. In
some parts of the country, and especially in Lanarkshire, it is even
regarded as an evil omen to meet a carry-handed person when setting out
on a journey. Jamieson notes the interjectional phrase _car-shamye_
(Gaelic _sgeamh-aim_, to reproach) as in use in Kinross-shire in the
favourite Scottish game of shinty, when an antagonist takes what is
regarded as an undue advantage by using his club in the left hand.

All this, while indicating the exceptional character of
left-handedness, clearly points to a habit of such frequent occurrence
as to be familiarly present to every mind. But the exceptional skill,
or dexterity, as it may be fitly called, which usually pertains to
the left-handed operator is generally sufficient to redeem him from
slight. The ancient Scottish game of golf, which is only a more
refined and strictly regulated form of the rustic shinty, is one in
which the implements are of necessity right-handed, and so subject the
left-handed player to great disadvantage, unless he provides his own
special clubs. The links at Leith have long been famous as an arena
for Scottish golfers. King Charles I. was engaged in a game of golf
there when, in November 1641, a letter was delivered into his hands
which gave him the first account of the Irish Rebellion. The same links
were a favourite resort of his younger son, James II., while still
Duke of York; and some curious traditions preserve the memory of his
relish for the game. There, accordingly, golf is still played with
keenest zest; and among its present practisers is a left-handed golfer,
who, as usual with left-handed persons, is practically ambidextrous.
He has accordingly provided himself with a double set of right and
left drivers and irons; so that he can use either hand at pleasure
according to the character of the ground, or the position of the ball,
to the general discomfiture of his one-handed rivals. The Scotchmen of
Montreal and Quebec have transplanted the old national game to Canadian
soil; and the latter city has a beautiful course on the historical
battle-field, the scene of Wolfe’s victory and death. Their experience
induced the Quebec Golf Club, when ordering spare sets of implements
for the use of occasional guests from Great Britain, to consider
the propriety of providing a left-handed set. In the discussion to
which the proposal gave rise, it was urged to be unnecessary, as a
left-handed player generally has his own clubs with him; but finally
the order was limited to two left-handed drivers, so that when a
left-handed golfer joins them he has to put with his driver. This
considerateness of the Quebec golfers was no doubt stimulated by the
fact that there is a skilled golfer of the Montreal Club whose feats
of dexterity as a left-handed player at times startle them. A Quebec
golfer writes to me thus: “There is one left-handed fellow belonging
to the Montreal Club who comes down occasionally to challenge us;
and I have watched his queer play with a good deal of interest and
astonishment.”

To the left-handed man his right hand is the less ready, the less
dexterous, and the weaker member. But in all ordinary experience
the idea of weakness, uncertainty, unreliability, attaches to the
left hand, and so naturally leads to the tropical significance of
“unreliable, untrustworthy,” in a moral sense. Both ideas are found
alike in barbarous and classic language. An interesting example of the
former occurs in Ovid’s _Fasti_ (iii. 869), where the poet speaks of
the flight of Helle and her brother on the golden-fleeced ram; and
describes her as grasping its horn “with her feeble left hand, when she
made of herself a name for the waters,” _i.e._ by falling off and being
drowned--

    Utque fugam capiant, aries nitidissimus auro
      Traditur. Ille vehit per freta longa duos.
    Dicitur informa cornu tenuisse sinistra
      Femina, cum de se nomina fecit aquæ.

In the depreciatory moral sense, Plautus in the _Persa_, (II. ii. 44)
calls the left hand _furtifica_, “thievish.” “Estne hæc manus? Ubi illa
altera est furtifica læva?” So in like manner the term in all its forms
acquires a depreciatory significance, and is even applied to sinister
looks. So far, then, as the evidence of language goes, the distinction
of the right from the left hand, as the more reliable member, appears
to be coeval with the earliest known use of language.




                              CHAPTER VI

                         THE PRIMITIVE ABACUS


Under varying aspects of the question of right-handedness the inquiries
into its origin have naturally reverted to the lateral position of the
heart as a probable source of diversity of action in the two hands;
and this is the more suggestive owing to the fact that exceptional
cases of its reversed position are occasionally found. When Carlyle
reflected on right-handedness as “probably the oldest human institution
that exists,” he suggested as the source of choice of the hand that
it “probably arose in fighting: most important,” as he says, “to
protect your heart and its adjacencies, and to carry the shield on
the hand.” This idea, in so far as it implies the habitual use of the
shield in the left hand, or on the left arm, and consequently of the
shield-hand as left and passive, is old as Homer; and the evidence
of its practice is abundantly confirmed by the drawings on the most
archaic Greek vases. The right side was ἐπὶ δόρυ, the spear side, while
the left was ἐπ’ ἀσπίδα, the shield side. The familiar application of
the terms in this sense is seen in Xenophon’s _Anabasis_, IV. iii. 26:
Καὶ παρήγγειλε τοῖς λοχαγοῖς κατ’ ἐνωμοτίας ποιήσασθαι ἕκαστον τὸν
ἑαυτοῦ λόχον, παρ’ ἀσπίδας παραγαγόντας τὴν ἐνωμοτίαν ἐπὶ φάλαγγος,
“He ordered to draw up his century in squads of twenty-five, and post
them in line to the left.” And again, _Anabasis_, IV. iii. 29: Τοῖς δὲ
παρ’ ἑαυτῷ παρήγγειλεν ... ἀναστρέψαντας ἐπὶ δόρυ, κ.τ.λ., “He ordered
his own division, turning to the right,” etc. Egyptian paintings are
older than the earliest Greek vases, but they are less reliable; for
in the symmetrical arrangements of hieroglyphic paintings the groups
of figures are habitually reversed, right and left, looking toward a
central line or point. Yet there also evidence may be found confirming
the same idea.

But we may once more turn aside from the physical to the intellectual
aspect of available evidence, and find confirmation of a like kind in
one of the earliest definite manifestations of cultured reason. Few
tests of relative stages of civilisation are more trustworthy than that
of the definite conception of high numbers. The prevalence of a decimal
system of numerals among widely severed nations, alike in ancient and
modern times, has been universally ascribed to the simple process
of counting with the aid of the fingers. Mr. Francis Galton, in his
_Narrative of an Exploration in Tropical Africa_, when describing the
efforts of the Damaras at computation, states that the mental effort
fails them beyond _three_. “When they wish to express _four_, they
take to their fingers, which are to them as formidable instruments
of calculation as a sliding rule is to an English schoolboy. They
puzzle very much after _five_, because no spare hand remains to grasp
and secure the fingers that are required for units.” Turning to the
line of evidence which this primitive method of computation suggests,
some striking analogies reveal a recognition of ideas common to the
savage and to the cultivated Greek and Roman. Donaldson, in his
_New Cratylus_, in seeking to trace the first ten numerals to their
primitive roots in Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, and Latin, derives seven of
them from the three primitive prenominal elements. But _five_, _nine_,
and _ten_ are referred by him directly to the same infantile source of
decimal notation, suggested by the ten fingers, as has been recognised
in similar operation among the Hawaiians, and the Maoris of New
Zealand. “One would fancy, indeed, without any particular investigation
of the subject, that the number _five_ would have some connection with
the word signifying ‘a hand,’ and the number _ten_ with a word denoting
the ‘right hand’; for in counting with our fingers we begin with the
little finger of the left hand.” Hence the familiar idea, as expressed
in its simplest form, where Hesiod (_Op._ 740) calls the hand πέντοζον,
the five-branch; and hence also πεμπάζω, primarily to count on five
fingers.

Bopp, adopting the same idea, considers the Sanskrit _pan’-cha_ as
formed of the copulative conjunction added to the neuter form of _pa_,
one, and so signifying “and one.” Benary explains it as an abbreviation
of _pân’-i-cha_, “and the hand”--the conjunction being equally
recognisable in _pan’-cha_, πέν-τε, and _quinque_. This, they assume,
expressed the idea that the enumerator then began to count with the
other hand; but Donaldson ingeniously suggests the simpler meaning,
that after counting four the whole hand was opened and held up. To
reckon by the hand was, accordingly, to make a rough computation, as
in the _Wasps_ of Aristophanes, where Bdelycleon bids his father,
the dicast, “first of all calculate roughly, not by pebbles, but ἀπὸ
χειρός, with the hand.”

The relation of δεξιά to δέκ-α and _dextra_, δέκ-α, _decem_, δεκ-σιός,
_decster_, illustrates the same idea. Grimm, indeed, says, “In counting
with the fingers, one naturally begins with the left hand, and so goes
on to the right. This may explain why, in different languages, the
words for _the left_ refer to the root of _five_, those for _the right_
to the root of _ten_.” Hence also the derivation of finger, through the
Gothic and Old High German, from the stem for “five” and “left”; while
the Greek and Latin, δάκτυλος and _digitus_, are directly traceable to
δέκα and _decem_. The connection between ἀριστερά and _sinistra_ is
also traced with little difficulty: the sibilant of the latter being
ascribed to an initial digamma, assumed in the archaic form of the
parent vocabulary. Nor is the relationship of δεξιά with _digitus_ a
far-fetched one. As the antique custom was to hand the wine from right
to left, so it may be presumed that the ancients commenced counting
with the left hand, in the use of that primitive abacus, finishing
with the dexter or right hand at the tenth digit, and so completing the
decimal numeration.

The inferior relation of the left to the right hand was also indicated
in the use of the former for lower, and the latter for higher numbers
beyond ten. In reckoning with their fingers, both Greeks and Romans
counted on the left hand as far as a hundred, then on the right hand
to two hundred, and so on alternately: the even numbers being always
reckoned on the right hand. The poet Juvenal refers to this in his
tenth Satire, where, in dwelling on the attributes of age, he speaks of
the centenarian, “who counts his years on his right hand”--

    Felix nimirum, qui tot per secula mortem
    Distulit, atque suos jam dextra computat annos,
    Quique novum toties mustum bibit.

A curious allusion, by Tacitus, in the first book of his _History_,
serves to show that the German barbarians beyond the Alps no less
clearly recognised the significance of the right hand as that which was
preferred, and accepted as the more honourable member. The Lingones,
a Belgian tribe, had sent presents to the legions, as he narrates:
and in accordance with ancient usage gave as the symbolical emblem of
friendship two right hands clasped together. “Miserat civitas Lingonum
vetere instituto dona legionibus, dextras, hospitii insigne.” The
dextræ are represented on a silver quinarius of Julius Cæsar, thus
described in Ackerman’s _Catalogue of rare and unedited Roman Coins_,
“PAX. S. C. Female head. _Rev._ L. AEMILIVS. BVCA. IIII. VIR. Two hands
joined.”[6]

[6] Ackerman, i. 106.

Other evidence of a different kind confirms the recognition and
preferential use of the right hand among our Teutonic ancestors from
the remotest period. Dr. Richard Lepsius, in following out an ingenious
analysis of the primitive names for the numerals, and the sources of
their origin, traces from the common Sanskrit root _daça_, Greek
δέκα, through the Gothic _taihun_, the _hunda_, as in _tva hunda_, two
hundred. He next points out the resemblance between the Gothic _hunda_
and _handus_, _i.e._ “the hand,” showing that this is no accidental
agreement, but that the words are etymologically one and the same. The
A.S. _hund_, a hundred, originally meant only “ten,” and was prefixed
to numerals above twenty, as _hund-eahtatig_, eighty, _hund-teontig_,
a hundred, etc.

Thus far philological evidence clearly points to a very wide prevalence
of the recognition of right-handedness; and when we turn from this
to the oldest sources of direct historical evidence, the references
abundantly confirm the same conclusions. The earliest ascertained
historical record of left-handed dexterity is familiar to all. The
references to this in the Book of Judges show that the skill of the
left-handed among the tribe of Benjamin was specially noted, while
at the same time the very form of the record marks the attribute as
exceptional; and all the more so as occurring in the tribe whose
patronymic--_ben yamin_, the son of the right hand,--so specially
indicates the idea of honour and dignity constantly associated with
the right hand throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. When, as we read in
the Book of Judges, the Lord raised up as a deliverer of Israel from
the oppression of Eglon, King of Moab, Ehud, the son of Gera, he was a
Benjamite, a man left-handed. He accordingly fashioned for himself a
two-edged dagger, which he girt under his raiment upon his right thigh;
and thus armed he presented himself as the bearer of a present from
the children of Israel to the king, and sought a private interview,
saying, “I have a secret errand unto thee, O king.” The special fitness
of the left-handed emissary, as best suited for the daring act required
of him, is in itself a proof that it was an exceptional attribute.
The express mention that he girded his dagger on his right thigh is
significant. It was doubtless assumed that when he reached with his
left hand towards the weapon concealed under his raiment, the motion
would not excite suspicion. A later chapter of the same venerable
historical record furnishes the account of a body of seven hundred
chosen marksmen, all left-handed, selected from the same tribe for
their pre-eminent skill. The incident is noteworthy, and recalls the
mode of selection of the three hundred chosen men with whom Gideon
overthrew the Midianites. As the host of Israel passed over a stream
their leader noted that the greater number, pausing, stooped down on
their knees and tarried to drink; but the hardy warriors, eager for
the fight, hastily dipped up the water in their hand, and snatching a
draught passed on. By these did Gideon, the son of Joash, discomfit
the hosts of the Midianites. The number of the left-handed Benjamites
does not furnish any evidence that this specialty was more prevalent
among them than other tribes. But it is not difficult to conceive of
some resolute combatant, endowed with the capacity of a leader, and
conscious of his own skill in the use of his weapons in his dexterous
left hand, banding together under his leadership a company selected
on account of their manifesting the same exceptional dexterity. With
this as the indispensable requisite, he was able to muster a body
of seven hundred marksmen, all men of his own tribe, every one of
whom was left-handed, and could sling stones at a hair’s-breadth and
not miss. To the naturally left-handed man such dexterity is in no
degree surprising. Among the instinctively left-handed, those with
whom the bias is slight readily yield to the influence of example and
education, and so pass over to the majority. Only those in whom the
propensity is too strong to yield to such influences remain. They are,
therefore, exceptionally dexterous with their left hand; and are thus
not only distinguished from the equally expert right-handed, but are,
still more, an exception to the large majority in whom the bias is so
slight, and the dexterity so partial, that their practice is little
more than a compliance with the usage of the majority.

It is important to keep in view the fact that the relative numbers
furnished by the narrative in the Book of Judges do not suggest that
the tribe of Benjamin differed in the above respect from other tribes.
Of twenty-six thousand Benjamites that drew the sword, there were the
seven hundred left-handed slingers, or barely 2·7 per cent, which does
not greatly differ from the proportion noted at the present time. In
the song of triumph for the avenging of Israel over the Canaanites, in
the same Book of Judges, the deed of vengeance by which Sisera, the
captain of the host of Jabin, King of Canaan, perished by the hand of a
woman, is thus celebrated: “She put her hand to the nail, and her right
hand to the workman’s hammer; and with the hammer she smote Sisera.”
Here, as we see, while their deliverer from the oppression of the
Moabites is noted as a Benjamite, a left-handed man; Jael, the wife of
Heber the Kenite, is blessed above women, who with her right hand smote
the enemy of God and her people. Along with those references may be
noted one of a later date, recorded in the first Book of Chronicles.
When David was in hiding from Saul at Ziklag there came to him a
company of Saul’s brethren of Benjamin, mighty men, armed with bows,
who could use both the right hand and the left in hurling stones and
shooting arrows out of a bow. These latter, it will be observed, are
noted not as left-handed, but ambidextrous; but this is characteristic
of all left-handed persons as an inevitable result of education or
compliance with the prevailing usage; though even amongst them the
unwonted facility with both hands rarely, if ever, entirely supersedes
the greater dexterity of the left hand. Possibly the patronymic of
the tribe gave significance to such deviations from normal usage; but
either for this or some unnoted reason the descendants of Benjamin,
the Son of the Right Hand, appear to have obtained notoriety for
exceptional aptitude in the use of either hand.




                              CHAPTER VII

                          THE COMPASS POINTS


Guided by my own personal experience, now extending over a good deal
more than threescore and ten years, the Benjamites of Saul’s host,
who could hurl stones with equal facility by either hand, seem to
me greatly more surprising and exceptional than the left-handed
company of seven hundred, every one of whom could sling stones at a
hair’s-breadth and not miss. It is contrary to the nearly universal and
almost inevitable preferential use of one hand. It naturally followed
on such preference that this unvarying employment led not only to its
receiving a distinctive appellation, but that the term so used came to
be associated with ideas of dignity, honour, and trust; and as such
is perpetuated in the languages both of civilised and savage races.
But this suggests another inquiry of important significance in the
determination of the results. The application of the Latin _dexter_
to “right-handedness” specifically, as well as to general dexterity
in its more comprehensive sense, points, like the record of the old
Benjamites, to the habitual use of one hand in preference to the other;
but does it necessarily imply that _their_ “right hand” was the one
on that side which we now concur in calling dexter or right? In the
exigencies of war or the chase, and still more in many of the daily
requirements of civilised life, it is necessary that there should be
no hesitation as to which hand shall be used. Promptness and dexterity
depend on this, and no hesitation is felt. But, still further, in many
cases of combined action it is needful that the hand so used shall be
the same; and wherever such a conformity of practice is recognised the
hand so used, whichever it be, is that on which _dexterity_ depends,
and becomes practically the _right_ hand. The term _yamin_, “the right
hand,” already noted as the root of the proper name Benjamin, and of
the tribe thus curiously distinguished for its left-handed warriors
and skilled marksmen, is derived from the verb _yāmăn_, to be firm,
to be faithful, as the right hand is given as a pledge of fidelity,
_e.g._ “The Lord hath sworn by his right hand” (Isa. lxii. 8). So in
the Arabic form, _bimin Allah_, by the right hand of Allah. So also
with the Hebrews and other ancient nations, as still among ourselves,
the seat at the right hand of the host, or of any dignitary, was the
place of honour; as when Solomon “caused a seat to be set for the
king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand” (1 Kings ii. 19). Again,
the term is frequently used in opposition to _semol_, left hand; as
when the children of Israel would pass through Edom; “We will go by the
king’s high way; we will not turn to the right hand nor to the left”
(Num. xx. 17).

But a further use and significance of the terms helps us to the fact
that the Hebrew _yamin_ and our _right hand_ are the same. In its
secondary meaning it signified the “south,” as in Ezekiel xlvii. 1:
“The forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came
down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of
the altar.” The four points are accordingly expressed thus in Hebrew:
_yamin_, the right, the south; _kedem_, the front, the east; _semol_,
the left, the north; _achor_, behind, the west. To the old Hebrew,
when looking to the east, the west was thus behind, the south on his
right hand, and the north on his left. This determination of the right
and left in relation to the east is not peculiar to the Hebrews. Many
nations appear to have designated the south in the same manner, as
being on the right hand when looking to the east. Its origin may be
traced with little hesitation to the associations with the most ancient
and dignified form of false worship, the paying divine honours to the
Sun, as he rises in the east, as the Lord of Day. Thus we find in the
Sanskrit _dakshina_, right hand, south; _puras_, in front, eastward;
_apara_, _paçchima_, behind, west; _uttara_, northern, to the left.
The old Irish has, in like manner, _deas_ or _ders_, on the right,
southward; _oirthear_, in front, east; _jav_, behind, west; _tuath_,
north, from _thuaidh_, left. An analogous practice among the Eskimos,
though suggested by a different cause, illustrates a similar origin
for the terms “right” and “left.” Dr. H. Fink in a communication to
the Anthropological Institute (June 1885) remarks: “To indicate the
quarters of the globe, the Greenlanders use at once two systems.
Besides the ordinary one, they derive another from the view of the
open sea, distinguishing what is to the left and to the right hand.
The latter appears to have been the original method of determining the
bearings, but gradually the words for the left and the right side came
to signify at the same time ‘south’ and ‘north.’”

A diverse idea is illustrated by the like secondary significance of the
Greek σκαιός, left, or on the left hand; but also used as “west,” or
“westward,” as in the _Iliad_, iii. 149, σκαιαὶ πύλαι, the west gate
of Troy. The Greek augur, turning as he did his face to the north,
had the left--the sinister, ill-omened, unlucky side,--on the west.
Hence the metaphorical significance of ἀριστερός, ominous, boding ill.
But the Greeks had also that other mode of expressing the _right and
left_ already referred to, derived from their mode of bearing arms.
Ancient sculpture, the paintings on tombs and fictile ware, Egyptian,
Assyrian, and classic statuary, all illustrate the methods of carrying
the shield, and of wielding the sword or spear. Hence the shield-hand
became synonymous with the left. The word ἀριστερός has also been
interpreted as “the shield-bearing arm.”

Among the Romans we may trace some survival of the ancient practice
of worshipping towards the east, as in Livy, i. 18, where the augurs
are said to turn the right side to the south, and the left side to the
north. But the original significance of turning to the east had then
been lost sight of; and the particular quarter of the heavens towards
which the Roman augur was to look appears to have been latterly very
much at the will of the augur himself. It was, at any rate, variable.
Livy indicates the east, but Varro assigns the south, and Frontinus
the west. Probably part of the augur’s professional skill consisted in
selecting the aspect of the heavens suited to the occasion. But this
done, the flight of birds and other appearances on the right or on the
left determined the will of the gods. “Why,” asks Cicero, himself an
augur, “why should the raven on the right and the crow on the left make
a confirmatory augury?” “Cur a dextra corvus, a sinistra cornix faciat
ratum?” (_De Divin._ i.) The left was the side on which the thunder was
declared to be heard which confirmed the inauguration of a magistrate,
and in other respects the augur regarded it with special awe. But still
the right side was, in all ordinary acceptance, the propitious one, as
in the address to Hercules (_Æn._ viii. 302)--

    Salve, vera Jovis proles, pecus addite divis;
    Et nos et tua dexter adi pede sacra secundo.

The traces of a term of common origin for right (south) in so many
of the Indo-European languages is interesting and suggestive, though
the ultimate word is still open to question. How the equivalent
terms run through the whole system may be seen from the following
illustrations: Sanskrit, _dakshina_ (cf. _deccan_); Zend, _dashina_;
Gothic, _taihs-vo_; O.H. German, _zëso_; Lithuanian, _deszine_;
Gaelic, _dheas_; Erse, _dess_ (_deas_); Latin, _dexter_; Greek,
δεξιός, etc. The immediate Sanskrit stem _daksh_ means “to be right,
or fitting”; secondarily, “to be dexterous, clever,” etc. This is
evidently from a root _dek_, as the western languages show. It was
usual at an earlier period to trace the whole to the root _dik_, to
show, to point; but this is now given up. Probably the Greek δέκ-ομαι
(δέχομαι), take, receive, preserves the original stem, with the idea
primarily of “seizing, catching.” This leads naturally to a comparison
of δάκτ-υ-λος, finger, and _dig-i-tus_, δοκ-ά-νη, fork, etc. (see
Curtius’s _Outlines of Greek Etymology_).

Right-handed usages, and the ideas which they suggest, largely
influence the ceremonial customs of many nations, affect their
religious observances, bear a significant part in the marriage rites,
and are interwoven with the most familiar social usages. Among the
ancient Greeks the rites of the social board required the passing
of the wine from right to left,--or, at any rate, in one invariable
direction,--as indicated by Homer in his description of the feast
of the gods (_Iliad_, i 597, θεοῖς ἐνδέξια πᾶσιν οἰνοχόει), where
Hephæstus goes round and pours out the sweet nectar to the assembled
gods. The direction pursued by the cupbearer would be determined by his
bearing the flagon in his right hand, and so walking with his right
side towards the guests. This is, indeed, a point of dispute among
scholars. But it is not questioned that a uniform practice prevailed,
dependent on the recognition of right and left-handedness; and this
is no less apparent among the Romans than the Greeks. It is set forth
in the most unmusical of Horace’s hexameters: “Ille sinistrorsum,
hic dextrorsum abit;” and finds its precise elucidation from many
independent sources, in the allusions of the poets, in the works of
sculptors, and in the decorations of fictile ware.




                             CHAPTER VIII

                              HANDWRITING


It is manifestly important to determine whether the term used by the
Ninevite, the Assyrian, Greek, Roman, and other ancient nations for
the right hand was exclusively limited to the member of the body
on what is now universally recognised as the right side; or was
applicable to either hand, implying no more than the one habitually
and preferentially employed. But the true right and left of the
Hebrew and other ancient Semitic nations has a special significance,
in view of the fact that, whilst the great class of Aryan languages,
as well as the Etruscan and others of indeterminate classification,
appear, from a remote date, to have been written from left to right;
all the Semitic languages, except the Ethiopic, as well as those of
other races that have derived their written characters from the
Arabian,--such as the Turks, Malays, and Persians,--are written from
right to left. Habit has so largely modified our current handwriting,
and adapted its characters to forms best suited for continuous and
rapid execution in the one direction, that the reversal of this at
once suggests the idea of a left-handed people. But the assumption
is suggested by a misinterpretation of the evidence. So long as each
character was separately drawn, and when, moreover, they were pictorial
or ideographic, it was, in reality, more natural to begin at the
right, or nearer side, of the papyrus or tablet, than to pass over to
the left. The forms of all written characters are largely affected by
their mode of use, as is abundantly illustrated in the transformation
of the Egyptian ideographs in the later demotic writing. The forms
of the old Semitic alphabet, like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, are
specially adapted to cutting on stone. The square Hebrew characters
are of much later date; but they also, like the uncials of early
Christian manuscripts, were executed singly, and therefore could be
written as easily from right to left as in a reverse order. The oldest
alphabets indicate a special adaptation for monumental inscription.
The Runic characters of northern Europe owe their peculiar form
apparently to their being primarily cut on wood. When papyrus leaves
were substituted for stone, a change was inevitable; but the direction
of the writing only becomes significant in reference to a current hand.
The Greek fashion of _boustrophedon_, or alternating like the course
of oxen in ploughing, illustrates the natural process of beginning
at the side nearest to the hand; nor did either this, or the still
earlier mode of writing in columns, as with the ancient Egyptians,
or the Chinese, present any impediment, so long as it was executed
in detached characters. But so soon as the reed or quill, with the
coloured pigment, began to supersede the chisel, the hieratic writing
assumed a modified form; and when it passed into the later demotic
handwriting, with its seemingly arbitrary script, the same influences
were brought into play which control the modern penman in the slope,
direction, and force of his stroke. One important exception, however,
still remained. Although, as in writing Greek, the tendency towards the
adoption of tied letters was inevitable, yet to the last the enchorial
or demotic writing was mainly executed in detached characters, and
does not, therefore, constitute a true current handwriting, such as
in our own continuous penmanship leaves no room for doubt as to the
hand by which it was executed. Any sufficiently ambidextrous penman,
attempting to copy a piece of modern current writing with either
hand, would determine beyond all question its right-handed execution.
But no such certain result is found on applying the same test to the
Egyptian demotic. I have tried it on two of the Louvre demotic MSS. and
a portion of a Turin papyrus, and find that they can be copied with
nearly equal dexterity with either hand. Some of the characters are
more easily and naturally executed, without lifting the pen, with the
left hand than the right. Others again, in the slope and the direction
of the thickening of the stroke, suggest a right-handed execution; but
habit in the forming of the characters, as in writing Greek or Arabic,
would speedily overcome any such difficulty either way. I feel assured
that no habitually left-handed writer would find any difficulty in
acquiring the unmodified demotic hand; whereas no amount of dexterity
of the penman compelled to resort to his left hand in executing
ordinary current writing suffices to prevent such a modification in
the slope, the stroke and the formation of the characters, as clearly
indicates the change.

Attention has been recently called to this special aspect of the
subject in a minutely detailed article in the _Archivio Italiano per le
Malatie Nervose_, of September 1890, by Dr. D’Abundo Guiseppe, of the
University of Pisa. The inquiry was suggested to the Pisan professor
by the peculiar case of a left-handed patient, thus stated by him: “I
was treating electrically a gentleman, thirty-three years of age, who
had been affected for two years with difficulty in writing, and which
proved to be a typical case of the spasm called _writer’s cramp_. The
fact to which I desire to draw attention is that the gentleman was
left-handed, and had been so from his birth, so that he preferentially
used the left hand except in writing, as he had learned to write with
the right hand. He was a person of good intellect and superior culture;
and he had taught himself to sketch and paint with the left hand. Under
the electric treatment he improved, but in view of the liability to
relapse, I advised him to commence practising writing with the left
hand; more especially as he is left-handed. But he informed me that in
the first attempts made by him he felt, in addition to the difficulty;
that they produced painful sensations in the right arm, as if he were
writing with it. Wishing to master the facts, I caused him to write in
my presence; and I observed that, instead of commencing from left to
right, he automatically proceeded from right to left. At my request,
he began with the greatest readiness and rapidity to write some lines
which I dictated to him. What struck me was the rapidity with which he
wrote, the regularity of the writing, and the ease with which, with
unruled paper, he went on writing from right to left. He assured me
that he had never before made any attempt to write in that way; and he
was himself really surprised.”[7]

[7] _Archivio Italiano_, Milan, September 1890, “Su di alcune
particolarità della scrittura dei mancini,” p. 298.

Dr. Guiseppe’s attention being thus directed to this aspect of the
subject, his next aim was to determine whether the phenomenon might
not be physiological, and specially characteristic of left-handed
persons; and he naturally reverted to the pathological evidence bearing
on left-handed manifestations. He points out that Buchwald, in three
cases of aphasia, had found a very peculiar disturbance of written
language, which consisted in the fact that the letters were written
by the patient from right to left, with reverted slope. He accordingly
made further research, with a special view to determine whether this
peculiar manifestation was due to morbid causes. Unfortunately,
although he states that the subjects of his observation included a
considerable number of left-handed persons, the cases stated by him
in detail are mainly those of the right-handed who, by reason of
injury or loss of the right hand, had been compelled to cultivate
the use of the other. Such cases, however, amount to no more than
evidence of the extent to which the left hand may be educated, and so
made to perform all the functions of the right hand. To one, indeed,
familiar by practical experience with the exceptional facilities and
the impediments of the left-handed, it is curious to observe the
difficulty experienced by a highly intelligent scientific student of
the phenomena, to appreciate what seems to the ordinary left-handed
man not only natural but inevitable. In the case of Dr. Guiseppe’s
original patient, he wrote reversely instinctively, and with ease, on
the first attempt to use the unfamiliar pen in his left hand. Acquired
left-handedness revealed itself, on the contrary, in the writer placing
the paper obliquely; or in other ways showing that, with all the
facility derived from long practice, it was the result of effort and
a persevering contest with nature. Dr. Guiseppe accordingly adds in a
summary of results: “In general, I have discovered that right-handed
persons who became the subjects of disease affecting the right arm
from their infancy were forced to learn to write with the left hand;
and they wrote from right to left with sufficient facility, varying
the slope of the letters. Those, however, who had become affected
with disease in the right arm in adult life, when they had already
familiarly practised writing with the right hand, and in consequence
of disease had been obliged to resort to the left hand, were less
successful in writing with the reversed slope.”[8]

[8] _Archivio Italiano_, September 1890, p. 304.

To the naturally left-handed person, especially when he has enjoyed
the unrestrained use of the pencil in his facile hand, the reversed
slope is the easiest, and the only natural one. But this is entirely
traceable to the comparatively modern element of cursive writing.
No such cause affected the graver, or the hieroglyphic depictor of
ideographs, even when reduced to their most arbitrary demotic forms, so
long as they were executed singly.

So soon as the habitual use of the papyrus, with the reed pen and
coloured pigments, had developed any uniformity of usage, the customary
method of writing by the Egyptian appears to have accorded with that
in use among the Hebrew and other Semitic races; though examples do
occur of true hieroglyphic papyri written from left to right. But the
pictorial character of such writings furnishes another test. It is
easier for a right-handed draftsman to draw a profile with the face
looking towards the left; and the same influence might be anticipated
to affect the direction of the characters incised on the walls of
temples and palaces. This has accordingly suggested an available clue
to Egyptian right or left-handedness. But the evidence adduced from
Egyptian monuments is liable to mislead. A writer in _Nature_ (J.
S., 14th April 1870) states as the result of a careful survey of the
examples in the British Museum, that the hieroglyphic profiles there
generally look to the right, and so suggest the work of a left-handed
people. Other and more suggestive evidence from the monuments of Egypt
points to the same conclusion, but it is deceptive. The hieroglyphic
sculptures of the Egyptians, like the cufic inscriptions in Arabian
architecture, are mainly decorative; and are arranged symmetrically for
architectural effect. The same principle regulated their introduction
on sarcophagi. Of this, examples in the British Museum furnish abundant
illustration. On the great sarcophagus of Sebaksi, priest of Phtha,
the profiles on the right and left column look towards the centre
line; and hence the element of right-handedness is subordinated to
decorative requirements. If this is overlooked, the left-handedness
ascribed above to the ancient Egyptians may seem to be settled beyond
dispute by numerous representations both of gods and men, engaged
in the actual process of writing. Among the incidents introduced in
the oft-repeated judgment scene of Osiris,--as on the Adytum of the
Temple of Dayr el Medineh, of which I have a photograph,--Thoth, the
Egyptian God of Letters, stands with the stylus in his left hand, and
a papyrus or tablet in his right, and records concerning the deceased,
in the presence of the divine judge, the results of the literal
weighing in the balance of the deeds done in the body. In other smaller
representations of the same scene, Thoth is similarly introduced
holding the stylus in his left hand. So also, in the decorations on
the wall of the great chamber in the rock-temple of Abou Simbel,
Rameses is represented slaying his enemies with a club, which is held
in his left hand; and the goddess Pasht is shown decapitating her
prisoners with a scimitar also in the left hand. This evidence seems
sufficiently direct and indisputable to settle the question; yet
further research leaves no doubt that it is illusory. Ample evidence to
the contrary is to be found in Champollion’s _Monuments de l’Egypte et
de la Nubie_; and is fully confirmed by Maxime du Camp’s _Photographic
Pictures of Egypt, Nubia_, etc., by Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson’s _Manners
and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_, and by other photographic and
pictorial evidence. In a group, for example, photographed by Du Camp,
from the exterior of the sanctuary of the palace of Karnac, where the
Pharaoh is represented crowned by the ibis and hawk-headed deities,
Thoth and Horus, the hieroglyphics are cut on either side so as to look
towards the central figure. The same arrangement is repeated in another
group at Ipsamboul, engraved by Champollion, _Monuments de l’Egypte_
(vol. i. Pl. 5). Still more, where figures are intermingled, looking
in opposite directions,--as shown in a photograph of the elaborately
sculptured posterior façade of the Great Temple of Denderah,--the
accompanying hieroglyphics, graven in column, vary in direction in
accordance with that of the figure to which they refer. Columns of
hieroglyphics repeatedly occur, separating the seated deity and a
worshipper standing before him, and only divided by a perpendicular
line, where the characters are turned in opposite directions
corresponding to those of the immediately adjacent figures.

When, as in the Judgment scene at El Medineh and elsewhere, Osiris
is seated looking to the right, Thoth faces him, holding in the
off-hand--as more extended, by reason of the simple perspective,--the
papyrus or tablet; while the pen or style is held in the near or left
hand. To have placed the pen and tablet in the opposite hands would
have required a complex perspective and foreshortening, or would have
left the whole action obscure and unsuited for monumental effect.
Nevertheless, the difficulty is overcome in repeated examples: as in
a repetition of the same scene engraved in Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson’s
_Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians_ (Pl. 88), and on a
beautifully executed papyrus, part of _The Book of the Dead_, now in
the Louvre, and reproduced in facsimile in Sylvestre’s _Universal
Palæography_ (vol. i. Pl. 46), in both of which Thoth holds the pen or
style in the right hand. The latter also includes a shearer holding
the sickle in his right hand, and a female sower, with the seed-basket
on her left arm, scattering the seed with her right hand. Examples of
scribes, stewards, and others engaged in writing, are no less common in
the scenes of ordinary life; and though when looking to the left, they
are at times represented holding the style or pen in the left hand, yet
the preponderance of evidence suffices to refer this to the exigencies
of primitive perspective. The steward in a sculptured scene from a tomb
at Elethya (_Monuments de l’Egypte_, Pl. 142) receives and writes down
a report of the cattle from the field servants, holding the style in
his right hand and the tablet in his left. So is it with the registrar
and the scribes (Wilkinson, Figs. 85, 86), the steward who takes
account of the grain delivered (Fig. 387), and the notary and scribes
(Figs. 73, 78)--all from Thebes, where they superintend the weighing at
the public scales, and enumerate a group of negro slaves.

In the colossal sculptures on the facades of the great temples, where
complex perspective and foreshortening would interfere with the
architectural effect, the hand in which the mace or weapon is held
appears to be mainly determined by the direction to which the figure
looks. At Ipsamboul, as shown in _Monuments de l’Egypte_, Pl. 11,
Rameses grasps with his right hand, by the hair of the head, a group
of captives of various races, negroes included, while he smites them
with a scimitar or pole-axe, wielded in his left hand; but an onlooker,
turned in the opposite direction, holds the sword in his right hand.
This transposition is more markedly shown in two scenes from the same
temple (Pl. 28). In the one Rameses, looking to the right, wields the
pole-axe in the near or right hand, as he smites a kneeling Asiatic;
in the other, where he looks to the left, he holds his weapon again in
the near, but now the left hand, as he smites a kneeling negro. On the
same temple soldiers are represented holding spears in the near hand,
right or left, according to the direction they are looking (Pl. 22);
and swords and shields are transposed in like manner (Pl. 28). The
same is seen in the siege scenes and military reviews of Rameses the
Great, on the walls of Thebes and elsewhere. The evidence is misleading
if the primary aim of architectural decoration is not kept in view.
In an example from Karnac--appealed to in proof that the Egyptians
were a left-handed people,--where Thotmes III. hold his offering in
the extended left hand, his right side is stated to be towards the
observer. Nor are similar examples rare. Thoth and other deities,
sculptured in colossal proportions, on the Grand Temple of Isis, at
Philæ, as shown by Du Camp, in like manner have their right sides
towards the observer, and hold each the mace or sceptre in the extended
left hand. But on turning to the photographs of the Great Temple of
Denderah, where another colossal series of deities is represented in
precisely the same attitude, but looking in the opposite direction,
the official symbols are reversed, and each holds the sceptre in the
extended right hand. Numerous similar instances are given by Wilkinson;
as in the dedication of the pylon of a temple to Amun by Rameses III.,
Thebes (No. 470); the Goddesses of the West and East, looking in
corresponding directions (No. 461), etc.

Examples, however, occur where the conventional formulæ of Egyptian
sculpture have been abandoned, and the artist has overcome the
difficulties of perspective; as in a remarkable scene in the
Memmonium, at Thebes, where Atmoo, Thoth, and a female (styled by
Wilkinson the Goddess of Letters) are all engaged in writing the name
of Rameses on the fruit of the Persea tree. Though looking in opposite
directions, each holds the pen in the right hand (Wilkinson, Pl. 54 A).
So also at Beni Hassan, two artists kneeling in front of a board, face
each other, and each paints an animal, holding the brush in the right
hand. At Medinet Habou, Thebes, more than one scene of draught-players
occurs, where the players, facing each other, each hold the piece in
the right hand. Similar illustrations repeatedly occur.

Among another people, of kindred artistic skill, whose records have
been brought anew to light in recent years, their monumental evidence
appears to furnish more definite results; while the curiously definite
reference in the Book of Jonah leaves no room to doubt that among the
ancient Ninevites it was recognised that at the earliest stage when
voluntary action co-operated with the rational will, a specific hand
was habitually in use. That the ancient dwellers on the Euphrates and
the Tigris were a right-handed people appears to be borne out by their
elaborate sculpture, recovered at Kourjunjik, Khorsabad, Nimroud,
and other buried cities of the great plain. The sculptures are in
relief, and frequently of a less conventional character than those
of the Egyptian monuments, and are consequently less affected by the
aspect and position of the figures. The gigantic figure of the Assyrian
Hercules--or, as supposed, of the mighty hunter Nimrod,--found between
the winged bulls, in the great court of the Palace of Khorsabad, is
represented strangling a young lion, which he presses against his
chest with his left arm, while he holds in his right hand a weapon of
the chase, supposed to be analogous to the Australian boomerang. On
the walls of the same palace the great king appears with his staff in
his right hand, while his left hand rests on the pommel of his sword.
Behind him a eunuch holds in his right hand, over the king’s head, a
fan or fly-flapper; and so with other officers in attendance. Soldiers
bear their swords and axes in the right hand, and their shields on the
left arm. A prisoner is being flayed alive by an operator who holds
the knife in the right hand. The king himself puts out the eyes of
another captive, holding the spear in his right hand, while he retains
in his left the end of a cord attached to his victim. Similar evidence
abounds throughout the elaborate series of sculptures in the British
Museum and in the Louvre. Everywhere gods and men are represented as
“discerning between their right hand and their left,” and giving the
preference to the former.

It has been already shown that in languages of the American continent,
as in those of the Algonquins and the Iroquois, the recognition of
the distinction between the right and left hand is apparent; and on
turning to the monuments of a native American civilisation, evidence
similar to that derived from the sculptures of Egypt and Assyria
serves to show that the same hand had the preference in the New World
as in the Old. In the Palenque hieroglyphics of Central America, for
example, in which human and animal heads frequently occur among the
sculptured characters, it is noticeable that they invariably look
towards the left, indicating, as it appears to me, that they are
the graven inscriptions of a lettered people who were accustomed
to write the same characters from left to right on paper or skins.
Indeed, the pictorial groups on the Copan statues seem to be the true
hieroglyphic characters; while the Palenque inscriptions correspond
to the abbreviated hieratic writing. The direction of the profile
was a matter of no moment to the sculptor, but if the scribe held
his pen or style in his right hand, like the modern clerk, he would
as naturally draw the left profile as the penman slopes his current
hand to the right. In the pictorial hieroglyphics, reproduced in Lord
Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_, as in other illustrations of
the arts of Mexico and Central America, it is also apparent that the
battle-axe and other weapons and implements are most frequently held
in the right hand. But to this exceptions occur; and it is obvious
that there also the crude perspective of the artist influenced the
disposition of the tools, or weapons, according to the action designed
to be represented, and the direction in which the actor looked. Such
are some of the indications which seem to point to a uniform usage,
in so far as we can recover evidence of the practice among ancient
nations; while far behind their most venerable records lie the
chronicles of palæolithic ages: of the men of the drift and of the
caves of Europe’s prehistoric dawn.

So far, then, it seems to be proved that not only among cultured
and civilised races, but among the barbarous tribes of both
hemispheres,--in Australia, Polynesia, among the Arctic tribes of our
northern hemisphere at the present day, and among the palæolithic men
of Europe’s post-pliocene times,--not only has a habitual preference
been manifested for the use of one hand rather than the other, but
among all alike the same hand has been preferred. Yet, also, it is
no less noteworthy that this prevailing uniformity of practice has
always been accompanied by some very pronounced exceptions. Not only
are cases of exceptional facility in the use of both hands of frequent
occurrence, but while right-handedness everywhere predominates,
left-handedness is nowhere unknown. The skill of the combatant
in hitting with both hands is indeed a favourite topic of poetic
laudation, though this is characteristic of every well-trained boxer.
In the combat between Entellus and Dares (_Æn._ v. 456), the passionate
Entellus strikes now with his right hand and again with his left--

    Præcipitemque Daren ardens agit æquore toto,
    Nunc dextra ingeminans ictus, nunc ille sinistra.

But the more general duty assigned to the left hand is as the guard or
the shield-bearer, as where Æneas gives the signal to his comrades, in
sight of the Trojans (_Æn._ x. 261)--

    Stans celsa in puppi; clipeum cum delude sinistra
    Extulit ardentem.

The right hand may be said to express all active volition and all
beneficent action, as in _Æn._ vi. 370, “Da dextram misero,” “Give thy
right hand to the wretched,” _i.e._ give him aid; and so in many other
examples, all indicative of right-handedness as the rule. The only
exception I have been able to discover occurs in a curious passage in
the _Eclogues_ of Stobæus Περὶ ψυχῆς, in a dialogue between Horus and
Isis, where, after describing a variety of races of men, and their
peculiarities, it thus proceeds: “An indication of this is found in
the circumstance that southern races, that is, those who dwell on
the earth’s summit, have fine heads and good hair; eastern races are
prompt to battle, and skilled in archery, for the right hand is the
seat of these qualities. Western races are cautious, and for the most
part left-handed; and whilst the activity which other men display
belongs to their right side, these races favour the left.” Stobæus,
the Macedonian, belongs, at earliest, to the end of the fifth century
of our era, but he collected diligently from numerous ancient authors,
some of whom would otherwise be unknown; but the passage is part of
a description in which he speaks of the earth as having its apex or
head to the south, the right shoulder to the east, and the left to the
south-west; and the left-handed races of the west may be so merely
in a figurative sense. This description, at any rate, is the only
indication, vague and dubious as it is, of a belief in the existence of
a left-handed race.

Thus all evidence appears to conflict with the idea that the
preferential employment of one hand can be accounted for by a mere
general compliance with prevailing custom. Everywhere, in all ages,
and in the most diverse conditions of civilised and savage life, the
predominant usage is the same. Not that there are not everywhere
marked exceptions to the prevailing practice, in left-handed athletes,
handi-craftsmen, artificers, and artists, generally characterised by
unusual dexterity; but the farther research is carried, it becomes the
more apparent that these are exceptional deviations from the normal
usage of humanity.




                              CHAPTER IX

                        PSYCHO-PHYSICAL ACTION


The venerable philosopher of Chelsea, musing, with sorrowful
experiences to stimulate inquisitiveness, after wondering if any people
are to be found barbarous enough not to have this distinction of
hands, sums up with the evasion: “Why that particular hand was chosen
is a question not to be settled; not worth asking except as a kind of
riddle.” It seems, however, to be regarded by intelligent inquirers as
a riddle that ought to be, and that can be solved, though they have
wandered into very diverse courses in search of a solution.

It has been affirmed, for example, that while the right hand is more
sensitive to touch, and, as it were, the special seat of the sense
of feeling,--as with the right-handed it may well be from constant
employment in all operations involving such a test,--the left hand is
stated to be the more sensitive to any change of temperature.

Mr. George Henry Lewes, in his _Physiology of Common Life_, says: “If
the two hands be dipped in two basins of water at the same temperature,
the left hand will feel the greater sensation of warmth; nay, it will
do this even where the thermometers show that the water in the left
basin is really somewhat colder than in the right basin;” and he adds:
“I suspect that with ‘left-handed’ persons the reverse would be found.”
On the assumption that the former is a well-established law, the latter
seems a legitimate inference; but, as will be seen from what follows,
there is good reason for doubting that the statement rests on an
adequate amount of evidence.

To determine the prevalence of this relative sensitiveness to heat of
the right and left hand, the test ought to be applied to uncultured
and savage, as well as to civilised man. The elements which tend
to complicate the inquiry are very various. The left-handed man is
nearly always ambidextrous, though with an instinctive preference for
the left hand in any operation requiring either special dexterity or
unusual force. Hence his right hand, though less in use than that
of the right-handed man, is in no such condition of habitual inertia
as the other’s left hand. Again, a large number give the preference
to the right hand from a mere compliance with the practice of the
majority; but with no special innate impulse to the use of one hand
rather than the other. But besides those, there is a considerable
minority in whom certain indications suffice to show that the bias,
though no strong and overruling impulse, is in favour of the left
hand. I have, accordingly, had a series of tentative observations made
for me in the Physical Laboratory of the University of Toronto, under
the superintendence of Mr. W. J. Loudon, Demonstrator of Physics.
The undergraduates willingly submitted themselves to the requisite
tests; and the series of experiments were carried out by Mr. Loudon
with the utmost care. No idea was allowed to transpire calculated to
suggest anticipated results. A highly characteristic Canadian test of
any latent tendency to right or left-handedness was employed. In the
use of the axe, so familiar to nearly every Canadian, alike in summer
camping-out and in the preparation of winter fuel, the instinctive
preference for one or other hand is shown in always keeping the surer
hand nearest the axe-blade. This test was the one appealed to in
classifying those who submitted to the following experiments. The trial
was made with water very nearly 30° centigrade. The results arrived
at are shown here, the persons experimented on being divided into
three classes: (1) Right-handed, or those who habitually use the right
hand, and who in handling an axe place the right hand above the left,
nearest the axe-head. (2) Ordinarily using the right hand, but placing
the left hand above the right in the use of the axe. These appear to
be generally ambidextrous. (3) Those who are generally said to be
left-handed, but employ the pen in the right hand, and also use that
hand in many other operations. This class includes very varying degrees
of bias; and though loosely characterised as left-handed, from some
greater or less tendency to use that hand, the majority of them were
found to place the right hand above the left in the use of the axe.
One hundred and sixty-four in all were subjected to the test, with the
following results: Of ninety right-handed persons, thirty-five found
the right hand the more sensitive, thirty-three the left hand, and
twenty-two failed to discern an appreciable difference. Of fifty-six
persons of the second class, right-handed but using the left as the
guiding hand with the axe, seventeen found the right hand the more
sensitive, and fifteen the left, while twenty-four felt no difference.
Of eighteen of the third class, six found the right hand the more
sensitive, seven the left hand, and five could detect no difference.
Another case was that of a lady, decidedly left-handed, who writes,
sews, and apparently does nearly everything with her left hand. She
tried at three temperatures, viz. 5°, 30°, and 48° centigrade. In the
first case she pronounced the left hand to be undoubtedly colder, in
the second she observed no difference, and in the third, the left hand
was undoubtedly warmer. Another lady, also habitually using her needle
in the left hand, and otherwise instinctively reverting to that hand in
all operations requiring delicate or skilful manipulation, repeated the
same experiment more than once at my request; but could not detect any
difference in the sensitiveness of either hand. The results thus stated
were all arrived at with great care. It is manifest that they fail to
confirm the statement set forth in the _Physiology of Common Life_,
or to point to any uniformity in the relative sensitiveness of the
right and left hands. In so far as either hand may prove to be more
sensitive to heat than the other, it is probably due to the constant
exertion of the one hand rendering it less sensitive to changes of
temperature. Yet even this is doubtful. Two carpenters chanced to
be at work in the College building while the above experiments were
in progress. They were both right-handed workmen; yet, contrary to
expectation, on being subjected to the test, they both pronounced the
right hand to be more sensitive to heat. The statement of Mr. Lewes
is so definite that the subject may be deserving of more extended
experiment under other conditions. Any widely manifested difference in
the sensitiveness of one of the hands, apart from its habitual use in
all ordinary manipulation, and especially among uncultured races, would
assuredly seem to indicate some congenital distinction leading to the
preferential use of the right hand. But whatever may be the source of
this preference, the difference between the two hands is not so great
as to defy the influence of education; as is seen in the case of those
who, even late in life, through any injury or loss of the right hand,
have been compelled to resort to the less dexterous one.

Of the occurrence of individual examples of left-handedness the
proofs are ample, seemingly from earliest glimpses of life to the
present time; and it would even appear that, in so far as the small
yet definite amount of evidence of the relative percentage of the
left-handed enables us to judge, it differs little now from what it did
at the dawn of definite history.

Professor Hyrtl of Vienna affirms its prevalence among the civilised
races of Europe in the ratio of only two per cent; and the number of
the old Benjamite left-handed slingers, as distinguished from other
members of the band of twenty-six thousand warriors, did not greatly
exceed this. In the ruder conditions of society, where combined action
is rare, and social habits are less binding, a larger number of
exceptions to the prevailing usage may be looked for; as the tendency
of a high civilisation must be to diminish its manifestation. But
education is powerless to eradicate it where it is strongly manifested
in early life. My attention has been long familiarly directed to
it from being myself naturally left-handed; and the experience of
considerably more than half a century enables me to controvert the
common belief, on which Dr. Humphry founds the deduction that the
superiority of the right hand is not congenital, but acquired,
viz. that “the left hand may be trained to as great expertness and
strength as the right.” On the contrary, my experience accords with
that of others in whom inveterate left-handedness exists, in showing
the education of a lifetime contending with only partial success to
overcome an instinctive natural preference. The result has been, as in
all similar cases, to make me ambidextrous, yet not strictly speaking
ambidexterous.

The importance of this in reference to the question of the source
of right-handedness is obvious. Mr. James Shaw, by whom the subject
has been brought under the notice of the British Association and the
Anthropological Institute, remarks in a communication to the latter:
“Left-handedness is very mysterious. It seems to set itself quite
against physiological deductions, and the whole tendency of art and
fashion.” Dr. John Evans, when commenting on this, and on another
paper on “Left-handedness” by Dr. Muirhead, expressed his belief that
“the habit of using the left hand in preference to the right, though
possibly to some extent connected with the greater supply of blood
to one side than the other, is more often the result of the manner
in which the individual has been carried in infancy.” This reason
has been frequently suggested; but if there were any force in it, the
results to be looked for would rather be an alternation of hands from
generation to generation. The nurse naturally carries the child on the
left arm, with its right side toward her breast. All objects presented
to it are thus offered to the free left hand; and it is accordingly no
uncommon remark that all children are at first left-handed. If their
training while in the nurse’s arms could determine the habit, such is
its undoubted tendency; but if so, the left-handed nurses of the next
generation would reverse the process.

While, however, right-handedness is no mere acquired habit, but
traceable to specific organic structure, the opinion has been already
expressed that it is only in a limited number of cases that it is
strongly manifested.

The conclusion I am led to, as the result of long observation, is that
the preferential use of the right hand is natural and instinctive with
some persons; that with a smaller number an equally strong impulse
is felt prompting to the use of the left hand; but that with the
great majority right-handedness is largely the result of education.
If children are watched in the nursery, it will be found that the
left hand is offered little less freely than the right. The nurse
or mother is constantly transferring the spoon from the left to the
right hand, correcting the defective courtesy of the proffered left
hand, and in all ways superinducing right-handedness as a habit. But
wherever the organic structure is well developed the instinctive
preference manifests itself at a very early stage, and in the case
either of decided right-handedness or left-handedness, it matures into
a determinate law of action, which education may modify but cannot
eradicate.

My colleague, Professor James Mark Baldwin, has followed up my own
researches by instituting a systematic series of experiments on
his infant daughter, extending over nearly the whole of her first
year, with a view to ascertaining definitely the time at which the
child begins to manifest any marked preference for either hand. As
a specialist in the department of psycho-physics, he carried his
inductive research beyond the range embraced in the present treatise;
dealing with the question of feelings of efferent nervous discharge or
innervation, the motor force of memories of effortless movement, and
other conceptions of the psychologist which lie outside of the simpler
issue under consideration here. Yet they naturally follow from it; for
so soon as volition comes into conscious play, and the hand obeys the
mind, and becomes an organ of the will, the psychical element is felt
to dominate over the physical; including that very force of will which
aims at eradicating the exceptional left-handedness, and enforcing an
undeviating submission to the law of the majority.

It is unquestionably of first interest to the psychologist to inquire
not only why the child, at the early stage in which a choice of hands
is manifested, should prefer the right hand for all strong movements;
but also, whether previous experiences in the use of both hands leave
behind a sense that the nervous discharge which actuated the right hand
was stronger than that which actuated the left. But the point aimed at
here is to ascertain the originating physical initiative of determinate
action, antecedent to all memory; the precursor of any such action
stimulated by memory of an efferent current of discharge of nervous
force. For that end the following results, derived from a careful
series of observations on the voluntary actions of a healthy child
throughout its first year, are of practical significance and value.

“(1) No trace of preference for either hand was found so long as there
were no violent muscular exertions made (based on 2187 systematic
experiments in cases of free movement of hands near the body: _i.e._
right hand 585 cases, left hand 568 cases: a difference of 17 cases;
both hands 1034 cases; the difference of 17 cases being too slight to
have meaning).

“(2) Under the same conditions, the tendency to use both hands together
was about double the tendency to use either (seen from the number
of cases of the use of both hands in the statistics given above),
the period covered being from the child’s sixth to her tenth month
inclusive.

“(3) A distinct preference for the right hand in violent efforts
in reaching became noticeable in the seventh and eighth months.
Experiments during the eighth month on this cue gave, in 80 cases,
right hand 74 cases, left hand 5 cases, both hands 1 case. In many
cases the left hand followed slowly upon the lead of the right. Under
the stimulus of bright colours, from 86 cases, 84 were right-hand
cases, and 2 left-hand. Right-handedness had accordingly developed
under pressure of muscular effort.

“(4) Up to this time the child had not learned to stand or to creep;
hence the development of one hand more than the other is not due to
differences in weight between the two longitudinal halves of the body.
As she had not learned to speak, or to utter articulate sounds with
much distinctness, we may say also that right or left-handedness may
develop while the motor speech centre is not yet functioning.”[9]

[9] _Science_, vol. xvi. pp. 247, 248.

But memory of prior experiences, habit confirmed by persistent usage,
and the influence of example and education, all come into play at an
early stage, and lend confirmation to the natural bias. The potency of
such combined influences must largely affect the results in many cases
where the difference in force between the two cerebral hemispheres is
slight; and the stimulus to preferential action is consequently weak,
as in many cases it undoubtedly is, and therefore not calculated to
present any insurmountable resistance to counteracting or opposing
influences. Under the term education, as a factor developing or
counteracting the weak tendency towards either bias, must be included
many habits superinduced not only by the example of the majority, but
by their constructive appliances. So soon as the child is old enough
to be affected by such influences, the fastening of its clothes, the
handling of knife and spoon, and of other objects in daily use, help
to confirm the habit, until the art of penmanship is mastered, and
with this crowning accomplishment--except in cases of strongly marked
bias in an opposite direction,--the left hand is relegated to its
subordinate place as a supplementary organ, to be called into use when
the privileged member finds occasion for its aid.

But on the other hand, an exaggerated estimate is formed of the
difficulties experienced by a left-handed person in many of the
ordinary actions of life. It is noted by Mr. James Shaw that the
buttons of our dress, and the hooks and eyes of all female attire, are
expressly adapted to the right hand. Again, Sir Charles Bell remarks:
“We think we may conclude that, everything being adapted, in the
conveniences of life, to the right hand, as, for example, the direction
of the worm of the screw, or of the cutting end of the auger, is not
arbitrary, but is related to a natural endowment of the body. He who
is left-handed is most sensible to the advantages of this adaptation,
from the opening of the parlour door, to the opening of a penknife.”
This idea, though widely entertained, is to a large extent founded on
misapprehension. It is undoubtedly true that the habitual use of the
right hand has controlled the form of many implements, and influenced
the arrangements of dress, as well as the social customs of society.
The musket is fitted for an habitually right-handed people. So, in
like manner, the adze, the plane, the gimlet, the screw, and other
mechanical tools, must be adapted to one or the other hand. Scissors,
snuffers, shears, and other implements specially requiring the action
of the thumb and fingers, are all made for the right hand. So also
is it with the scythe of the reaper. Not only the lock of the gun or
rifle, but the bayonet and the cartridge-pouch, are made or fitted on
the assumption of the right hand being used; and even many arrangements
of the fastenings of the dress are adapted to this habitual preference
of the one hand over the other, so that the reversing of button and
button-hole, or hook and eye, is attended with marked inconvenience.
Yet even in this, much of what is due to habit is ascribed to nature.
A Canadian friend, familiar in his own earlier years, at an English
public school and university, with the game of cricket, tells me that
when it was introduced for the first time into Canada within the last
forty years, left-handed batters were common in every field; but the
immigration of English cricketers has since led, for the most part,
to the prevailing usage of the mother country. It was not that the
batters were, as a rule, left-handed, but that the habit of using the
bat on one side or other was, in the majority of cases, so little
influenced by any predisposing bias, that it was readily acquired in
either way. But, giving full weight to all that has been stated here
as to right-handed implements, what are the legitimate conclusions
which it teaches? No doubt an habitually left-handed people would have
reversed all this. But if, with adze, plane, gimlet, and screw, scythe,
reaping-hook, scissors and snuffers, rifle, bayonet, and all else--even
to the handle of the parlour door, and the hooks and buttons of his
dress,--daily enforcing on the left-handed man a preference for the
right hand, he nevertheless persistently adheres to the left hand, the
cause of this must lie deeper than a mere habit induced in the nursery.

It is a misapprehension, however, to suppose that the left-handed man
labours under any conscious disadvantage from the impediments thus
created by the usage of the majority. With rare exceptions, habit so
entirely accustoms him to the requisite action, that he would be no
less put out by the sudden reversal of the door-handle, knife-blade,
or screw, or the transposition of the buttons on his dress, than the
right-handed man. Habit is constantly mistaken for nature. The laws
of the road, for example, so universally recognised in England, have
become to all as it were a second nature; and, as the old rhyme says--

    If you go to the left, you are sure to go right;
    If you go to the right, you go wrong.

But throughout Canada and the United States the reverse is the law;
and the new immigrant, adhering to the usage of the mother country, is
sorely perplexed by the persistent wrong-headedness, as it seems, of
every one but himself.

Yet the predominant practice does impress itself on some few implements
in a way sufficiently marked to remind the left-handed operator that he
is transgressing normal usage. The candle, “our peculiar and household
planet!” as Charles Lamb designates it, has wellnigh become a thing of
the past; but in the old days of candle-light the snuffers were among
the most unmanageable of domestic implements to a left-handed man. They
are so peculiarly adapted to the right hand that the impediment can
only be overcome by the dexterous shift of inserting the left thumb
and finger below instead of above. As to the right-handed adaptation
of scissors, it is admitted by others, but I am unconscious of any
difficulty that their alteration would remove. To Carlyle, as already
noted, with his early experiences of country life, the idea of right
and left-handed mowers attempting to co-operate presented “the simplest
form of an impossibility, which but for the distinction of a ‘right
hand,’ would have pervaded all human things.” But, although the
mower’s scythe must be used in a direction in which the left hand is
placed at some disadvantage--and a left-handed race of mowers would
undoubtedly reverse the scythe--yet even in this the chief impediment
is to co-operation. The difficulty to himself is surmountable. It
is his fellow-workers who are troubled by his operations. Like the
handling of the oar, or still more the paddle of a canoe, or the use
of the musket or rifle,--so obviously designed for a right-handed
marksman,--the difficulty is soon overcome. It is not uncommon to find
a left-handed soldier placed on the left of his company when firing;
and an opportunity--hereafter referred to,--has happily presented
itself for determining the cerebral characteristics which accompany
this strongly-marked type of left-handedness. As himself incorrigibly
left-handed, the author’s own experience in drilling as a volunteer was
that, after a little practice, he had no difficulty in firing from the
right shoulder; but he never could acquire an equal facility with his
companions in unfixing the bayonet and returning it to its sheath.

But as certain weapons and implements, like the rifle and the scythe,
are specially adapted for the prevailing right hand, and some ancient
implements have been recovered in confirmation of the antiquity of the
bias; so the inveterate left-handed manipulator at times reinstates
himself on an equality with rival workmen who have thus placed him
at a disadvantage. Probably the most ancient example of an implement
expressly adapted for the right hand is the handle of a bronze sickle,
found in 1873 at the lake-dwelling of Möringen, on the Lake of
Brienne, Switzerland. Bronze sickles have long been familiar to the
archæologist, among the relics of the prehistoric era known as the
Bronze Age; and their forms are included among the illustrations of
Dr. Ferdinand Keller’s _Lake Dwellings_. But the one now referred to
is the first example that has been recovered showing the complete
hafted implement. The handle is of yew, and is ingeniously carved so
as to lie obliquely to the blade, and allow of its use close to the
ground. It is a right-handed implement, carefully fashioned so as to
adapt it to the grasp of a very small hand; and is more incapable of
use by a left-handed shearer than a mower’s scythe. Its peculiar form
is shown in an illustration which accompanies Dr. Keller’s account;
and in noting that the handle is designed for a right-handed person,
he adds: “Even in the Stone Age, it has already been noticed that the
implements in use at that time were fitted for the right hand only.”
But if so, the same adaptability was available for the left-handed
workman, wherever no necessity for co-operation required him to conform
to the usage of the majority. Instances of left-handed carpenters who
have provided themselves with benches adapted to their special use
have come under my notice. I am also told of a scythe fitted to the
requirements of a left-handed mower, who must have been content to work
alone; and reference has already been made to sets of golfing drivers
and clubs for the convenience of left-handed golfers.

    [Illustration: HANDLE OF BRONZE SICKLE, MÖRINGEN, SWITZERLAND.

                         _To face page 138._]

The truly left-handed, equally with the larger percentage of those who
may be designated truly right-handed, are exceptionally dexterous; and
to the former the idea that the instinctive impulse which influences
their preference is a mere acquired habit, traceable mainly to some
such bias as the mode of carrying in the nurse’s arms in infancy, is
utterly untenable. The value of personal experience in determining some
of the special points involved in this inquiry is obvious, and will
excuse a reference to my own observations, as confirmed by a comparison
with those of others equally affected, such as Professor Edward S.
Morse, Dr. E. A. Reeve, a former pupil of my own, and my friend, Dr.
John Rae, the Arctic explorer. The last remarked in a letter to me,
confirming the idea of hereditary transmission: “Your case as to
left-handedness seems very like my own. My mother was left-handed,
and very neat-handed also. My father had a crooked little finger on
the left hand. So have =I=.” Referring to personal experience, I may
note as common to myself with other thoroughly left-handed persons,
that, with an instinctive preference for the left hand, which equally
resisted remonstrance, proffered rewards, and coercion, I nevertheless
learned to use the pen in the right hand, apparently with no greater
effort than other boys who pass through the preliminary stages of the
art of penmanship. In this way the right hand was thoroughly educated,
but the preferential instinct remained. The slate-pencil, the chalk,
and penknife were still invariably used in the left hand, in spite
of much opposition on the part of teachers; and in later years, when
a taste for drawing has been cultivated with some degree of success,
the pencil and brush are nearly always used in the left hand. At a
comparatively early age the awkwardness of using the spoon and knife
at table in the left hand was perceived and overcome. Yet even now,
when much fatigued, or on occasion of unusual difficulty in carving a
joint, the knife is instinctively transferred to the left hand. Alike
in every case where unusual force is required, as in driving a large
nail, wielding a heavy tool, or striking a blow with the fist, as
well as in any operation demanding special delicacy, the left hand
is employed. Thus, for example, though the pen is invariably used in
the right hand in penmanship, the crow-quill and etching needle are
no less uniformly employed in the left hand. Hence, accordingly, on
proceeding to apply the test of the hand to the demotic writing of
the Egyptians, by copying rapidly the Turin enchorial papyrus already
referred to, first with the right hand and then with the left, while
some of the characters were more accurately rendered as to slope,
thickening of lines, and curve, with the one hand, and some with the
other, I found it difficult to decide on the whole which hand executed
the transcription with greater ease. In proof of the general facility
thus acquired, I may add that I find no difficulty in drawing at the
same time with a pencil in each hand, profiles of men or animals facing
each other. The attempt to draw different objects, as a dog’s head
with the one hand and a human profile with the other, is unsuccessful,
owing to the complex mental operation involved; and in this case the
co-operation is apt to be between the mind and the more facile hand.
In the simultaneous drawing of reverse profiles there is what, to
an ordinary observer, would appear to be thorough ambidexterity.
Nevertheless, while there is in such cases of ambidexterity,
characteristic of most left-handed persons, little less command of
the right hand than in those exclusively right-handed, it is wholly
acquired; nor, in my own experience, has the habit, fostered by the
practice of upwards of seventy years, overcome the preferential use of
the other hand.

When attending the meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science held at Buffalo in 1867, my attention was
attracted by the facility with which Professor Edward S. Morse used his
left hand when illustrating his communications by crayon drawings on
the blackboard. His ability in thus appealing to the eye is well known.
The Boston _Evening Transcript_, in commenting on a course of lectures
delivered there, thus proceeds: “We must not omit to mention the
wonderful skill displayed by Professor Morse in his blackboard drawings
of illustrations, using either hand with facility, but working chiefly
with the left hand. The rapidity, simplicity, and remarkable finish
of these drawings elicited the heartiest applause of his audience.”
Referring to the narrative of my own experience as a naturally
left-handed person subjected to the usual right-hand training with
pen, pencil, knife, etc., Professor Morse remarks in a letter to me:
“I was particularly struck by the description of your experiences in
the matter, for they so closely accord with my own: my teachers having
in vain endeavoured to break off the use of the left hand, which only
resulted in teaching me to use my right hand also. At a short distance,
I can toss or throw with the right hand quite as accurately as I can
with my left. But when it comes to flinging a stone or other object a
long distance, I always use the left hand as coming the most natural.
There are two things which I cannot possibly do with my right hand,
and that is to drive a nail, or to carve, cut, or whittle. For several
years I followed the occupation of mechanical draughtsman, and I may
say that there was absolutely no preference in the use of either
hand; and in marking labels, or lettering a plan, one hand was just
as correct as the other.” I may add here that in my own case, though
habitually using the pen in my right hand, yet when correcting a proof,
or engaged in other disconnected writing, especially if using a pencil,
I am apt to resort to the left hand without being conscious of the
change. In drawing I rarely use the right hand; and for any specially
delicate piece of work, should find it inadequate to the task.

The same facility is illustrated in the varying caligraphy of a letter
of Professor Morse, in which he furnished me with the best practical
illustration of the ambidextrous skill so frequently acquired by the
left-handed. He thus writes: “You will observe that the first page is
written with the right hand, the upper third of this page with the left
hand, the usual way [but with reversed slope], the middle third of the
page with the left hand, reversed [_i.e._ from right to left], and now
I am again writing with the right hand. As I have habitually used the
right hand in writing, I write more rapidly than with the other.” In
the case of Professor Morse, I may add, the indications of hereditary
transmission of left-handedness nearly correspond with my own. His
maternal uncle, and also a cousin, are left-handed. In my case, the
same habit appeared in a paternal uncle and a niece; and my grandson
manifested at an early age a decided preference for the left hand. Even
in the absence of such habitual use of both hands as Professor Morse
practises, the command of the left hand in the case of a left-handed
person is such that very slight effort is necessary to enable him
to use the pen freely with it. An apt illustration of this has been
communicated to me by the manager of one of the Canadian banks. He had
occasion to complain of the letters of one of his local agents as at
times troublesome to decipher, and instructed him in certain cases to
dictate to a junior clerk who wrote a clear, legible hand. The letters
subsequently sent to the manager, though transmitted to him by the same
agent, presented in signature, as in all else, a totally different
caligraphy. The change of signature led to inquiry; when it turned out
that his correspondent was left-handed, and by merely shifting the pen
to the more dexterous hand, he was able, with a very little practice,
to substitute for the old cramped penmanship an upright, rounded, neat,
and very legible handwriting.

In reference to the question of hereditary transmission, the evidence,
as in the case of Dr. Rae, is undoubted. Dr. R. A. Reeve, in whom also
the original left-handedness has given place to a nearly equal facility
with both hands, informs me that his father was left-handed. Again Dr.
Pye-Smith quotes from the _Lancet_ of October 1870 the case of Mr. R.
A. Lithgow, who writes to say that he himself, his father, and his
grandfather have all been left-handed. This accords with the statement
of M. Ribot in his _Heredity_. “There are,” he says, “families in which
the special use of the left hand is hereditary. Girou mentions a family
in which the father, the children, and most of the grand-children
were left-handed. One of the latter betrayed its left-handedness from
earliest infancy, nor could it be broken off the habit, though the left
hand was bound and swathed.” Such persistent left-handedness is not,
indeed, rare. In an instance communicated to me, both of the parents of
a gentleman in Shropshire were left-handed. His mother, accordingly,
watched his early manifestations of the same tendency, and employed
every available means to counteract it. His left hand was bound up
or tied behind him; and this was persevered in until it was feared
that the left arm had been permanently injured. Yet all proved vain.
The boy resumed the use of the left hand as soon as the restraint was
removed; and though learning like others to use his right hand with
facility in the use of the pen, and in other cases in which custom
enforces compliance with the practice of the majority, he remained
inveterately left-handed. Again a Canadian friend, whose sister-in-law
is left-handed, thus writes to me: “I never heard of any of the rest
of the family who were so; but one of her brothers had much more than
the usual facility in using both hands, and in paddling, chopping,
etc., used to shift about the implement from one hand to the other in
a way which I envied. As to my sister-in-law, she had great advantages
from her left-handedness. She was a very good performer on the piano,
and her bass was magnificent. If there was a part to be taken only with
one hand, she used to take the left as often as the right. But it was
at needlework that I watched her with the greatest interest. If she
was cutting out, she used to shift the scissors from one hand to the
other; and would have employed the left hand more, were it not that all
scissors, as she complained, are made right-handed, and she wished, if
possible, to procure a left-handed pair. So also with the needle, she
used the right hand generally; but in many delicate little operations
her habit was to shift it to the left hand.”

In those and similar cases, the fact is illustrated that the
left-handed person is necessarily ambidextrous. He has the exceptional
“dexterity” resulting from the special organic aptitude of the left
hand, which is only paralleled in those cases of true right-handedness
where a corresponding organic aptitude is innate. Education, enforced
by the usage of the majority, begets for him the training of the other
and less facile hand; while by an unwise neglect the majority of
mankind are content to leave the left hand as an untrained and merely
supplementary organ. From the days of the seven hundred chosen men
of the tribe of Benjamin, the left-handed have been noted for their
skill; and this has been repeatedly manifested by artists. Foremost
among such stands Leonardo da Vinci, skilled as musician, painter, and
mathematician, and accomplished in all the manly sports of his age.
Hans Holbein, Mozzo of Antwerp, Amico Aspertino, and Ludovico Cangiago,
were all left-handed, though the two latter are described as working
equally well with both hands. In all the fine arts the mastery of both
hands is advantageous; and accordingly the left-handed artist, with his
congenital skill and his cultivated dexterity, has the advantage of his
right-handed rival, instead of, as is frequently assumed, starting at a
disadvantage.




                               CHAPTER X

                         CONFLICT OF THEORIES


It now remains to consider the source to which the preferential use
of the right hand is to be ascribed. The dominant influence of the
one cerebral hemisphere in relation to the discharge of nerve force
to the opposite side of the body is a fact which is now familiar to
the physiologist, and the influence of the left cerebral hemisphere
on the action of the right hand has already been alluded to. But this
extremely probable source of right-handedness long eluded inquirers,
as will be seen from a _résumé_ of the various hypotheses suggested
by eminent anatomists and physiologists. A very slight consideration
of the evidence already adduced in proof of the same prevalent usage
from earliest times precludes the idea of its origin in any mere
prescribed custom, enforced and developed by education into a nearly
universal habit. This becomes the more manifest when it is traced back
to primæval races; found incorporated in ancient and modern, savage and
civilised languages, and uncontroverted by any evidence calculated to
discredit the indications that it was a characteristic of palæolithic
and neolithic man.

The inevitable conclusion forced on the inquirer is that the bias in
which this predominant law of dexterity originates must be traceable to
some specialty of organic structure. On this assumption one feature in
the anatomical arrangement of the most important vital organs of the
body presents such a diversity in their disposition as would seem to
offer a sufficient cause for greater energy in the limbs on one side
than on the other, if accompanied by exceptional deviations from the
normal condition corresponding to the occurrence of left-handedness;
and in this direction a solution has accordingly been sought. The
bilateral symmetry of structure, so general in animal life, seems at
first sight opposed to any inequality of action in symmetrical organs.
But anatomical research reveals the deviation of internal organic
structure from such seemingly balanced symmetry. Moreover, right or
left-handedness is not limited to the hand, but partially affects the
lower limbs, as may be seen in football, skating, in the training
of the opera-dancer, etc.; and eminent anatomists and physiologists
have affirmed the existence of a greater development throughout the
whole right side of the body. Sir Charles Bell says: “The left side
is not only the weaker, in regard to muscular strength, but also in
its vital or constitutional properties. The development of the organs
of action and motion is greatest upon the right side, as may at any
time be ascertained by measurement, or the testimony of the tailor or
shoe-maker.” He adds, indeed, “Certainly this superiority may be said
to result from the more frequent exertion of the right hand; but the
peculiarity extends to the constitution also, and disease attacks the
left extremities more frequently than the right.”

With the left-handed, the general vigour and immunity from disease
appear to be transferred to that side; and this has naturally suggested
the theory of a transposition of the viscera, and the consequent
increase of circulation thereby transferred from the one side to the
other. But the relative position of the heart is so easily determined
in the living subject, that it is surprising how much force has
been attached to this untenable theory by eminent anatomists and
physiologists. Another and more generally favoured idea traces to the
reverse development of the great arteries of the upper limbs a greater
flow of blood to the left side; while a third ascribes the greater
muscular vigour directly to the supply of nervous force dependent on
the early development of the brain on one side or the other.

So far as either line of argument prevails, it inevitably leads to the
result that the preference of the right hand is no mere perpetuation of
convenient usage, matured into an acquired, or possibly an hereditary
habit; but that it is, from the first, traceable to innate physical
causes. This, as Sir Charles Bell conceives, receives confirmation
from the fact already referred to, that right or left-handedness is
not restricted to the hand, but affects the corresponding lower limb,
and, as he believes, the whole side; and so he concludes thus: “On the
whole, the preference of the right hand is not the effect of habit, but
is a natural provision; and is bestowed for a very obvious purpose.”
Nevertheless, the argument of Sir Charles Bell is, as a whole, vague,
and scarcely consistent. He speaks indeed of right-handedness as “a
natural endowment of the body,” and his reasoning is based on this
assumption. But much of it would be equally explicable as the result of
adaptations following on an acquired habit. Its full force will come
under consideration at a later stage. Meanwhile it is desirable to
review the various and conflicting opinions advanced by other inquirers.

The theory of Dr. Barclay, the celebrated anatomist, is thus set forth
by Dr. Buchanan, from notes taken by him when a student: “The veins of
the left side of the trunk and of the left inferior extremity cross
the aorta to arrive at the vena cava; and some obstruction to the flow
of blood must be produced by the pulsation of that artery.” To this
Dr. Barclay traced indirectly the preferential use of the right side
of the body, and especially of the right hand and foot “All motions,”
he stated, “produce obstruction of the circulation; and obstruction
from this cause must be more frequently produced in the right side
than the left, owing to its being more frequently used. But the venous
circulation on the left side is retarded by the pulsation of the
aorta, and therefore the more frequent motions of the right side were
intended to render the circulation of the two sides uniform.” The idea,
if correctly reported, is a curious one, as it traces right-handedness
to the excess of a compensating force for an assumed inferior
circulation pertaining naturally to the right side; and incidentally
takes into consideration an abnormal modification affecting the
development or relative disposition of organs. Both points have been
the subject of more extended consideration by subsequent observers.
It is curious, indeed, to notice how physiologists and anatomists
have shifted their ground, from time to time, in their attempts at
a solution of what has been very summarily dismissed by others as a
very simple problem; until, as Dr. Struthers remarks, it “has ceased
to attract the notice of physiologists only because it has baffled
satisfactory explanation.”

The eminent anatomist, Professor Gratiolet, turned from the organs in
immediate contact with the arm and hand, and sought for the source of
right-handedness in another and truer direction, though he failed to
realise its full bearings. According to the Professor, in the early
stages of fœtal development the anterior and middle lobes of the
brain on the left side are in a more advanced condition than those on
the right side, the balance being maintained by an opposite condition
of the posterior lobes. Hence, in consequence of the well-known
decussation of the nerve roots, the right side of the body,--so far as
it is influenced by brain-force,--will, in early fœtal life, be better
supplied with nervous force than the left side; and thereby movements
of the right arm would precede and be more perfect than those of the
left. The bearings of this line of argument in its full compass will
come more fitly under review at a later stage.

Dr. Andrew Buchanan, Professor of Physiology in the University of
Glasgow, in a paper communicated by him to the Philosophical Society of
Glasgow in 1862, entitled “Mechanical Theory of the predominance of the
right hand over the left; or more generally, of the limbs of the right
side over those of the left side of the body,” aimed at a solution of
the question in a new way. According to him, “the preferential use of
the right hand is not a congenital but an acquired attribute of man.
It does not exist in the earliest periods of life.” Nevertheless, “no
training could ever render the left hand of ordinary men equal in
strength to the right;” for “it depends upon mechanical laws arising
out of the structure of the human body.” This theory is thus explained:
In infancy and early childhood there is no difference in power between
the two sides of the body; but so soon as the child becomes capable
of bringing the whole muscular force of the body into play, “he
becomes conscious of the superior power of his right side, a power not
primarily due to any superior force or development of the muscles of
that side, but to a purely mechanical cause. He cannot put forth the
full strength of his body without first making a deep inspiration; and
by making a deep inspiration, and maintaining afterwards the chest
in an expanded state, which is essential to the continuance of his
muscular effort, he so alters the mechanical relations of the two sides
of his body that the muscles of his right side act with a superior
efficacy; and, to render the inequality still greater, the muscles of
the left side act with a mechanical disadvantage.” Hence the preference
for the right side whenever unusual muscular power is required; and
with the greater exercise of the muscles of the right side their
consequent development follows, until the full predominance of the
right side is the result.

This theory is based not merely on the preponderance of the liver and
lungs on the right side, but on these further facts: that the right
lung is more capacious than the left, having three lobes, while the
left has only two; that the liver, the heaviest organ of the body, is
on the same side; and that the common centre of gravity of the body
shifts, more or less, towards the right, according to the greater or
less inspiration of the lungs, and the consequent inclination of the
liver resulting from the greater expansion of the right side of the
chest. Herein may possibly lie one predisposing cause leading to a
preferential use of the right side. But the evidence adduced fails to
account for what, on such a theory, become normal deviations from the
natural action of the body. The position of the liver and the influence
of a full inspiration combine, according to Dr. Buchanan, to bring
the centre of gravity of the body nearly over the right foot. Hence
in actively overcoming a resistance from above, as when the carter
bears up the shaft of his cart on his shoulder, the muscular action
originates mainly with the lower limb of the same side, which partakes
of the same muscular power and development as the corresponding upper
limb. On all such occasions, where the muscular action is brought
directly into play in overcoming the weight or resistance, Dr. Buchanan
affirms that the right shoulder is much more powerful than the left,
but in the passive bearing of weights it is otherwise. The very fact
that the centre of gravity lies on the right side gives a mechanical
advantage in the use of the left side in sustaining and carrying
burdens; and this assigned pre-eminence of the left side and shoulder,
as the bearer of burdens, is accordingly illustrated by means of an
engraving, representing “a burden borne on the left shoulder as the
summit of the mechanical axis passing along the right lower limb.”

In the year following the publication of Dr. Buchanan’s _Mechanical
Theory_, Dr. John Struthers, Professor of Anatomy in the University
of Aberdeen, communicated to the Edinburgh _Medical Journal_ a paper,
“On the relative weight of the viscera on the two sides of the body,
and on the consequent position of the centre of gravity to the right
side.” In this he shows that the viscera situated on the right side
of the medial line are on an average 22·75 oz. av. heavier than those
on the left side. The right lung, in the male, weighs 24 oz., the
left 21, giving a preponderance of 3 oz. in favour of the right. The
average weight of the heart, in the male, is 11 oz. But the left side
is not only the larger, but the thicker, and as the result of careful
experiments by Dr. Struthers, he assigns to the right side a full third
of the weight of the heart, or 3¹⁄₂ oz. for the right, and 7¹⁄₂ for the
left side. Other viscera are estimated in like manner, with the result
from the whole that the centre of gravity of the body, so far as it
depends on their weight and position, is nearly three-tenths of an inch
distant from the medial plane towards the right side. As a physical
agent constantly in operation in the erect posture, Dr. Struthers
states that this cannot but exert an influence on the attitudes and
movements of the body and limbs; and he accordingly indicates his
belief that this deviation of the centre of gravity furnishes the most
probable solution of the causes “of the preference of the right hand by
all nations of mankind.”

The value of Dr. Struthers’s determination of the exact weight and
relative eccentricity of the viscera on the two sides of the body
was fully recognised by Dr. Buchanan; and in a communication to the
Philosophical Society of Glasgow in 1877 he stated that he had been
led to greatly modify his earlier opinions. He had, as shown above,
ascribed the predominance of the right hand over the left to the
mechanical advantage which the right side has in consequence of the
centre of gravity inclining to it. But he says in his later treatise,
“I judged hastily when I inferred that this is the ground of preference
which prompts the great majority of mankind to use their right limbs
rather than their left. The position of the centre of gravity on the
right side is common to all men of normal conformation, and furnishes
to all of them alike an adequate motive, when they are about to put
forth their full strength in the performance of certain actions, to
use the limbs of the right side in preference to those of the left.
But such actions are of comparatively rare occurrence, and the theory
fails to explain why the right limbs, and more especially the right
hand, are preferred on so many occasions where no great muscular effort
is required; and fails still more signally to explain why some men
give a preference to the limbs of the left side, and others manifest
no predilection for either.” Dr. Buchanan accordingly proceeds to
show that there is not only the element of the position of the centre
of gravity as the pivot on which all the mechanical relations of the
two sides of the body turn; but there is, as he conceives, this other
and no less important element. “The centre of gravity situated on the
right side is variously placed upwards or downwards, according to the
original make or framework of the body.” In the great majority of cases
this lies above the transverse axis of the body, with a consequent
facility for balancing best, and turning most easily and securely on
the left foot, with the impulsive power effected by the muscles of the
right lower limb. Man is thus, as a rule, right-footed; and, according
to Dr. Buchanan, by a necessary consequence becomes right-handed. By
a series of diagrams he accordingly shows the assumed variations: (1)
the centre of gravity above the transverse axis, with its accompanying
right-handedness; (2) the centre of gravity corresponding with the
transverse axis, which he assigns to the ambidextrous; and (3) the
centre of gravity below the transverse axis begetting left-handedness.
The whole phenomena are thus ascribed to the instinctive sense of
equilibrium, which constitutes a nearly infallible guide in all the
movements of the human body. The greater development of the organs of
motion of the right side is therefore, as he conceives, not congenital,
but arises solely from the greater use that is made of them. The
relative position of the centre of gravity depends accordingly on the
original conformation of the body. Broad shoulders, muscular arms, a
large head and a long neck, all tend to elevate the centre point; while
the contrary result follows from width at the haunches and a great
development of the lower limbs.

The intermediate condition, in which the centre of gravity falls
upon the transverse axis, with no instinctive tendency to call into
action the muscles of the one side of the body in preference to those
of the other, constitutes, according to Dr. Buchanan, the most happy
conformation of the body. “It belongs,” he says, “more especially
to the female sex. It is this that so often renders a young girl a
perfect model of grace and agility. It is the same conformation that
enables the ballet-dancer to whirl round on her one foot till the
spectators are giddy with looking at her, when she completes her
triumph by revolving with the same ease and grace on her other foot
also.” He further adds: “If accurate statistics could be obtained, I
believe it would be found that while a very great majority of males
are right-handed, the proportion of females is less; and that, on the
contrary, a larger proportion of females than of males are ambidextrous
or left-handed.”

Consistently with the ideas thus set forth, both Dr. Buchanan and
Dr. Struthers regard right-handedness as an acquired habit, though
under the influence and control of the mechanical forces indicated by
them. “As the question,” says the latter, “in so far as it can bear
on the cause of the preference of the right hand, must turn on the
weight and position of the viscera in the child at the period when the
predominance of the right hand is being gradually developed, in the
second and third years, and afterwards, it is necessary to make the
calculation from the facts as presented in children.” In a letter to
myself he thus writes: “I have again and again verified the fact in
my own children, that in early childhood there is no preference for
one hand more than the other.” But this, as has been already shown,
may be partly due to modes of nursing and other temporary causes
affecting the child in its first infantile stage; and though it may
undoubtedly be affirmed of many, if not indeed of the majority, of
children at that stage: a certain number will be found to manifest a
distinct preference, at a very early age, for one or the other hand.
In the case of a niece of my own, the left-handedness showed itself
very soon; and in my grandson it was independently observed by his
mother and nurse, and brought under my notice, that so soon as he was
able to grasp an object and transfer it from one hand to the other,
he gave the preference to the left hand. A like decided preference
for the right hand, though doubtless also comparatively rare, is more
frequent; and the farther research is carried, the more manifest does
it appear that--whatever be the originating cause,--the preferential
use of what we designate the right hand is instinctive with a
sufficiently large number to determine the prevalent usage; while with
a smaller number an equally strong impulse is felt prompting to the
use of the left hand, in defiance of all restraining influences. It
is indeed always necessary to give full weight to the influences of
education, the whole tendency of which, from early childhood, operates
in one direction. The extent to which this is systematically employed
to develop the use of the one hand at the expense of the other, is
illustrated by the conventional rules for the use of the knife and
fork. It is not sufficient that the knife shall be invariably held in
the right hand. The child is taught to hold his knife in the right
hand and his fork in the left when cutting his food; but when either
the fork or spoon is used alone, it must forthwith be transferred
to the right hand. All voluntary employment of the left hand in any
independent action is discountenanced as awkwardness or gaucherie; and
thus, with a large majority, especially among the more refined and
conventional classes of society, it is rendered a comparatively useless
member, employed at best merely to supplement the other.

Reference has already been made to more or less definite allusions to
an exceptional prevalence of left-handedness in the Punjab, and among
the Sandwich Islanders, the Hottentots, and South African Bushmen; but
they rest apparently on very partial and limited observations. So far
as appears, it may be confidently assumed that left-handedness is
little more prevalent among the rude and uncultured classes of society,
or among savage than civilised races; as would certainly be the case if
right-handedness mainly depended on an acquired habit. The Rev. George
Brown, who has spent upwards of fourteen years as a missionary among
the Polynesians, informs me that left-handedness is as rare among the
natives of the Pacific Islands as with ourselves; while in all their
languages the distinction is clearly indicated. Dr. Rae, whose own
inveterate left-handedness was calculated to draw his attention to its
manifestation among the Indians and Eskimos with whom he was brought
into prolonged contact, only noticed such an amount of ambidextrous
facility as is naturally developed in the paddler, the trapper, and
lumberer, in the exigencies of forest and hunter life. A similar
opinion was expressed to me by Paul Kane, whose wanderings as an
artist among the tribes of British North America gave him exceptional
facilities for observation; and this conclusion accords with the
experience of members of the Canadian Geological Survey.

Turning next to the idea set forth by Dr. Buchanan as to the greater
preponderance of ambidexterity or left-handedness among females, the
results of my own observation by no means tend to confirm this. I have
already noted the case of a lady whose left-handedness is accompanied
by great dexterity. I have repeatedly met with cases of ladies who use
the needle skilfully with the left hand; but the results of inquiries
addressed to musicians and music teachers indicate that in the great
majority of cases the cultivation of the left, as the weaker or less
skilful hand, has to be sedulously enforced in the training of the
female organist and pianist. It is because left-handed pianists are
rare that their exceptional dexterity is noted, as in the case of a
Canadian lady referred to above: “She had great advantages from her
left-handedness. She was a very good performer on the piano, and her
bass was magnificent.”

Again as to the pirouetting of the trained ballet-dancer, I have been
assured that much practice is required to obtain equal facility on
either foot. Dr. Buchanan traces the development of the limbs in their
active use from the first effort of the child to stand erect; next,
the learning to balance itself and turn round on a single foot, and
so through a succession of stages, until at length “the child becomes
right-footed. It is not till long after that the right arm acquires
its predominance.” But the co-ordination of the right or left hand
and the corresponding foot is by no means so invariable as to justify
any such theory. Hopping, pirouetting, and standing on one foot are
comparatively exceptional actions. The two lower limbs are most
frequently employed in necessarily alternate locomotion. The use of the
lower limbs, moreover, is much more independent of direct conscious
volition than that of the hands, and the purposes to which their action
is applied are rarely of a nature to invite special attention to them.
There is, however, an instinctive tendency with many, if not indeed
with the majority, to use one foot in preference to the other, but
not necessarily the corresponding one to the dexterous hand, be it
right or left. In skating, for example, where military training has
not habituated to the use of the left foot in starting, most persons
have an instinctive preference for one foot. So also in football, it
is not with most players a matter of mere chance which foot will be
used in starting the ball. Possibly the same reason may help to account
for the invariable tendency of a blindfold walker to deviate to one
side or the other. It is scarcely possible to walk in a straight line
with the eyes shut. The one leg apparently tends to outwalk the other.
Guided mainly by my own experience, I remarked, when first writing on
this subject, that “the same influences appear to affect the whole left
side, as shown in hopping, skating, football,” etc. But this is partial
and uncertain. Dr. Brown-Sequard affirms that right-sidedness affects
the arms much more than the legs, and in proof of this he states that
“it is exceedingly rare that the leg is affected in the same degree
by paralysis as the arm.” Dr. Joseph Workman, for many years Medical
Superintendent of the Provincial Lunatic Asylum at Toronto, thus writes
to me: “When you say that left-footedness is (only) as frequent as
left-handedness, I am quite sure you are in error. I remember well,
when I was a boy, observing the fact among labouring men engaged in
what was called in Ireland ‘sodding’ potatoes, in ridges about five
feet wide, instead of planting in drills, that in any given number of
men, from four up to a dozen, right and left-footedness prevailed about
equally. Each pair carrying up the work of a ridge required to be right
and left-footed men. I am myself left-footed; and of eight brothers, I
believe about four were left and four right-footed. Sir Charles Bell,
in asserting that ‘no boy, unless he is left-handed, hops on the left
foot,’ asserts far more than the fact. I believe every boy will hop on
his _spade foot_; at least I do so, and I am not left-handed; and I
instinctively do so because I dig with this foot.”

Dr. Buchanan states that “in all adults who use the right hand in
preference to the left--that is, in the great majority of mankind,--the
muscles of the right side, as well as the bones and other organs of
motion, are more highly developed than those on the left side;” and
the predominance of the upper limb follows, as a rule, the previous
development of the lower limb on the same side. The power of overcoming
weight or resistance, and that of passively bearing weights, he assigns
to opposite sides,--both naturally resulting from the centre of gravity
lying on the right side. If such be the case, the great majority of
mankind should instinctively use the same side in bearing a burden. A
favourable opportunity occurred for testing this question. During a
voyage of some days in one of the large steamboats on the Mississippi
River, my attention was attracted by the deck-porters, who at every
landing are employed in transporting the freight to and from the
levee, and in supplying the vessel with cordwood. They constitute, as
a class, the rudest representatives of unskilled labour, including
both whites and negroes. For hours together they are to be seen going
at a run to and from the lower deck of the vessel, carrying sacks of
grain, bales, chests, or bundles of cordwood. Watching them closely,
I observed that some gave the preference to the right and some to the
left shoulder in bearing their burden; and this whether, as with bale
and sack, they had it placed on their shoulders by others, or, as with
cordwood, they took the load up themselves. Noting in separate columns
the use of the right and left shoulder, and in the case of loading
with cordwood the employment of the right and left hand, I found the
difference did not amount to much more than 60 per cent. In one case I
noted 137 carry the burden on the left shoulder to 81 on the right; in
another case 76 to 45; and in the case of loading cordwood, where the
natural action of the right hand is to place the burden on the left
shoulder, so that the use of the right shoulder necessarily implies
that of the left hand, the numbers were 65 using the left shoulder and
36 the right. Here, therefore, a practical test of a very simple yet
reliable kind fails to confirm the idea of any such mechanical cause
inherent in the constitution of the human frame, tending to a uniform
exertion of the right side and the passive employment of the left in
muscular action.

While thus questioning some of the assumptions and deductions set
forth by Dr. Buchanan, it must be acknowledged that his later
theory has this great advantage over other attempts to account for
right-handedness, that it equally meets the cases of deviation from
prevalent usage. No theory is worthy of serious consideration which
deals with left-handedness as an exceptional deviation from habitual
action; as where, in his earlier treatise, Dr. Buchanan expressed the
belief that many instances of left-handedness are “merely cases of
ambidextrousness, when the habit of using the left side, in whatever
way begun, has given to the muscles of that side such a degree of
development as enables them to compete with the muscles of the right
side, in spite of the mechanical disadvantages under which they
labour.” “There is an awkwardness,” he added, “in the muscular efforts
of such men which seems to indicate a struggle against nature.” But
for those indisputable cases of “men who unquestionably use their
left limbs with all the facility and efficiency with which other men
use their right,” he felt compelled either to resort to the gratuitous
assumption of “malformations and pathological lesions in early life,
diseases of the right lung, contraction of the chest from pleurisy,
enlargement of the spleen, distortions of the spine,” etc.; or to
assume a complete reversal of the whole internal organic structure.

More recently, Dr. Humphry of Cambridge has discussed the cause of
the preferential use of the right hand in his monograph on _The
Human Foot and Human Hand_, but with no very definite results. Many
attempts, he says, have been made to answer the question, Why is man
usually right-handed? “but it has never been done quite satisfactorily;
and I do not think that a clear and distinct explanation of the
fact can be given. There is no anatomical reason for it with which
we are acquainted. The only peculiarity that we can discern is a
slight difference in the disposition, within the chest, between the
blood-vessels which supply the right and left arms. This, however, is
quite insufficient to account for the disparity between the two limbs.
Moreover, the same disposition is observed in left-handed persons and
in some of the lower animals; and in none of the latter is there that
difference between the two limbs which is so general among men.” Dr.
Humphry accordingly inclines to the view that the superiority of the
right hand is not natural, but acquired. “All men,” he says, “are not
right-handed; some are left-handed; some are ambidextrous; and in all
persons, I believe, the left hand may be trained to as great expertness
and strength as the right. It is so in those who have been deprived of
their right hand in early life; and most persons can do certain things
with the left hand better than with the right.” So far, therefore,
Dr. Humphry’s decision would appear to be wholly in favour of the
conclusion that the superiority of the right hand is an acquired habit.
But after stating thus much, he adds: “Though I think the superiority
of the right hand is acquired, and is a result of its more frequent
use, the tendency to use it in preference to the left is so universal
that it would seem to be natural. I am driven, therefore, to the rather
nice distinction that, though the superiority is acquired, the tendency
to acquire the superiority is natural.”

This “nice distinction” amounts to something very like an evasion of
the real difficulty, unless we assume Dr. Humphry to mean only what
Dr. Buchanan states, that during the weakness of infancy and childhood
the two hands are used indiscriminately; and the preferential use of
one side rather than the other does not manifest itself until the
muscular system has acquired active development. All the processes by
which dexterity in the manipulation and use of tools is manifested,
are acquired, whether the right or the left hand be the one employed.
Men are not born, like ants, bees, spiders, martins, and beavers,
with carpentering, weaving, modelling, and architectural instincts,
requiring no apprenticeship or culture; though the aptitude in
mastering such arts is greater in some than in others. If the tendency
in their practice to use the right hand is natural, that is to say,
innate or congenital, then there need be no nice distinctions in
affirming it. But on any clearly defined physiological deductions
of right-handedness from the disposition of the organs of motion or
circulation, or any other uniform relation of the internal organs
and the great arteries of the upper limbs, left-handedness becomes
mysterious, if not inexplicable, unless on the assumption of a
corresponding reversal of organic structure; for Dr. Humphry’s
assertion that “in all persons the left hand may be trained to as
great expertness and strength as the right,” is contradicted by the
experience of left-handed persons in their efforts to apply the same
training to the right hand.

To the most superficial observer it is manifest that the anatomical
disposition of the vital organs is not symmetrical. The heart lies
obliquely, from above downwards, and from right to left; the trachea is
on the right side, and the right and left subclavian veins and arteries
are diversely arranged. There are also three lobes of the right lung,
and only two of the left; and the liver is on the right side. Here,
therefore, are sources of difference between the right and left
sides of the body, which, if subject to variation, offer a possible
explanation of the phenomenon that has so long baffled physiologists.
To the variations in the disposition of those organs attention has
accordingly been repeatedly directed; as in the occasional origin of
the left subclavian artery before the right, which, as hereafter noted,
Professor Hyrtl suggested as the cause of the transfer of dexterity to
the left limb. But instances have repeatedly occurred of the entire
transposition of the viscera. “There are men born,” says Dr. Buchanan,
“who may grow up and enjoy perfect health, in whom the position of all
the thoracic and abdominal viscera is reversed. There are three lobes
of the left lung and only two of the right; the liver is on the left
side, and the heart is on the right; and so forth.” Those and other
malformations, as well as pathological lesions, especially if they
occur in early life, may affect the relative power of the two sides;
and Dr. Buchanan at a later date reported a case that came under his
own notice, in which the entire transposition of the viscera coexisted
with left-handedness. But he had already adopted the mechanical theory,
subsequently modified, as explained above; and it is only in a closing
remark in his paper of 1862 that he makes a passing reference to this
remarkable coincidence.

Professor Hyrtl of Vienna, the eminent anatomist already referred
to, in discussing the cause of left-handedness in his _Handbuch der
Topographischen Anatomie_ (1860), affirms a correspondence between the
ratio of left-handed persons and the occurrence of certain deviations
from the normal arrangements of the blood-vessels. “It happens,” he
says, “in the proportion of about two in a hundred cases, that the
left subclavian artery has its origin _before_ the right, and in
these cases left-handedness exists, as it also often actually does in
the case of complete transposition of the internal organs; and it is
found that the proportion of left-handed to right-handed persons is
also about two to one hundred.” Professor Hyrtl thinks that ordinarily
the blood is sent into the right subclavian under a greater pressure
than into the left, on account of the relative position of these
vessels; that in consequence of the greater supply of blood, the
muscles are better nourished and stronger; and that therefore the
right extremity is more used. In cases of anomalous origin of the left
subclavian, etc., the reverse occurs, and therefore the left hand
is employed in preference. The theory of Professor Hyrtl has this
feature to recommend it, that it assigns a cause for the prevalent
habit, which, if confirmed, would equally account for the exceptional
left-handedness; and no proffered solution of the question, founded
on organic structure, is deserving of attention which fails to do so.
But the statistics of such internal organic structure are not, like
those of the transposition of the heart and immediately related organs,
accessible in the living subject, unless in very rare exceptions;
and the occurrence of one or two cases in which the deviation from
the normal arrangement of the artery, or the entire transposition of
the viscera, is found to coexist with left-handedness, may only be
misleading.

A correspondent of _Nature_ (9th June 1870) refers to a case of
transposition of the origin of the right subclavian artery, disclosed
by the occurrence of aneurism, where the person was ascertained to have
been undoubtedly right-handed. In the following year an interesting
article by Dr. Pye-Smith appeared in the _Guy’s Hospital Reports_, and
was subsequently reprinted, with additions, under the title of “The
connection of Left-handedness with transposition of Viscera and other
supposed anatomical causes.” In this the author states that he found
the deviation from the normal arrangement of the primary branches of
the aorta, in which the right subclavian arises from the third part
of the aortic arch, to occur four times in 296 dissections. As this
variation, he says, “cannot be recognised during life, its connection
with left-handedness is not easy to investigate. But in one case,
at least, Dr. Peacock ascertained for me that the subject of this
abnormality, whose heart and arteries he had examined for another
purpose, was right-handed during life.” Any one can tell on which side
his heart lies; but the disposition of the subclavian artery is wholly
beyond his cognisance; and, indeed, Professor Hyrtl, while referring to
this abnormal organisation as one probable cause of left-handedness,
does not affirm more than that the one has been ascertained in some
cases to be an accompaniment of the other. The evidence that in other
cases it has been unaccompanied by left-handedness shows that it is no
necessary source of deviation from normal action.

The other theory, that left-handedness is an inevitable accompaniment
of the transposition of the viscera, is more easily tested. It is one
that has been repeatedly suggested; and has not only received the
sanction of Professor Hyrtl, but is supported by some undoubted cases
in which the two conditions coexisted. But, as Dr. Pye-Smith remarks,
“a few such instances only prove that transposition of the viscera does
not _prevent_ the subject of the abnormality from being left-handed.
Though attention has hitherto been little drawn to this point, there
are enough cases already recorded to show that for a person with
transposed viscera to be left-handed is a mere coincidence.” In
confirmation of this, Dr. Pye-Smith refers to four cases, one of which
came under his own observation in Guy’s Hospital, where the subjects
of the abnormal disposition of the viscera had been right-handed. In
the _Rochester_ (N.Y.) _Express_ of October 1877 a notice appeared
of an autopsy on the body of George Vail, of Whitby, Ontario, who
had recently died in the Rochester Hospital. Dr. Stone, as there
stated, “noticed upon the first examination, when the patient came for
treatment, that there was what is technically called ‘juxtaposition
of the heart,’ which is a very rare condition. He was gratified at
the autopsy to have his diagnosis confirmed, the heart being found on
the right side of the body instead of the left.” I immediately wrote
to Whitby, and in reply was informed that no one had ever noticed
in Vail any indication of his being left-handed. A similar case of
the transposition of the viscera, in which, nevertheless, the person
was right-handed, recorded by M. Géry, is quoted in Cruveillier’s
_Anatomie_ (i. 65). Another is given by M. Gachet, in the _Gazette
des Hospitaux_, 31st August 1861; and a third in the _Pathological
Transactions_, Vol. XIX. p. 147 (_Nature_, 28th April 1870). This
evidence suffices to prove that there is no true relation between
the transposition of the viscera and left-handedness. Dr. Struthers
has shown that “as far as the viscera alone are concerned, the right
side is at least 22³⁄₄ ounces heavier than the left, and that this is
reduced 7³⁄₄ ounces by the influence of the contents of the stomach,
leaving a clear preponderance of at least 15 ounces in favour of the
right side.” The preponderance of the right side, he adds, is probably
considerably greater than 15 ounces, and it is rendered still more so
in the erect posture. The total weight of viscera on the right side he
states at 50³⁄₄ ounces, while that of the left side is only 28 ounces,
giving a visceral preponderance on the right side of 22³⁄₄ ounces.
But if this relative excess of weight on the right side be the true
source of right-handedness, the transposition of the viscera ought to
be invariably accompanied with a corresponding change. A single example
of the preponderant cause, unaccompanied by the assumed effect, is
sufficient to discredit the theory.




                              CHAPTER XI

                            HAND AND BRAIN


There remains to be considered the source suggested by Professor
Gratiolet, when he turned from the organs in immediate contact with
the arm and hand to the cerebral centre of nerve force. The statements
advanced by him that the anterior convolutions of the left side of
the brain are earlier developed than those of the right, when taken
in connection with the well-known decussation of the nerve-roots,
would account for the earlier development of the muscles and nerves
of the right arm; but his opinion has been controverted by competent
observers. This, however, does not dispose of the question. The
localisation of the mental operations of speaking, naming, and writing
in certain specific cerebral centres, and the recognised functional
relations of those word-centres with other active cerebration, have
given a new significance to the vital action of the brain as the
seat of nerve-force. It was only in 1861 that M. Broca definitely
assigned the posterior part of the third frontal convolution of the
left hemisphere as the seat of articulate speech. More recently this
has been followed up by observations suggestive of some possible
correlation between the reflex action of the cerebral hemispheres on
the limbs; but it has thus far been no more than a passing allusion,
tending to beget observation of possible coincidences, such as
may be found between left-handedness and either an accompanying
transposition of the seat of articulate speech to the right hemisphere,
or some prevailing characteristic of the degree of word-memory in
the left-handed. A recent observer, Dr. J. Batty Tuke, definitely
affirms that “the large proportion of cases of ataxic aphasia occur in
association with right-sided hemiplegia, although others are on record
in which it has appeared in connection with left-sided hemiplegia in
left-handed persons” (_Encyc. Britann._, art. “Aphasia”). In those an
intimate relation is thus established between right or left-handedness
and the development of the opposite cerebral hemisphere.

The special limitation of the researches of Dr. Guiseppe of Pisa to
“the writing of left-handed persons” naturally directed his attention
to this element of cerebration. “Clinical observation and pathological
anatomy,” he remarks, “have clearly shown that in the foot of the
second frontal convolution of the left cerebral hemisphere there is
located a centre for the co-ordination and the memory of the movements
of writing. The destruction of this centre produces _agraphia_, that
is to say, inability to co-ordinate and remember the movements for
writing. This graphic centre is situated on the left hemisphere in
right-handed persons.” At the same time he is careful to assert that
both in this writing-centre, and in that of the foot of the third
frontal convolution, to which is assigned the co-ordination and
memory of the movements for articulate speech: in the case of lesions
impairing their powers, it has been found possible to stimulate the
corresponding centres of the opposite hemisphere so as in more or less
degree to perform their functions; just as the dormant left hand may be
educated to take the place of the paralysed or amputated right hand.

Dr. Guiseppe thus proceeds: “In left-handed persons the centres of the
neuro-psychic factors of language are situate in the right hemisphere,
as has been shown by well-studied cases. These persons, however, learn
to write with the right hand and not with the left. And yet in their
right hemisphere there is a potentiality which is very favourable for
their education in the co-ordination and the memory of the movements
for writing. Left-handed persons perceive that they could learn to
write with greater facility with the left hand than with the right; but
education succeeds in awaking and conveniently bringing into action in
the left-hand sphere a latent cortical centre, which did not present
so favourable a potentiality as that of the right hemisphere. The
possibility of investigating what influence in left-handed persons
practice with the right hand might develop in the left hemisphere for
the explication of language, would certainly constitute a theme for
important study” (_Archivio Italiano_, September 1890, pp. 306, 307).

With the attention that is now definitely given to this assignment
of the preferential use of one or the other hand to greater or
less development of the opposite cerebral hemisphere, renewed
observation has been directed to the cerebral source of predominant
right-handedness. The discussions in the columns of _Science_,
suggested by Professor Baldwin’s study of its first manifestations,
have revived the reference of it to the assumed excess in development
of the left cerebral hemisphere. Dr. T. O’Connor of New York thus
reasserts it as an unquestionable though little-known fact: “But it
may not be generally known that the left cerebral hemisphere is larger
than the right, its inner face (at the great longitudinal fissure)
coming very near to the middle line, while the corresponding inner edge
of the right hemisphere is well to the right of the median line. The
existence, then, of greater nutrition and greater functionating ability
in the left hemisphere might well be assumed. But that there is a
reason for the greater size, development, etc., of the left hemisphere
is evidenced by a study of the conditions of blood-supply to the two
hemispheres. The left carotid artery ascends almost perpendicularly,
so as to form, as it were, an elongation of the ascending aorta, while
the right carotid is given off from the _arteria innominata_. The
right vertebral artery is given off by the subclavian after the latter
has described its arch and become horizontal, but the left vertebral
arises from the apex of the subclavian’s curve. There is thus the
distinct advantage to the left hemisphere of a better blood-supply
because of the much straighter course taken by the great channels
carrying it” (_Science_, 12th December 1890).

This idea of a greater development of the left cerebral hemisphere
has been the subject of considerable diversity of opinion. A marked
difference in the weight of the two hemispheres has indeed been
repeatedly asserted by well-qualified observers as the result of
careful investigation. M. Broca stated that in forty brains he found
the left frontal lobe heavier than the right; and Dr. Boyd, when
describing the results obtained by him from observations on upwards
of 500 brains of patients in the St. Marylebone Hospital, says: “It
is a singular fact, confirmed by the examination of nearly 200 cases
at St. Marylebone, in which the hemispheres were weighed separately,
that almost invariably the weight of the left exceeded that of the
right by at least the eighth of an ounce.” Dr. Brown-Sequard also,
as hereafter noted, makes this apparent excess in weight of the left
hemisphere of the brain the basis of very comprehensive deductions.
Again Dr. Bastian affirms, as a result of careful observation, that
the specific gravity of the gray matter from the fronted, parietal,
and occipital convolutions respectively is often slightly higher on
the left than it is on the right hemisphere. The opinion is thus
sustained by some of the most eminent physiologists who have given
special attention to the brain and its functions. But, on the other
hand, Professor Wagner and Dr. Thurnam both state that their careful
independent investigations failed to confirm the results arrived at
by M. Broca and Dr. Boyd. From the weighing of the two hemispheres of
eighteen distinct brains, Professor Wagner found the right hemisphere
the heavier in ten, and the left in six cases, while in the remaining
two they were of equal weight. Dr. Thurnam, without entering into
details, states that the results of his weighings did not confirm
Dr. Boyd’s observations; adding that “fresh careful observations are
certainly needed before we can admit the general preponderance of the
left hemisphere over the right.” Though the two hemispheres of the
brain are sufficiently distinct, they are united at the base; and even
with the most careful experimenters, the section through the cerebral
peduncles and the corpus callosum is so delicate an operation that a
very slight bias of the operator’s hand may affect the results. That
a difference, however, is occasionally demonstrable in the weight of
the two hemispheres is unquestionable, and the whole tendency of the
most recent investigation is to sustain the hypothesis which refers the
cause of left-handedness to an exceptional excess of nervous force in
the right cerebral hemisphere. But the results to be anticipated from
the partial character of the bias in the majority of the right-handed
would tend to suggest a doubt as to the full acceptance of the
statement of Dr. O’Connor adduced above. It is rather in accordance
with what has already been affirmed as to the very partial prevalence
of any strongly defined bias in the majority for the preferential
use of either hand, that many brains should come under the notice of
careful observers where little or no difference can be found between
the two hemispheres. But weight is not the only element of variation.
Dr. Bastian, in _The Brain as an Organ of Mind_, draws attention to the
unsymmetrical development of the two hemispheres as one of the most
notable peculiarities of the human cerebrum. This is not only the case
with reference to the number and arrangement of the convolutions, but
it has been noted by various anatomists that the left hemisphere is
very frequently slightly longer than its fellow.

But interesting light has been thrown by pathological observations on
the comparative relations of the cerebral hemispheres; and in this
more than in any other direction we may look for further elucidation.
As already noted, Sir Charles Bell affirms a general inferiority in
muscular strength and in vital properties of the left side of the body,
and a greater liability to disease in the left extremities than the
right. On the other hand, Dr. O’Connor refers a greater susceptibility
to disease of the left hemisphere of the brain to what he assumes
as the source of superior vital force. Having assigned the causes
of greater development as already cited, he proceeds to affirm that
“the greater directness of communication between the heart and left
hemisphere explains the greater readiness with which the latter is
subjected to certain forms of disease. A clot of fibrine whipped off
a diseased valve is carried much more readily because of the direct
route (_viâ_ the carotid) to the left hemisphere; and in conditions
of degenerative weakness of the arteries in general, those of the
left hemisphere being subjected to greater pressure in their distal
ramifications, will be more apt to yield than corresponding ones in
the right.”

Dr. Bastian, when commenting in his _Brain as an Organ of Mind_ on
the specific location of the cerebral function of articulate speech
in the third left convolution of the brain, remarks: “It has been
thought that a certain more forward condition of development of the
left hemisphere--as a result of hereditary right-handedness recurring
through generation after generation,--might gradually become sufficient
to cause the left hemisphere to take the lead in the production of
speech-movements. Some little evidence exists, though at present it
is very small, to show that it is left-handed people more especially
who may become aphasic by a lesion of the right third frontal gyrus.”
Dr. Bastian further assumes it to be indisputable that the greater
preponderance of right-hand movements in ordinary individuals must tend
to produce a more complex organisation of the left than of the right
hemisphere; and this both in its sensory and motor regions. With the
left-handed, however, so many motives are constantly at work tending to
call the right hand into play, that the compensating influences must
in their case tend to check any inequality in the development of the
two hemispheres; so that there would seem rather to be a probability
in favour of a more equable, and consequently healthful development of
both cerebral hemispheres in the left-handed, but really ambidextrous
manipulator. But it is to be noted that while Dr. Bastian recognises a
correlation between the development of one or other cerebral hemisphere
and the greater dexterity of the opposite hand, he is inclined to
recognise right or left-handedness as the cause rather than the effect.

Dr. Brown-Sequard, who strongly favours the idea of superiority, both
in size and weight, of the left over the right cerebral hemisphere,
also ascribes the source of this to the greater frequency and energy
of all right-hand movements. He reverts to an argument derived from
left-handedness when discussing his theory that the two hemispheres
practically constitute two distinct brains, each sufficient in itself
for the full performance of nearly all mental operations; though each
has also its own special functions, among which is the control over the
movements and the organs of opposite sides of the body. “Every organ,”
he says, “which is put in use for a certain function gets developed,
and more apt or ready to perform that function. Indeed, the brain
shows this in point of mere size; for the left side of the brain, which
is used most, is larger than the right side. The left side of the brain
also receives a great deal more blood than the right side, because its
action preponderates; and every organ that acts much receives more
blood.” He accordingly affirms that the growth of the brain up to forty
years of age, if not indeed to a considerably later period of life, is
sufficiently marked to require the continued enlargement of the hat.
The evidence he adduces, based on observing that a hat laid aside for
a time and then resumed, always proved to be too small, is probably
deceptive. But the growth of the adult brain is no longer disputed.
It was indeed affirmed by earlier physiologists, as by Sœmmering,
the Wenzels, and Tiedemann, that the brain attained its greatest
development not later than seven or eight years of age. But this idea
is now entirely abandoned; and--without going so far as to affirm with
Dr. Brown-Sequard, who claims that at the age of fifty-seven he found
by the test of hat measurement that his head had enlarged within every
six months,--the latest observers adduce proof of continuous increase
of brain weight, if not of bulk, until the greatest average weight is
reached between thirty and forty years of age.

On the assumption of Dr. Brown-Sequard that the left hemisphere of
the brain exceeds that of the right both in size and weight: in the
deviations from this normal condition there ought to be found the
corresponding development of the organ brought into use. But, like
most other right-handed reviewers of the phenomena of left-handedness,
he fails to appreciate the bearings of his own argument in the case
of a left-handed person conforming in many ways to the usage of the
majority, yet instinctively giving the preference to the left hand.
He dwells on the fact that very few left-handed persons have learned
to write with the left hand, and that those who can do not write
nearly so well with it as with the right hand. Even in persons who
are left-handed naturally, so that the right side of the brain may be
assumed to control the reasoning faculties and their expression, he
argues that the left side of the brain “can be so educated that the
right hand, which that side of the brain controls, produces a better
handwriting than that by the left hand, though that is controlled
by the better developed brain.” But the reasoning is alike partial
and misleading. The left-handed person systematically submits to
disabilities in his efforts to comply with the usage of the majority,
not only in holding his pen in the right hand, but in the direction and
slope of the writing. A left-handed race would naturally write from
right to left, sloping the letters towards the left, and so would place
the right-handed penman at a like disadvantage, wholly independent
of any supposed change in the functions or preponderating energy of
either hemisphere of the brain. But even in the absence of practice,
the command of the left hand in the case of a truly left-handed person
is so great that very slight effort is required to enable him to write
with ease with that hand.

Reverting once more to the singularly interesting phenomena whereby
in certain conditions of cerebral disease, or local injury, the
correlation between articulate speech, writing, and even the
unconscious expressiveness of gestures, used certain specific
convolutions of the left hemisphere, Dr. Pye-Smith says: “The opinion
that some difference between the two sides of the brain has to do
with our preference for the right hand over the left may, perhaps,
be supported by two very interesting cases of aphasia occurring in
left-handed persons, recorded by Dr. Hughlings Jackson and Dr. John
Ogle. In both these patients there was paralysis of the _left_ side;
so that it seems likely that in these two left-handed people the right
half of the brain had the functions, if not the structure, which
ordinarily belong to the left. To these cases may be added a very
remarkable one published by Dr. Wadham (_St. George’s Hospital Report_,
1869). An ambidextrous or partially left-handed lad was attacked with
left hemiplegia and loss of speech; he had partly recovered at the
time of his death, twelve months later, and then the right insula and
adjacent parts were found softened.”

The remarkable difference in the convolutions of different brains,
and the consequent extent of superficies of some brains over others
apparently of the same size, have been matter of special observation,
with results lending confirmation to the idea that great development
of the convolutions of the brain is the concomitant of a corresponding
manifestation of intellectual activity. But the complexity in the
arrangement of these convolutions, and the consequent extent of
superficies, often differ considerably in the two hemispheres of
the same brain. The variations in shape and arrangement of the
convolutions in either hemisphere may be no more than the accidental
folds of the cerebral mass, in its later development in the chamber
of the skull; and within ordinary limits they probably exercise no
appreciable influence on physical or mental activity.

In so far as right-handedness is a result of organic structure, and
not a mere acquired habit, some trace of it should be found in the
lower animals, though in a less degree. Dr. Buchanan, in discussing his
_Mechanical Theory_, notes that, “while the viscera of the quadruped
have the same general lateralised position as in man, there is a reason
why this should be carried to a greater extent in man than in the
quadruped, owing to the much greater lateral development of the chest
and abdomen of the human figure, in order to adapt it to the erect
posture, as contrasted with the great lateral flattening of the trunk
in quadrupeds. The equipoise is therefore more disturbed in man than in
the quadruped.” In the case of the monkey, its necessities as a climber
no doubt tend to bring all its limbs into constant use; but, possibly,
careful study of the habits and gestures of monkeys may disclose, along
with their ambidextrous skill, some traces of a preference for the
limbs on the one side. The elephant has been repeatedly affirmed to
betray a strongly marked right-sidedness; and this is reiterated in a
communication by Mr. James Shaw to the Anthropological section of the
British Association, where he notes the “curious fact that elephants
have been frequently known to use the right tusk more than the left
in digging up roots, and in doing other things.” But the statement
is vague, and, even if confirmed by adequate proof, can scarcely be
regarded as the equivalent of right-handedness. In dogs it may be
noticed that they rarely move in the direct line of their own body, but
incline to one side or the other, the right hind-foot stepping into
the print of the left fore-foot, or _vice versâ_. In the horse, as in
other quadrupeds, a regular alternation in the pace is manifest, except
when modified by education for the requirements of man. I experienced
no difficulty in teaching a favourite dog to give the right paw; and no
child could more strongly manifest a sense of shame than he did when
reproved for the gaucherie of offering the wrong one. The saddle horse
is trained to prefer the right foot to lead with in the canter; while
the same animal is educated differently when destined for a lady’s
use; but I have been informed by two experienced veterinary surgeons
that, while some horses learn with very slight training to start with
the right foot, others require long and persevering insistency before
they acquire the habit. A curious relation between man and the lower
animals in the manifestation of the organic influences here noted is
indicated by a writer in the _Cornhill Magazine_, when, referring to
the well-ascertained fact that aphasia is ordinarily accompanied with
disease of the right side of the brain, he says: “Right-sidedness
extends to the lower races. Birds, and especially parrots, show
right-sidedness. Dr. W. Ogle has found that few parrots perch on the
left leg. Now parrots have that part at least of the faculty of speech
which depends on the memory of successive sounds, and of the method
of reproducing such imitation of them as a parrot’s powers permit;
and it is remarkable that their left brain receives more blood and is
better developed than the right brain.” The same writer expresses his
doubt as to monkeys showing any tendency to right-handedness; but with
the constant use and training of the hands by the Quadrumana in their
arboreal life, opportunities for the manifestation of any instinctive
preference for either hand must be rare; and is likely to elude all
but the most watchful observers.

A paper was communicated by Dr. Delaunay to the Anthropological Society
of France, on the subject of right-handedness. I only know of it by an
imperfect notice, in which he is reported to look on the preferential
use of the right hand as a differentiation arising from natural
selection, while he regards ambidexterity as a mere “survival.” But Dr.
Pye-Smith long ago remarked that “it is clear that in the progress of
civilisation one or other hand would come to be selected for the more
characteristic human actions for which only one is necessary, such as
wielding a pen or other weapon;” but he recognises the insufficiency
of the suggestion, and adds in a footnote: “The difficult point is to
guess by what process the right rather than the left hand has been so
universally preferred.” He then glances at possible guidance to be
derived from the study of the habits of savage tribes, though still
the old difficulty recurs; and he thus proceeds: “In default of any
better suggestion, might one suggest an hypothesis of the origin of
right-handedness from modes of fighting, more by way of illustration
than as at all adequate in itself? If a hundred of our ambidextrous
ancestors made the step in civilisation of inventing a shield, we may
suppose that half would carry it on the right arm and fight with the
left, the other half on the left and fight with the right. The latter
would certainly, in the long run, escape mortal wounds better than
the former, and thus a race of men who fought with the right hand
would gradually be developed by a process of natural selection.” The
recognition of the shield-hand, and the passive functions assigned
to it, has already been referred to as one familiar to the ancient
Greek and Roman, and no doubt to other and earlier nations. But
here it is diverted to the service of one of the latest aspects of
evolutionary development, and becomes the begetter instead of the
product of left-handedness. To this idea of right-handedness as one
of the results of a survival of the fittest, Dr. Delaunay adds the
statement, professedly based on facts which he has accumulated, that
ambidexterity is common among idiots. The results noted probably
amount to no more than the negative condition of general imbecility,
in which the so-called ambidexterity of the idiot involves, not an
exceptional skill in the left hand, equalising it with the right, but
only a succession of feeble and often aimless actions manifesting
an equal lack of dexterity in either hand. Where left-handedness is
strongly developed, it is, on the contrary, not only accompanied with
more than average dexterity in the organ thus specialised, but also
with a command of the use of the right hand, acquired by education,
which gives the individual an advantage over the great majority of
right-handed men. The surprise occasionally manifested at any display
of dexterity by left-handed performers, as though it were accomplished
under unusual disadvantages, is altogether unjustified. In reality,
a strongly developed left-handedness is, equally with a strongly
developed right-handedness, an indication of exceptional dexterity.
Such skill as that of the left-handed slingers of the tribe of Benjamin
is in no way exceptional. All truly left-handed, as well as all truly
right-handed persons, are more likely to be _dexterous_ than those who
are unconscious of any strong impulse to the use of either hand. The
bias, whether to the right or the left, is, I feel assured, the result
of special organic aptitude. With the majority no well-defined bias
betrays any unwonted power, and they merely follow in this, as in so
much else, the practice of the predominant number. But there is no such
difference between the two hands as to justify the extent to which,
with the great majority, one is allowed to become a passive and nearly
useless member. The left hand ought to be educated from the first no
less than the right, instead of leaving its training to be effected,
imperfectly and with great effort, in later life, to meet some felt
necessity.

Dr. Brown-Sequard, in one of his latest discussions of the closely
related, though much more comprehensive question, “Have we two brains?”
remarks: “We have a great many motor elements in our brain and our
spinal cord which we absolutely neglect to educate. Such is the case
with the elements which serve for the movements of the left hand.
Perhaps fathers and mothers will be more ready to develop the natural
powers of the left hand of a child, giving it thereby two powerful
hands, if they believe, as I do, that the condition of the brain and
spinal cord would improve if all their motor and sensitive elements
were fully exercised.” Without entering on the discussion of the larger
question of the specific duality of the brain, experience shows that
wherever the early and persistent cultivation of the full use of both
hands has been carried out, the result is greater efficiency, without
any counterbalancing defect. Under no enforcement of a violation
of his innate impulses does the left-handed person ever exchange
hands. He acquires an educated right hand and retains the dexterity
of the left. In those cases where, by reason of injury or disease,
the sufferer is compelled to resort to the neglected hand even late
in life, it proves quite possible to train it to sufficient aptitude
for all ordinary requirements. It is therefore obviously the duty of
parents and teachers to encourage the habitual use of both hands; and
in the case of manifest left-handedness, to content themselves with
developing the free use of the right hand without suppressing the
innate dexterity of the left. My own experience, as one originally
left-handed, is that, in spite of very persistent efforts on the part
of teachers to suppress all use of the left hand, I am now thoroughly
ambidextrous, though still with the left as the more dexterous hand.
I use the pen in the right hand but the pencil in the left; so that,
were either hand disabled, the other would be at once available for
all needful operations. Yet at the same time the experience of a long
life assures me that scarcely any amount of training will suffice to
invest the naturally sinister hand, whether it be the right or the
left, with the dexterity due to innate, congenital, and therefore
ineradicable causes. Nevertheless we are bimanous in the best sense,
and are meant to have the free unrestrained use of both hands. In
certain arts and professions both hands are necessarily called into
play. The skilful surgeon finds an enormous advantage in being able
to transfer his instrument from one hand to the other. The dentist
has to multiply instruments to make up for the lack of such acquired
power. The fencer who can transfer his weapon to the left hand, places
his adversary at a disadvantage. The lumberer finds it indispensable
in the operations of his woodcraft to learn to chop timber right and
left-handed; and the carpenter may be frequently seen using the saw
and hammer in either hand, and thereby not only resting his arm, but
greatly facilitating his work. In all the fine arts the mastery of
both hands is advantageous. The sculptor, the carver, the draftsman,
the engraver, and cameo-cutter, each has recourse at times to the left
hand for special manipulative dexterity; the pianist depends little
less on the left hand than the right; and as for the organist, with the
numerous pedals and stops of the modern grand organ, a quadrumanous
musician would still find reason to envy the ampler scope which a
Briareus could command. On the other hand, it is no less true that,
while the experience of every thoroughly left-handed person shows the
possibility of training both hands to a capacity for responding to the
mind with promptness and skill: at the same time it is apparent that in
cases of true left-handedness there is an organic specialisation which
no enforced habit can wholly supersede.

Having determinately arrived at the conclusion that the source
of right-handedness, and so of the exceptional occurrence of
left-handedness, is to be sought for in the preponderant development
of one or other hemisphere of the brain, and that, therefore, the
test has to be sought in the examination of the brains of persons
of exceptional dexterity, whether in the use of their right or left
hand, the difficulty has been to obtain the desired objects of study.
A considerable number of observations are desirable; and those can
only be gradually accumulated as opportunities present themselves
to observant students. As already noted, men of the first eminence
have differed on the question of the greater weight of the left than
of the right cerebral hemisphere; nor does a study of the ordinary
manifestations of right-handedness encourage us to expect a very
marked difference in the cerebral hemispheres in the majority of men.
It need not therefore surprise us to find so able and experienced
an observer as Dr. Thurnam reviewing the data published by Boyd,
Brown-Sequard, and Broca, and expressing as his final conviction
that further careful observations are needed before the general
preponderance of the left hemisphere over the right can be accepted as
an established truth.

As already noted, Dr. Boyd gives as the result of his observations on
upwards of 500 human brains, that the weight of the left hemisphere
almost invariably proved to be in excess of that of the right. In forty
cases Dr. Broca found similar results, and observers of less note
confirm them; so that but for the eminent authorities by whom those
conclusions have been challenged, it would seem presumptuous to refuse
them acceptance. But, countenanced by this conflict of opinion, it may
be permissible to review the question in the narrower aspect of the
present inquiry. Testing it then by a reverse process, and assuming
hypothetically that the exceptionally dexterous right-handed man
will be found to have the left hemisphere the heavier, and the true
left-handed man _vice versâ_, the results arrived at by Dr. Boyd are
altogether in excess of what might be anticipated. The number of the
exceptionally dexterous right-handed, with an invincible instinctive
preference for the use of that hand, though large in comparison with
the no less dexterous left-handed, are nevertheless a minority. Habit,
social usage, and education in all its forms, in the school, the
drawing-room, the workshop, in all the arts of peace, and in nearly
every operation of war, have so persistently fostered the development
of the favourite hand that it is scarcely possible to arrive at any
reliable statistics in proof of the initial proclivities of the large
majority of conformists. Only a prolonged series of observations such
as those already noted by Professor Baldwin, made at the first stage
of life, and based on the voluntary and the unprompted actions of the
child, can supply the needful data. But the careful observations of
many years, prompted by a desire to master the source of an exceptional
instinctive habit, have convinced me that the bias towards the
preferential use of either hand in many, probably in the majority of
cases, is slight. It is sufficient to lead to their following the
practice of the determinately right-handed majority, but would not in
itself present an obstacle to conformity to any prevalent usage, or
to the influence of education. If then the preference of either hand
furnishes any index of the relative development of the two cerebral
hemispheres, what we may reasonably look for is a certain considerable
percentage of brains with the weight of the left hemisphere in
excess; a small percentage equally definitely characterised by the
preponderance in the right hemisphere; while in the average brain
the difference will be so slight as to be apt to escape observation.
It is further to be noted that if the habitual use of the right hand
tends in any degree to stimulate the development of the left cerebral
hemisphere, then the examples of strongly-marked cases of such must
greatly exceed those of the reverse type; since the left-handed man is
almost invariably ambidextrous, and so subjects both hemispheres to the
frequent stimulus of efferent nerve-force.

If the attention of physiologists devoted to cerebral investigations
is specially turned to the present aspect of research, cases of
well-marked left-handed patients, or what is manifestly of even
greater significance, of exceptionally dexterous right-handed patients,
in hospitals, asylums, and gaols, will from time to time present
themselves. It has indeed been affirmed that left-handedness prevails
among the “light-fingered” experts who find frequent lodging in our
gaols. The statement rests on no basis of statistical evidence;
but I can readily imagine that a left-handed pickpocket turning
his exceptional dexterity to account, might find at times the same
advantage that Ehud, the son of Gera the Benjamite, derived from using
the hand ordinarily recognised as passive or inert. As to the more
daring burglar, his sinister dexterity fills peaceful householders with
trepidation as soon as the rumour transpires of his presence in their
midst. In reality, however, the fancied prevalence of left-handedness
among savages, criminals, and idiots, is a mere reflex of the long
prevalent misconception that the preferential use of the left hand is
solely due to acquired habit, incurable awkwardness, and incapacity.
This is an idea that has often checked the development of exceptional
dexterity and a full command of both hands.

Meanwhile it is only in so far as the hand may prove to be an index
of the brain that observation is possible on the living subject. If
the transposition of the viscera, and the exceptional pressure of the
heart on the right, instead of the left side, were the source or the
unvarying concomitant of left-handedness this could be tested with
ease on the living subject. But the brain is beyond our reach; though
pathological phenomena, along with the results of vivisection in
the study of lower animal life, have thrown a flood of light on its
functions; as well as on the localisation of specific cerebrations in
their relation to sense, to language, and to general perceptions as
elements of mental action.

A monograph on left-handedness, ultimately printed in the _Proceedings
of the Royal Society of Canada for 1886_, was long delayed, in the hope
of meeting with some response to appeals I had repeatedly addressed
to medical friends, in the expectation that, sooner or later, some
strongly-marked case of left-handedness among hospital or other
patients might afford an opportunity for securing an autopsy of the
brain. But unless the fact has been previously noted, there is little
occasion in the passive condition of mortal disease to give prominence
to the left-handed action of a patient, and I had to rest content
with inviting attention to the subject when a favouring opportunity
presented itself. But my anticipations of the result to be looked for
were very definite, could the required organ of exceptionally developed
nerve-force be got hold of. There was indeed one very suitable brain
close at hand, and available for many curious speculative researches;
but wholly beyond reach of ocular investigation by me. I could
therefore only draw attention to it as possibly accessible to some
future investigator, since even vivisection must needs defeat my aim.
I accordingly remarked: “My own brain has now been in use for more
than the full allotted term of threescore years and ten, and the time
cannot be far distant when I shall be done with it. When that time
comes, I should be glad if it were turned to account for the little
further service of settling this physiological puzzle. If my ideas are
correct, I anticipate as the result of its examination that the right
hemisphere will not only be found to be heavier than the left, but that
it will probably be marked by a noticeable difference in the number and
arrangements of the convolutions.”

Happily since then the long-coveted opportunity has been afforded me.
In February 1887 I learned from Dr. Daniel Clark, Superintendent of
the Provincial Asylum at Toronto, of the death of Thomas Neilly, a
patient who had been under the doctor’s care for nearly two years. He
was a native of Ireland, had served in the army, and was there noted as
so inveterately left-handed that he was placed on the extreme left of
his company, and allowed the exceptional usage of firing from the left
shoulder. He could read and write, and was considered a man of good
intelligence, till he attained his thirty-fourth year, when symptoms
of insanity manifested themselves, and he was removed to the asylum,
where he died. My colleague, Professor Ramsay Wright, accompanied me to
the asylum on my learning of his death. The brain was removed and the
two hemispheres carefully weighed. Cerebral disease manifested itself
in the evidence of softening of the brain. But it was fully available
for the special inquiry; and the result of the testing experiment was
to place beyond doubt the preponderant weight of the right cerebral
hemisphere. No comprehensive inductions can be based on a single
case, but its confirmatory value is unmistakable at this stage of the
inquiry; and thus far it sustains the conclusions previously arrived
at, and justifies the assignment of the source of left-handedness to
an exceptional development of the right hemisphere of the brain; with
results of a greatly more comprehensive character, apparently affecting
the whole functions ordinarily located in the opposite cerebral
hemisphere.


                                THE END


               _Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.