Natural Position of the Toes—Anatomical Argument—correspondence of
Foot and Hand—Necessity of Freedom for the Toes—Criticism on Forms
of Sole.
One of the worst of the distortions of the feet is the obliquity
or bending of the great toe toward the outside, a fault with which
several troublesome affections are often connected, besides the more
prominent one, the enlargement of the joints.
To be convinced that this is a deformity, and of the _extent_ to
which it is so, let any one notice the shape and natural position
of a child’s foot, before it has been altered by forcing into a
falsely-shaped shoe. _The toes will be found lying straight forward
in the line of the foot’s length_, with plenty of room for them to
touch the ground without pressing against each other. This is plainly
the case with every barefoot boy who is running about the streets
or over the farm. There are no cramped toes; on the contrary, they
sometimes appear to be separated more than necessary, and the great
toe, instead of inclining toward the outside of the foot, seems to
be almost turning to the opposite direction.
All art, as already noticed in the first chapter, recognizes the
right of the toes to sufficient space to touch the surface upon
which they tread. It does not crowd them or turn them aside from
their natural straightness.[1] An observation of the best specimens
of statuary will confirm the assertion, _that the great toe ought,
naturally, to lie pointing directly forward, in such a position
that a line drawn from the inner surface of the heel past the ball
or joint will be nearly parallel to it_. It would seem that such a
statement is so nearly self-evident that every one must instantly
admit its truth, and ought to be aware of it without argument.
Yet we doubt that it is commonly recognized, or that the mass of
people ever really think of it. Nor do we suppose those who have
thought of it have considered the matter to be of any importance,
unless they happened to be afflicted with some of the troubles that
accompany toe-distortion; nor often then with any idea of removing
or preventing those evils. It is certain that the shoe manufacturer
and the last-maker have not had such a supposition clearly in mind,
at least with any idea of changing the shape of the last accordingly.
One manufacturer who had been engaged in making boots and shoes for
the feet of his customers during twenty years recently stated that,
having drawings of thousands of feet, and always finding the big toe
turned toward the outside, more or less, he never thought of it as
being other than the foot’s normal shape. This shows how common the
deformity, as well as how uncommon the thought of what is the foot’s
true form according to nature.
A pamphlet called “_Why the Shoe Pinches_,” discussing this subject
quite clearly, and with the authority of science, was written by
Hermann Meyer, M.D., Professor of Anatomy in the University of
Zurich. To it we are indebted for many of the most important ideas
here contained, and for a presentation of the matter which first drew
our earnest attention. It gives an anatomical argument, illustrated
by diagrams, to show the proper form of the toes and forward part of
the foot, which we will try to present in our own way.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.—_a a_, METATARSAL BONES; _b_, JOINT.]
The _metatarsal_ bones are five of the longest bones of the foot,
lying below, or in front of, what is commonly known as the instep,
and filling the space between the instep and the toes, though,
strictly speaking, they form a part of the whole instep. They are
nearly parallel with each other, and to their forward ends the bones
of the toes are attached, forming the back toe-joints, at the part
called the bend of the foot. Where the great toe joins its metatarsal
bone, is called the _ball_ or _inside ball_; or, more strictly,
it is the under surface which is so called. These metatarsal bones
being straight, and so nearly parallel to each other, it is a natural
inference that the toe-bones attached to them should lie straight in
front of them, on the same lines, and nearly parallel to each other
also. In short, _they must do so_, in order that when covered with
flesh they shall have room to touch the ground, or bend, without
interfering. This would bring all the toes, and their metatarsal
bones, parallel or nearly so, with a line drawn past the whole inside
of the foot. They would thus be allowed space to grow naturally, to
lie side by side, and perform their proper functions without crowding
or chafing, or inclining sideways in either direction. The diagram of
a skeleton foot (copied from Professor Meyer’s pamphlet) will show
this more plainly than words.
It is claimed by the Professor, in this little book, that a line
drawn from the middle of the heel—on the sole—under the centre of the
ball or joint, should pass under the middle of the great toe, through
its whole length. His reasoning for this idea is thus given:
“The great toe plays by far the most important part in walking,
because when the foot is raised from the ground, with the intention
of throwing it forward, we first raise the heel, then rest for a
second on the great toe, and in lifting this from the ground the
point of it receives a pressure which impels the body forward.
Thus, in raising the foot, the whole of the sole is gradually, as
it were, ‘_unrolled_,’ up to the point of the great toe, which
again receives an impetus by contact with the ground. The great toe
ought, therefore, to have such a position as will admit of its being
_unrolled_ in the manner described; that is to say, it must so lie
that _the line of its axis, when carried backward, will emerge at the
centre of the heel_; and this is its position in the healthy foot.”
The great toe certainly plays an important part in walking, and is
therefore entitled to all necessary freedom. The position taken may
be further strengthened by bringing forward the fact that all natural
feet are slightly wider at the ball than at the instep, an inch and
a half farther back; that is, wider at the forward than at the back
or upward ends of the metatarsal bones. This is readily seen in the
cut of a healthy foot, Fig. 2, and still more plainly in that of the
foot-skeleton, Fig. 3.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.]
In each of these figures the difference in the width at the points
_a_ and _b_ is what we wish to be noticed. It is argued above, with
good reason, that the bone of the great toe should lie directly
forward of its metatarsal bone, on the same line, which line, when
carried back, passes under the centre of the heel. And it is equally
fair to infer that the _smaller_ toes should lie directly forward of
_their_ metatarsal bones, on the same lines. This would allow all the
toes to be spread a very little, as is apparent in Fig. 2, and as the
bones are spread in Fig. 3. There is thus a slight, but distinct,
gradual widening of the foot, from the middle region to the ends of
the toes, an idea which will be confirmed in every child’s foot that
may be observed.
The correspondence between the bones of the foot and leg and
those of the hand and arm also give countenance to this notion.
The _metacarpal_ bones of the hand are those which answer to the
_metatarsal_ bones of the foot; and that they are wider apart at
their forward ends than at their base or origin, is observable from
the skeleton hand Fig. 4, and from the hand having the thumb turned
under, Fig. 5.
[Illustration: FIG. 4.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.]
In this case, as in that of the foot, if the fingers lie directly
forward of their metacarpal bones, they are slightly spread or
separated. And the next fact to which attention is requested is, that
we never think of forcing them into one position, or of confining
them there, as is done with the toes—a treatment that would quickly
destroy their usefulness, if attempted. They are allowed perfect
freedom to close or separate; to be pushed over to one side or the
other, as occasion requires; and to assume any natural position when
unoccupied.
Now, although there is a greater demand for the liberty of the
fingers, on account of the innumerable uses to which they are capable
of being put, the difference between them and the toes, in this
respect, is only a difference of degree; and it is evident that
_something_, more or less, of the same bad effect which would attend
the cramping of the former, must, as it does, attend the confinement
and squeezing undergone by the latter. It seems clear that in a state
of nature the toes are left equally free to “spread themselves,” or
draw together when necessary, or to return to their proper places in
line with the metatarsal bones, when there is nothing to draw them
on one-side. In circumstances where they would not be interfered
with, the large one would doubtless have the position given it by
Professor Meyer, or, at least one very nearly the same; that is, the
line of the toes carried backward would touch the middle of the heel,
and the whole inside of the foot would have a general appearance of
straightness. This, it is repeated, is the form of the normal adult
foot, and of the child’s foot universally.
The only form of shoe which is absolutely correct, then, is one
allowing this amount of freedom to the toes—not alone to the great
one, but to all. The form recommended by Dr. Meyer, which is
represented in Fig. 6, like every other now made distorts the little
toe, compelling it to turn under toward the middle of the foot, and
giving it that peculiar twist that almost every one may notice in his
own.
[Illustration: FIG. 6.—SHAPE OF SOLE GIVEN IN “WHY THE SHOE PINCHES.”]
This, however, is only a slight fault compared to the bending aside
of the large toe, and is mentioned mainly to show that neither that
form nor any other gives to _all_ the toes the freedom which properly
belongs to them. The true standard form is one that will not compel
_any_ of them to be cramped or bent aside, nor press injuriously upon
any part of the foot; and to this form it should be the shoemaker’s
endeavour to approximate as nearly as possible.
But such a shape as would fulfil this requirement has never been
realised since the days of the ancient sandal. And the problem for
the shoemaker to solve is to create a covering that will give the
freedom and ease of the old sandal, combined with neatness and
elegance of fit, with protection from dirt, cold, and dampness;
and with propriety and beauty throughout. It will be something
considerably different from any now worn, and may tax his ingenuity
to a greater extent than is supposed. Professor Meyer is right
concerning the form of its sole at the _inside_; but the curve at
the outside is too much like the common style to be exactly the
right thing. There seems to be required a more abrupt curve at a
point somewhat farther forward than where the widest part is usually
found—a curve approaching more nearly to an obtuse angle, something
like what is represented in Fig. 7.
[Illustration: FIG. 7.]
Thus, modifying, or adding to, the form of sole given by Dr. Meyer,
we present it as the most perfect one we are now able to suggest,
and one the correctness of which is confirmed by all the facts of
anatomy, and by everything bearing upon the subject.
As to what is theoretically right, then, we not only indorse all
that is urged by the author quoted, but go farther, and claim for
little toes, as well as great ones, the right to grow as straight as
nature intended them, and to spread as freely as circumstances may
require. There is a point, however—one of practice, not theory—upon
which we may perhaps be said to partially disagree, and which will
be explained farther on. It is designed now to show some of the bad
results of a failure to conform the shape of the boot or shoe to that
of the foot; and afterward to consider what can be done in the way of
improvement.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] It is also true that many artists have been led to a mistake by
observation of the adult foot, which has been more or less deformed
by its coverings. In many works of art there is a larger joint than
natural, and the great toe is turned aside sufficiently to bring
all the toes close together, though not enough to be a positive
distortion.