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.