Is the Antiquarian God Left-Handed?

JF Ptak Science Books LLC  Post 581      Blog Store Site

This woodcut is the work of Michael Wohlgemut (1434 – 1519) for an illustration in Stephan Fridolin, Der Schatzbehalter oder Schrein der waren Reichtümer des Heils und ewger Seligheit, which was one of the 15th century's most brilliantly illustrated books.  It was printed printed by Anton Koberger in Nürnberg in 1491, and formed the backdrop for his even more ambitious book of the next year, the Schedel Liber chronicarum (also known as the Nuremberg Chronicle).  Both books' illustrations were by Wohgemut and Pleydenwurff atelier (a "school" in which Albrecht Durer had received some of his early training). 

This center of this woodcut shows the birth of Jesus Christ, a scene circumscribed by numerous other layers representing the heavens and, ultimately, the universe with layer of the heavens  given a zodiacal symbol.  The whole is set in a sketchy blue "sky", supported underneath by the hand of the creator.  The left hand.  Generally, at least in my memory, images of the creator's hands have been the right hand.  I'm not so sure why this one is the left.  But it is, and, well, that is unusual.  I don't know what it means, if anything. 

Comments

[Jeff]

I believe the engraver was either (i) subversive and lefty, or (ii) under the influence and confused about working a mirror-image. It happens. "The Left Hand of God" has always sounded rude and sophomoric to me. Too bad, because it's a marvelous phrase otherwise.

[jasper]

I am left to wonder what the right hand is doing.

The King James Bible describes Jesus as standing on the right hand of god. Perhaps, he also lays in it as a baby.

Or perhaps, it is all a sinister plot.

[Jeff]

Does a sinister plot look right if you're facing it? I was going to discuss rectitude, but it's another uncomfortable term. Since this is a science blog, we might should also consider why God instituted the right-hand rule. As well, what does She think of ambidexterity?

[jasper]

Sinister in the sense of left-handedness.

It was a little bit of humour on the part of a left-handed person who, at times, struggles in a right-handed world.

[Jeff]

No, I got it, jasper. I thought it was a very funny post.

[John Ptak]

Somewhere here in the house I've got a little turn of the century book on lefthandedness in children--and how to cure them of it. Sad little book, seeing as how it was so pretty. Lefties in the sciences were evidently a higher proportion than lefties in the arts. Someone did a study on the later and found that in a population of 500 artists 9of the past) that about 3% were lefties--it was a pretty strong group: Cambiaso, Dufy, Escher, Füssli, Grandville, Holbein, Klee, De La Patellière, Léonard de Vinci, Menzel, Montelupo, Papety, Regnault, Van Goyen. Patti my wife is a lefty. My younger daughter Tess is, too. However, as her five-year-old self told me last night: "I draw and write with my left hand, but I hammer with my right". Hm. Perhaps it is a message. Perhaps not.

[Jeff]

I'd've thought there'd be more lefties in the arts. Three percent seems low for that sample of artists, but since most lived long ago, it seems likely that they did not grow up favoring their natural left hands, as it was considered sinister or worse. I think Tess is on to something.

[John Ptak]

Yes, I thought it sounded a little light too. Evidently the population in general is about 10% lefty, so the arts would've been underrepresented. And it is true too perhaps that from long ago would've had their handedness "Corrected". Maybe their were a lot of lefties who were simply shunned and not given a chance to do their art? Etc.? In that sorta vein I wonder whatever might have happened with artists from long ago whose eyesight deteriorated and didn't correct their vision--doesn't it seem likely that some of them would have produced some sort of pre-modernist work of art by mistake? I guess those sorts of efforts would have just been scraped from the canvas, or painted over, or destroyed.