take quick cognisance of contact with the ground or of any injurious
substances lying upon the ground. The sensitiveness in the foot is
rather increased by its being so much covered up. We are aroused to a
consciousness of this sensitiveness when the soles are tickled, or when
any one treads on our toes, especially if there happen to be a corn
there. We know also how sensitive the feet are to cold, and how liable
we are to catch cold from wet feet. This sensitiveness renders washing
the feet a refreshing luxury, especially in hot climates or when we
are fatigued. It is a luxury much indulged in by Eastern nations;
“Mephibosheth had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard from
the day the king departed, until he came again in peace;” and among
the Jews in our Saviour’s time (Luke vii. 38), when guests were made
very welcome, their sandals were unloosed, and their feet washed and
carefully wiped, and, if the person were of high rank, anointed.
The integument of the foot varies in different animals, according to
the nature of the ground upon which they tread and other circumstances.
Thus the Elephant, the Hippopotamus, and the Rhinoceros, living in
jungles and in marshy districts, have a more or less soft covering of
skin. Oxen and Horses gallop about upon dry ground; and their feet
are soled with thick hoofs of horn. The Dog has tough pads of skin
with thick cuticle upon his feet; and the feet of the Feline tribe
are muffled with fur so as to enable them to approach their prey with
a noiseless tread. Man’s foot is, by nature, like the rest of the
surface of his body, comparatively unprotected; but as the foot, by its
efficiency, emancipates the hand from the drudgery of carrying, so does
the latter make some return for this relief by providing artificial
coverings which enable the foot to tread upon various surfaces, and
protect it against the inclemencies of the seasons.
_On Shoes._
A few words on the subject of SHOES. No one will dispute the
correctness of the principle that the shoe should be made to fit the
foot; yet it is not a little remarkable that this principle is so often
departed from in practice, and that the usual plan is to make the foot
adapt itself to the shoe. That is, the shape of the shoe is determined
according to the fancy of the maker or the dictates of fashion, and
the foot is expected to mould itself accordingly. This is particularly
the case with the fore part of the shoe, into which the toes, or most
compliant parts of the foot, are squeezed. Thus, the shape of the
sole of a sound foot is about that represented in fig. 47; the
great toe is seen to be free from the others, and the line of its
axis, prolonged backwards, traverses the centre of the heel. Compare
this with the outline of the sole of a shoe as usually made; and the
violence that is done to nature is at once perceived. The shoe is made
quite symmetrical, or is curved a little in the part between the heel
and the sole--in the “waist” as it is called--when the shoes are to be
worn on the left and right foot respectively; and the toes, instead
of being allowed to spread out a little, are pressed together, and
made to converge to a point in the line of the middle toe, as seen in
fig. 48.
[Illustration: Figs. 47. 48. 49. 50.]
The line of the great toe is thus quite altered, and the other toes
are tightly wedged together (figs. 49 and 50); or, not being able
to find room side by side, they overlap one another and form unsightly
projections beneath the upper leather of the shoe. No wonder that
“corns” and “bunions” and “in-growing toe-nails” are the frequent
result of this treatment, and that so many persons are compelled to
walk in a cautious, feeling manner, and to watch the ground narrowly,
lest their cramped and tender toes come into contact with a stone or
other projecting body.
How greatly to be lamented it is that the foot should be thus
maltreated and distorted, and that walking should be made so painful,
and that the shoe, which is intended to befriend and protect the foot,
and which, if well fitted, would support it and preserve its shape,
and make some amends to it for the rough hard roads upon which it is
compelled to tread, should be thus perverted into a means of galling it
and impairing its functions.
This subject has been treated of in a simple and concise manner by
Dr Meyer, Professor of Anatomy at Zurich, in a small pamphlet, which
has been translated into English by Mr Craig, and entitled, “_Why the
Shoe pinches_[6].” I hope it may be read by boot-makers, and may lead
to some improvement in their art. Dr Meyer very properly remarks that
one of the main points to be attended to is, to allow the great toe to
have its normal position; and this can be done by making the inner edge
of the sole incline _in_wards, from the balls of the toes, instead of
_out_wards. The accompanying drawing (fig. 51) gives the outline
of a shoe designed under his superintendence, and shows the difference
between it and the usual shape, the latter being indicated by the
dotted outline. In fig. 52 the shoe is pointed, the pointing being
effected from the outer side. I have often laboured, but laboured in
vain, to impress the same point, and hope the more systematic attempt
of Professor Meyer may lead to better results.
[6] _Why the Shoe pinches_, a contribution to Applied Anatomy by
Hermann Meyer, M.D. Professor of Anatomy in the University of Zurich,
translated from the German by John Stirling Craig, L.R.C.P.E.,
L.R.C.S.E., price sixpence.
The preceding four figures and the two following are taken from this
pamphlet with Mr Craig’s permission.
[Illustration: Figs. 51. 52.]
With regard to the _heel-piece_, I have already said that it should
not be high because it makes the step less steady and secure, and at
the same time shortens it, and impairs the action of the calf-muscle.
A high heel-piece, moreover, renders the position of the foot upon the
ground oblique, placing the fore part at a lower level than the heel;
thus the weight is thrown too much in the direction of the toes, and
they are driven forwards and cramped against the upper leather of the
shoe. The high-heel of a boot, therefore, tends to aggravate the evils
which are caused by the insufficient and ill-adjusted space which is
allowed to the toes.
* * * * *
This account of the foot has necessarily been very superficial and
imperfect. There are many points in its anatomy to which I have not
even alluded; but, if I have succeeded in giving you some idea of the
general plan of its construction, and in stimulating you to further
enquiry respecting the mechanism of the Human Frame, my purpose will
have been served. Still more will it have been so, if you carry away
with you some sense both of the Pride and of the Humility which the
review of such a structure is calculated to excite--of pride, not
selfish pride, but pride resulting from a consciousness of the nobility
of your physical nature, a pride which will make you spurn what is bad
and degrading, and will help you to aspire to what is elevated and
good. The impressions resulting from a comparison of this one fragment
of Nature’s work with our own most laboured achievements must quell
any other pride; and the very admiration with which we contemplate the
structure of our body impels us to walk humbly with our God, whose gift
that body is.
THE HUMAN HAND.
The great characteristic of the Hand, as distinguished from the Foot,
is the mobility of the first digit, or thumb. Accordingly when this
digit stands out apart from the others, and can be moved independently
of them, so as to be more or less completely opposed to them, in the
upper or Mammalian Class of animals, at least, we call the member a
Hand. When this digit is absent, or is fixed in the same manner as the
others, which is the case in each of the four limbs of Quadrupeds, we
call the member a Foot. In Monkeys, or in most of them, the thumb is
present and is separate and moveable in each of the four limbs; and
these animals are, therefore, called “quadrumanous” or “four-handed.”
Man, having the moveable thumb upon each of the two upper limbs only,
is “bimanous” or “two-handed.” By this peculiarity, perhaps more
definitely than by any other, he is distinguished in structure from all
the rest of the animal series; and naturalists have, accordingly, given
the epithet “Bimanous” to the class in which he is placed, and in which
he stands alone.
The hand is the executive or essential part of the upper limb. Without
it the limb would be almost useless. The whole limb is, therefore, so
made as to give play and strength to the hand; and, in ever so brief a
description of the hand, it is necessary, even more than in the case
of the foot, to give some idea of the manner in which the other parts
of the limb are constructed, and to dwell a little upon such points as
have relation to its movements.
[Illustration: Fig. 53.]
The general plan of construction of the upper limb will readily
be understood by means of the drawings (figs. 53 and 58,
p. 122). It resembles very much that of the lower limb
(see fig. 4, page 15). The one bone of the upper arm--the
_humerus_--resembles the one bone of the thigh, and is jointed, above,
with the shoulder-blade, which, with the collar-bone, corresponds
with the pelvis. Below, it is connected with the two bones of the
fore-arm--the _radius_ and _ulna_; and these correspond with the two
bones of the leg. In the wrist there are eight bones, called _carpal_
bones, arranged in two rows. These are connected with five _metacarpal_
bones; and these, like the metatarsals of the foot, are jointed with
the _phalanges_. Of the latter there are three in each finger; but in
the thumb, as in the great toe (page 10), there are only two.
[Illustration: Fig. 54.]
The diagram shows how the bones of the hand are arranged in three
divisions. Thus, the upper row of carpal bones (3, 4, 5) consists,
practically, of three bones; the fourth (6), which is much smaller than
the others, being rather an appendage to one of them than a distinct
constituent of the wrist. (According to this view, the number of the
wrist-bones corresponds exactly with that of the tarsal bones of the
foot, viz. 7). The _outer_ of these three carpal bones (3) bears the
thumb[7] and the fore-finger (I. and II.), and constitutes, with them,
the outer division of the hand; the inner one (5) bears the ring-finger
and the little finger (IV. and V.), and constitutes the _inner_
division of the hand; and the middle one (4) bears the middle finger
(III.), and is the _middle_ division of the hand. The diagram shows,
too, that the two outer bones (3 and 4), with the two outer divisions
of the hand, are connected with the radius; whereas the inner bone (5)
only, with the inner division of the hand, is connected with the ulna.
Strictly speaking, even this bone is not directly connected with the
ulna, but is separated from it, as will be shown presently, by a thick
ligament.
[7] In deference to custom we call the palm the _front_ of the hand;
and, therefore, we speak of the thumb as the _out_er and the little
finger as the _in_ner digit: though it would better accord with the
ordinary position of the part, with its correspondence with the foot
and with comparative anatomy, to reverse these terms.
You frequently hear ignorant persons (and the greater number of
persons are lamentably ignorant of the structure of their own body)
speaking of the _small bones_ of the shoulder, or the _small bones_
of the elbow. You may think this a matter of no importance, and that
it does not concern you and people generally to have any knowledge of
human anatomy. But I will tell you what is very often happening, and
will leave you to judge whether such complete ignorance on this subject
is not attended with some practical disadvantage. A man meets with an
injury, falls and hurts his shoulder. The immediate effects of the
injury subside; but he does not quickly recover the use of the part; he
still cannot raise his elbow, or put his hand upon his head, or put it
behind him. Soon he begins to think that something more is wrong than
has been suspected; and the notion creeps over his mind, and gradually
takes possession of it, that some small bone is displaced. Not content
with the assurances of his medical man, he resorts to a quack, called
a “bone-setter.” The latter, taking advantage of the popular fallacy,
gratifies the patient with the information that his fears are correct,
affirms that “a small bone is out,” and proceeds forthwith to employ
the requisite forcible measures for putting the said “small bone” in. I
need not say with what result. Every year, in this civilized country,
many persons are maimed for life by these attempts to put imaginary
small bones in. I beg you, therefore, particularly to observe that
_there is no small bone_ either at the shoulder or at the elbow. The
only small bones are at the wrist; and these are so well fitted to one
another, and so firmly bound together, that nothing short of a crushing
force suffices to displace them. This remark respecting the small bones
of the wrist is true of nearly all the small bones in other parts of
the body. So that, in fact, small bones are very rarely dislocated;
and when you hear it asserted that a small bone is out, you may pretty
confidently conclude that the speaker does not know what he is talking
about.
I have said that the upper limbs resemble the lower in their general
construction. There are, however, some important differences; and
one of the chief of these is the greater variety and freedom of the
movements in the upper limbs. _Strength_, for the purpose of carrying
the body, is the object in the lower limbs. _Mobility_ is the requisite
in the upper limbs. Of this one example has already been given in the
instance of the thumb as compared with the great toe.
_Movements at the Shoulder._
An equally striking example is afforded by the shoulder. In the
first place, the “Shoulder-blade” itself can be moved in several
directions--upwards, downwards, backwards and forwards;--whereas
the “Pelvis,” i. e. the part which bears to the lower limb the same
relation that the shoulder-blade does to the upper-limb, is immoveably
fixed.
Secondly, the “Shoulder-joint” is so made as to permit a great variety
and extensive range of movements to take place. We can move the arm
forwards or backwards, as in throwing a ball, or, in sword exercise; we
can raise it so that the limb points straight upwards; and we can swing
it round in any direction. It is owing to the free movement in this
joint that we are able to apply the hand to every part of the body, so
as to remove sources of irritation. It is interesting to observe how
other animals get on without hands, though they are much exposed to
what we should consider great annoyance, as from flies, &c. The Cow,
for instance, lashes its hide with its tail. The Cat licks itself with
its tongue. The Sparrow dusts itself by the road-side. The Pig and the
Donkey roll in the mud. And many of them, as the Horse and the Ox,
have a thin muscle, called “panniculus carnosus,” spread out under the
skin, which effects those sudden twitchings of the skin whereby they
are enabled to jerk off anything that troubles them. In Man the hand
answers better than all these methods combined; and it is necessary
that it should do so, because his skin is more sensitive and less
protected by natural covering than that of any other animal.
[Illustration: Fig. 55.
Chest and shoulders of man.]
For this freedom of movement of the arms, so important to the
usefulness of the hand, we are much indebted to the “Collar-bones.”
These bones, so called because they are placed at the lower part of
the _collum_ or neck, extend, horizontally, from the upper edge of the
breast-bone, to the processes of the blade-bones which overhang the
shoulder-joint. Thus they hold the shoulders apart, and give width to
the upper part of the chest. They also steady the shoulder-blades,
and afford a _point d’appui_ to the muscles which effect the lateral
movements of the arms,--for instance, to the muscles which tend to draw
the arms together, as when we hold anything, between the hands, in
front of us; and to those which separate the arms from one another, as
when we stretch them out at right angles with the body.
[Illustration: Fig. 56.
Chest and shoulders of bird.]
Many animals--the ELEPHANT, the RHINOCEROS, the HORSE and the OX--have
no collar-bones; and they are only able to swing their fore limbs to
and fro. They cannot execute any lateral movements. They cannot throw
the limbs out sideways, nor press their fore feet together, so as to
hold anything between them. If the horse wants to seize or hold any
substance he must do it with his mouth. The Elephant has a special
provision for the purpose of prehension in his trunk, which enables him
to provide himself with food by pulling down the branches of trees.
The LION and the TIGER can press their fore paws together sufficiently
to enable them to hold their prey, and fix it upon the ground, while
they put the head down to it and pull at it and tear it with their
teeth; and they are furnished with rudimentary, or half, collar-bones
suspended in the flesh of the upper part of the chest; while the
little SQUIRREL, which sits upon its hind legs, and holds up the nuts
between its fore paws to be nibbled, has complete collar-bones. So has
the flying BAT, the climbing SLOTH and the digging MOLE. In BIRDS the
collar-bones (fig. 56, AA) are very large; and, for the purpose of
giving them greater strength, they are united together in the middle
line just above the breast-bone, forming what is commonly called the
“merry-thought;” and, as this is not sufficiently strong to resist the
force of the powerful muscles which flap the wings and sustain the
animal in the air, there are, in addition, stout “side-bones,” called
by anatomists “coracoid bones.” These (B) run, from the breast-bone
(D), in the same direction as the collar-bones, one, on either side, to
the shoulder-blades (C); and they afford even more efficient support to
the shoulders than do the collar-bones. The coracoid bones are peculiar
to oviparous animals, or nearly so. In some reptiles, as the CROCODILE,
they quite supersede the collar-bones.
These few examples are enough to show that freedom of movement of
the arms, especially of lateral movement, is closely associated with,
and, indeed, is dependent upon the shoulder-blades being supported
and steadied by bones, which extend from the breast-bone to the
shoulder-blades, and fasten the one to the other.
But, even the powers and advantages conferred by nature have often
some drawbacks; and this free play of the arm at the shoulder in man,
of which we are speaking, and the provision for it afforded by the
collar-bone, are no exceptions to the remark. It is necessary for so
great a range of movement that the socket in the shoulder-blade should
be shallow, and that the ligaments which connect the arm-bone with the
blade-bone should be loose. Hence the shoulder-joint is weak as regards
its ability to resist injury. The collar-bone also causes the shoulder
to project so much that it is greatly exposed to injury and often bears
the brunt of a fall. A man is thrown from a horse or is knocked down
upon the ground, and, if anything prevents the hand being stretched
out, the chances are that he falls upon the shoulder. True, the head is
saved thereby; but the shoulder suffers. Hence the shoulder-joint is
more often dislocated than any other; and no bone is more frequently
broken than the collar-bone. Even in little children, in whom,
notwithstanding their many tumbles, the other bones usually contrive to
escape, the collar-bones are often broken; and in grown-up persons the
shoulder is sometimes dislocated by the mere action of the muscles, as
in swimming, or throwing, or lifting a weight above the head.
That you may understand the movements of the shoulder a little more
fully, I will ask you to contrast the drawing (fig. 58), which
shows the position of the blade-bone upon the chest in Man, with the
drawing (fig. 57) of the corresponding parts of the Rhinoceros;
and you will at once recognise several important differences, besides
the presence of the collar-bone in the one and its absence in the other.
[Illustration: Fig. 57. Rhinoceros.]
In the RHINOCEROS the chest is deep, from the back-bone to the
breast-bone, and is flattened at the sides; and the depth of this part
of the trunk is increased, slightly, by the breast-bone projecting,
keel-like, underneath, and, much more, by the spines of the back-bone
running up into a high ridge, above. The blade-bone and the arm-bone
are applied against the flat side of the chest, and lie, lengthways,
between the spine and the breast-bone, nearly parallel with the
broad flat ribs. The blade-bone has no process overhanging the
shoulder-joint, and, as before said, there is no collar-bone. The short
thick arm-bone descends nearly in a line with the blade-bone, and has
huge processes at its upper end for the attachment of muscles. The
parts are designed to bear the great weight of the animal, and to carry
its ponderous head and horn; but the only movement of which they admit
is a sliding of the blade-bone and arm-bone, backwards and forwards,
upon the side of the chest.
In animals of similar construction to the Rhinoceros, but of lighter
frame, and of greater fleetness, the blade-bone is placed more
obliquely, which gives freer and easier movement both to it and to the
arm-bone. This, for instance, is the case with the well-bred horse, and
if we want a quick-going horse, one that can lift his fore feet well,
we should observe whether the shoulder-blade is oblique, and whether
the spines of the back rise well above it. Such a horse is said to have
“a good shoulder” and to be “well up.” He will carry a saddle well, and
is not likely to trip.
[Illustration: Fig. 58.]
In MAN the chest has proportionately less depth and length, and greater
breadth, than in any other animal; the breast-bone is quite flat;
and the spines of the back are sloped downwards, so that they do not
project beyond the level of the ribs and the blade-bones. Hence he can
lie easily either upon the stomach or the back--a privilege which is
shared with him by very few of the lower animals. Scarcely any of them
can lie upon the back, or even upon the stomach without the help of the
fore limbs. The donkey enjoys rolling over and over upon a dusty road,
but he cannot poise himself for a minute upon his back.
The sides of Man’s chest, moreover, are not _flat_, as in the
Rhinoceros and Horse, but _rounded_, so that the blade-bones can
revolve upon them to and fro, as well as slide upwards and downwards;
and the long arms--comparatively long, that is, from the shoulder to
the elbow--hang quite free of the chest and form sharp angles with the
blade-bones.
The blade-bones are accommodated to the shape of the chest; for,
instead of being elongated in a direction parallel with the ribs, they
are prolonged downwards, along the sides of the chest, at right angles
with the ribs. This prolongation of the lower part of the blade-bone
is very important, inasmuch as it enables the muscles to hold the
bone steady upon the wall of the chest, and so gives greater power to
those muscles which pass from the blade-bone to the arm and act upon
the shoulder-joint. Were it not for this provision the contraction of
the muscles intended to raise the arm would quite fail to produce the
desired effect, and instead of it would simply cause the shoulder-blade
to revolve upon a transverse axis. That is to say, when we endeavoured
to raise the arm our effort would merely have the effect of raising the
hinder part of the shoulder-blade.