Flattened Condition of the Arch—Beauty of one that is
Natural—Nature and Purpose of its Construction—How it Becomes
Broken Down—Lengthening of the Foot—Lack of Development—Means of
Improvement—Lasts for Flat Feet—Transverse Arch.
Another of the prominent disfigurements of the foot is that commonly
known as _flat-foot_, which is seen where the arch of the instep
is in a broken-down or flattened condition. This deformity has, if
possible, a more awkward and ungraceful effect than that caused by
the unnatural position of the toes and joints; though there may be
less painful effects attending it than are attached to the latter.
The worst trouble accompanying this kind of disfigurement is the
_weakness_ which is attendant upon it, and which is sometimes
so extreme as to interfere seriously with walking for any great
distance, or standing long at a time; making itself felt at various
periods, as there happens to be a demand for strength and activity.
It is almost needless to say how unnatural is such a condition.
Children are seldom subject to it, except when connected with
weak ankles. Even the children of parents who are notoriously
flat-footed have feet that are tolerably well arched. We venture to
say that the wild Indian of the native forest was never seen with
the beauty of his symmetrical and handsome frame marred by flat
feet. There are some of the race who flatten their _heads_, but
they never wear boots, nor heels on their moccasins, and their feet
are therefore free from this disagreeable shape. The artist never
allows a representation of this deformity to appear in his work; on
the contrary, an arch that is high and well-marked has always been
considered beautiful. It gives an airiness, elegance, and grace to
the appearance of the foot which is as beautiful as the flat foot is
ungraceful and awkward. A firm step and upright carriage of the whole
body are also generally to be found with the arched instep—never
without; while the flat foot, if not seen, may always be inferred
from the unnatural, shuffling gait of its possessor.
The high arch is thus beautiful for the same reason that any other
organ or part of the body is beautiful—because it is better adapted
to perform its intended function or office, which is the support of
the weight of the body, this design being more perfectly accomplished
when the arch is high, because it is then stronger than when low or
flattened. To flatten it is like drawing apart the ends upon which
it rests, and this, it is apparent, weakens, if it does not entirely
break, the unity and strength of the whole.
The nature of the construction of the foot in this respect is thus
set forth by Prof. Meyer:
“If the inner aspect of the foot is examined, we find that it is an
arch, resting in front on the anterior heads of the five metatarsal
bones, but principally on that of the great toe, and on that of the
calcaneum behind. The astragalus forms the key-stone of the arch.
“The arch is enabled to retain its form by means of strong ligaments
or bands passing from one bone to the others, and thus held closely
together, sustains the superincumbent weight of the body without
giving way.
“When we rest on the foot, as in standing, the arch is flattened by
the pressure from above, and consequently becomes _lengthened_. When,
however, the foot is allowed to hang free, _the curvature of the
arch is increased_. At every step in walking, also, when the foot is
raised from the ground, _the curvature immediately becomes greater
through the action of the muscles_.”
This action, it will be readily seen, is precisely that of a spring
under a carriage, or other similar vehicle, and seems to have a like
intention—that of preventing the transmission of a shock or jar to
the joints, and the internal organs of the body above.
It will be found true, we believe, that in persons of muscular
temperament—the temperament that gives tall, spare, and angular
forms—the curvature of the arch is greater than in those whose
natural disposition of body is toward fleshiness. In the latter
case, the muscles of the whole system being weaker, they allow the
bones of the foot to separate more easily, and this, consequently,
allows the flattening. In other words, we strongly suspect that
in this temperament of the body the ligaments are not so dense,
firm, and strong as they are in persons whose physical structure
is more predominantly muscular. The ligaments which hold the bones
together at the joints are not designed to stretch, under ordinary
circumstances, but they do yield when sufficient force is exerted
upon them, as in the case of sprains and dislocations, and it is
reasonable to infer that they adapt themselves to the demand made
upon them. The muscles grow longer and larger, as do also the
bones, under circumstances that call for such growth or adaptations
to conditions. So do _all_ the organs and tissues of the body, in
greater or less degree; and if the ligaments do not, they are a plain
exception, which is not probable. This being so, a constant strain
upon the ligaments of the foot’s arch, as in standing for several
hours without rest, must cause them to stretch somewhat, allowing
the bones to loosen and sink down, while the same severe strain, if
continued for a yet longer period, would force them to grow into this
lengthened condition, to meet the demand upon them, thus rendering
the fault permanent. In persons of fleshy tendency, the natural
softness and weakness of the muscles and ligaments allow them the
more easily to give way to the pressure upon the arch. It is believed
to be the fact that the deformity is more common among people of this
type, and it will be well for those so constituted to guard against
anything that tends to its development.
It is in persons of the opposite type—those who have firm, close,
hard, and strong muscles, and no extra flesh—that the arch is found
in its greatest perfection. There the strong muscles and ligaments
bind the bones together with such firmness that the arch is enabled
longer to resist the influences which tend to break it down. Yet
the flat foot is very common, in spite of all nature’s efforts for
prevention. The deformity, in greater or less degree, may be said
to exist as the rule among adult persons, while the natural arch is
the exception. Among some classes of people, flat-foot is almost
wholly prevalent. Hard toil and degrading conditions not only debase
the person morally and intellectually, but they affect the gait and
carriage, and their influence may be seen to reach down to the very
bottom of the foot.
It was this fault, possibly, which first suggested the practice of
wearing heels, or, if it did not originate, at least continued it.
_Heels partially restore that elevation and airiness of the foot
which is given by a natural arch_, and which constitutes its grace
and beauty. When rightly made, and worn as a choice of two evils, or
as a partial remedy for an evil, they are not objectionable; but they
can be only a partial corrective. They can never be substituted for a
good arch; while, worn as they are and have been, _they really become
one of the causes_ of the deformity which in turn calls for their
use. Another cause is thus explained in Prof. Meyer’s book:
“Flat-foot is occasioned by the loosening of the ligaments that knit
the foot firmly together, and, by the consequent sinking of the
arch, the inner aspect of the foot no longer presents the natural
hollow in the sole. The causes of such loosening of the ligaments are
numerous, but by far the most frequent, and one readily induced by
the ordinary shoe, is weight improperly directed on the arch. If, for
example, a shoe happens to be trodden on one side, and especially,
as is most commonly the case, if it be so at the heel, then the heel
has no support, except from the inner margin of the sole, which is
thus worn away, and the heel-piece becomes oblique, or, in other
words, lower at one side than the other. In walking and standing on
such a heel-piece, the whole external margin of the foot is raised,
and the inner, which naturally supports the arch, is so depressed as
gradually to lose its convexity, and thus flat-foot is produced.”
The nature of the cause here spoken of seems to be like that of a
_sprain_, to a slight degree, and may be an influential one, but
we doubt that it is the most common cause of that loosening of the
ligaments which allows the foot to break down. The most common and
efficient of all the causes of this difficulty, it appears to us, is
the _short heel_ which has always been worn on boots and shoes, and
is still, except where an innovation upon its shape has been made
within a few years past. This, though not strictly a direct cause,
like a strain from above, is the condition which most frequently
admits and encourages the sinking of the arch.
That _short heels_ most frequently admit of and encourage the sinking
of the arch of the foot will be readily seen by an explanation. There
are several bones which, together, form the forward part of the arch,
while the back part consists of one larger bone, technically called
the _calcaneum_, or _os calcis_, which makes up the principal part of
the heel. Partly above this, and between it and the forward bones, is
the one called the _astragalus_, which is the keystone, being located
the highest of any, and the one upon which rest the bones of the leg;
in size it is next to the _calcaneum_. An illustration will show the
position.
[Illustration: FIG. 27.
The inner aspect of the foot, showing the arched construction of
the whole foot—_a_, head of metatarsal bone of great toe,—_b_,
calcaneum,—_c_, astragalus.
]
The forward part of the _calcaneum_, or heel-bone, at its lower
surface, is somewhat higher than the back part, and has under it a
thicker cushion of flesh. When the bare foot treads upon the surface,
or when there is no heel upon the shoe-sole, this point—letter _e_ in
the diagram—is as well supported as any other, and, being so, enables
all the other bones to keep their proper places, but when there is a
heel on the sole of the shoe, it _is not long enough—does not extend
under far enough_—to support this _forward part_ of the heel-bone.
The sole, forward of the heel, is not usually stiff enough to support
it, and therefore it falls downward as much as the leather will give
way; the heel-piece being often half an inch too short, and sometimes
more than that. Then, if the sole is light, so as to give way easily,
there is nothing to prevent this part of the bone from settling down
to the extent of a quarter of an inch, or even more. While the back
part is supported, the front is turning directly downward. This
allows the astragalus and the whole arch to sink down to the same
extent, and, in time, all parts of the foot will adapt themselves
to their changed condition, and the flat shank become a permanent
thing. If any person will examine a slipper worn with a heel, or a
_boot_ having an ordinary sole, it will be seen that just in front of
the heel the sole is depressed, or bent downward, from one-eighth to
three-eighths of an inch. This is almost invariable, except when a
very long heel, or a stiff shank in the sole, preserves the natural
position of the _calcaneum_ or bone of which the heel is formed. The
amount of this depression shows how much the arch has sunk, and how
much higher it would be if properly supported. It indicates very
plainly the occasion and origin of a large proportion of the flat and
splay feet that may be so frequently observed.
This inefficiency of the common short heel to properly support the
arch was first discovered by Dr. J. C. Plumer, of Boston, to whom is
due the credit of showing the bad effects just noticed as the result
of its being worn. His style of boot and last will be discussed
further on.
It has been stated that as the foot flattens, it also lengthens. It
has been estimated that some flat feet are as much as two sizes, or
two-thirds of an inch, longer than the same feet would be if well
arched; an item worth noticing by those who are fastidious upon this
point.
In falling down, the _calcaneum_ is pushed backward making the
long-heeled foot, while the bones forward of the _astragalus_ must
advance more or less in _their_ direction, thus adding to the foot’s
length at both ends, and making the leg appear to be set far toward
the middle. The ends must necessarily be separated before the middle
of the arch can sink, and this is why its flattening is accompanied
by the long heel. In a foot that is well arched, the projection of
bone at the upper part of the heel extends farther back than the
lower edge at the sole. In a flat foot, on the contrary, the bottom
part extends back farther than the bony projection above, which, in
fact, is pretty sure not to project at all.
It may be asked, Why not keep the ends of the arch together by a
boot that is short at both ends, supposing such a one could be made
that would not distort the toes? Simply because it would prevent the
_use_, and consequent _strength_, of the muscles of the under side of
the foot, _which are themselves the natural bands for holding the
ends together_, and the whole arch in its raised position. These
muscles, being weakened by the cramping of a short boot, would allow
the arch to sink whenever the artificial support was taken away. This
reasoning seems to indicate such a treatment as one of the causes by
which flatness is produced, and as pinching the foot lengthwise has
been a common fault, this cause may have been quite effective.
Dr. Meyer thus refers to another bad influence:
“We have already seen that the foot forms an arch, _the efficiency
of which in a special manner depends on the tensity of its ligaments
being maintained. If then, an unnatural and flattening pressure
be constantly exercised on this arch, the binding ligaments get
slackened and the arch falls down_; a broken-down arch, as we have
already seen, causes flat-foot. The pressure of the upper leather on
the instep must, therefore, and particularly in the case of narrow
boots, favour the origin of this deformity. The same cause must
further interfere with locomotion, for at every step the increased
arching of the instep, which takes place the moment that the foot is
set to [? raised from] the ground is resisted by the upper leather,
and an injurious influence is thus exercised on the action of some of
the muscles used in walking, and which runs from the anterior aspect
of the lower leg to the back of the foot.”
_All_ cramping, binding, and confining of _any part of the body_
weakens it, as is well known to every intelligent reader. Hence the
manifest impropriety of wearing anything unnecessarily tight or
binding to the arch of the instep. Every boot that is uncomfortably
tight has to some degree the effect of weakening, and rendering it
more liable to fall down.
More especially is this the case when the leather used is _thick_,
_hard_, or _stiff_. Much of the cheap and inferior goods offered
for sale ready-made are seriously objectionable on this account.
The uppers themselves are—a large share of them, at least—thick and
hard, while the pegged soles are made as stiff as possible, to give
the appearance of thick, solid, and serviceable leather in that
part. Many a poor man is thus actually hobbled, to a greater or less
extent, by the miserable foot-gear his poverty compels him to wear.
As there is but very little _bend_ to them, _there is but little use
of the muscles of the foot_. It is cramped or unnaturally pressed
upon, even though having plenty of room, and might almost as well
be cased in iron as in the stiff kip or cowhide boot or brogan. The
result is weakness, flattening, and a tendency to other kinds of
distortion. We believe the frequency of flat-foot among some of the
poorer classes of people may thus be easily accounted for.
The peasantry of other countries are even less fortunate than our
own. Saying nothing of wooden shoes, the leather ones they wear are
not only thick and stiff in material, but the soles are often filled
with stout iron nails besides. With such things on the feet there can
be no spring to the toes, no use for the forward part of the arch,
no play to the muscles. The feet can hardly be otherwise than weak
and flat. When tightness is added to stiffness the effect must be
still worse.
Children must feel these bad consequences more than adults, for
being less firm in their muscles and bones, they have less power
of resisting the cramping, weakening influence. Some of the boots
manufactured in this country for boys can be recommended only as a
slightly less evil than going barefoot in cold weather.
One other reason is, very probably, _lack of development_. The calf
of the leg is but partially developed in some races of men, and only
comes to its full growth in conditions of civilized society that
call for the use of all its muscles. So it is confidently believed
that all those steps and motions which give lightness, grace, ease,
and elegance to the movements of the body, such as occur in most
varieties of the dance, _and particularly such as demand the use of
the toes_, have a tendency to develop and strengthen the foot’s arch.
As _its_ full development tends to create easy, light, and graceful
movements, _so these in turn help it to grow into full strength and
beauty_. Hence the well-developed calf, the well-arched foot, and the
graceful step will almost invariably be found to go together.
There may be yet other and unknown causes of this deformity; but
enough have been noticed to account for the great majority of cases.
While it is already very common, the influences that have produced
it are still producing and confirming the wrong shape. Of course
the longer the fault is established the more difficult it is to make
a change; but there is believed to be a partial remedy, at least,
in the case of young persons. It consists in simply supporting the
back part of the arch as nature does in her own way; that is, in
supporting the whole under-surface of the calcaneum, or heel-bone,
as is done when the bare foot is pressed upon the ground. A long
heel—one extending under the sole far enough for its front edge to
support the front part of the bone—is the thing required. When the
foot rests upon such a heel, the whole weight of the body acts as a
force to compel the forward part of the bone to push itself upward
into its true place, because, being a quarter of an inch—more or
less—lower than it ought to be, it cannot be perfectly at ease until
it gets back where it belongs. The weight of the body, then, is just
as influential in restoring the arch to its natural form when the
long heel is worn, as it is in breaking it down when the short heel
is the only support. There is reason to think that a large number
of the flat feet could be corrected by this simple expedient. The
long-standing cases might require considerable time, and even prove
too obdurate for this remedy; but the law which compels all parts of
the system to adapt themselves to circumstances would tend constantly
and strongly to bring about the effect desired. In those cases where
the feet have not grown into a positive, settled distortion, we doubt
not the result would be decided and very gratifying; and if the
children wore these long heels—if, in short, the whole people were
educated to see the necessity of wearing them, when any at all are
worn, the instances of flat-foot would be far less common.
A few years since, Dr. Plumer (before referred to) patented a style
of boot, of which the long heel is one characteristic. This is, in
fact, the best thing about his invention, and should go far to make
it popular, even if it has no other recommendation. The fashion has
been considerably introduced in some places, and has also had some
effect in increasing the length of heels in work not made after that
style, and thus may indirectly have saved many from having the arch
of their feet broken down. For this it is deserving of praise, though
we attach less importance to its other peculiarities.
The old-fashioned way of making heels leaves them from one-fourth to
five-eighths of an inch too short. The whole tendency of such heels
is downward, in a double sense. The more they are worn the farther
downward goes the foot, not only in _form_, but in _character_—in
beauty, gracefulness, and strength.
The long heel, on the contrary, tends to raise the foot upward in
shape, and also to restore its strength and grace. As a means of
prevention, it should be adopted for all children, to preserve the
shape of feet that are still natural.
The Plumer heel has frequently been carried to an extreme, and in
such a way as to make its shape appear clumsy and inelegant. For
this there is no real necessity. A heel that will extend under the
foot half an inch farther than the generality of short ones, _can
be made, by pitching it well under behind, to appear only slightly
longer than common_ at the top, (or bottom,) and be tasteful in every
particular. The form may be that of the most approved, and there is
no demand for greater width. If the counters or stiffenings be of
the right kind, the heel may be made sufficiently narrow to look
well, and correspond with the general appearance of an elegant boot,
without danger of its treading over. This latter kind of trouble
comes mainly from _counters that are too weak_, though, of course,
a heel that is too small relatively—which is not handsome—or that
is built inclining to one side, will be likely to produce the same
result.
A _high_ heel has an influence in encouraging this false condition of
the arch by throwing the foot forward, thus creating the same effect
as a shortening of the heel itself. This is not so great a cause
as some others, it is true, but, as one thing tending to the same
general result, it should be considered and guarded against.
It is claimed that a necessity exists for a heel of some kind in
order to prevent the stubbing of the toes in walking; and the fact
that people of Eastern countries turn up the toes of their shoes
seems to countenance the claim. Yet, it is doubtful. Although Nature
did not put anything under our heels, it cannot be supposed that she
intended us to go about constantly stubbing our toes. If there had
really been a need of raising up the heel, she would have raised it.
It is more likely that by wearing heels we have got the foot into a
false habit of pointing the toes downward more than is natural, and
hence our inclination to stub them when the artificial heels are not
under us, if such is the fact. The heels must be decided (described)
as unnatural as they are unnecessary. Still, a moderately high one is
not so obnoxious as to be worth disputing about. If the height were
limited to an inch for the heels of a lady’s boot, and an inch and
a quarter for those of gentlemen, as a general rule, in both cases,
the disadvantage of such heels would be so trifling that they could
hardly be objectionable, provided the length was sufficient. But a
_short_ heel, however _low_ it may be, is a villainous thing.
Another great means, both of preventing the fall of the arch, and of
restoring it afterward—one hardly inferior to that of the heel—is
the exercise and development of the muscles of the under side of the
foot. These are chiefly concerned in the use of the toes. They act
whenever we spring upon the forward part of the foot in walking,
leaping, or dancing. Their exercise not only strengthens _them_, but
it strengthens all the other parts also; the ligaments and bones, as
well, being made more dense, firm, and enduring, according to the
law that the proper use of the muscles of any part of the body draws
blood, vitality, and strength into the surrounding or contiguous
parts. As these muscles extend in a general lengthwise direction,
their strong and firm condition tends directly to hold the ends of
the arch as near together as they naturally belong, or in other
words, prevent their separation. And as they must separate before the
arch can sink, it is seen that here is a powerful influence naturally
exerting itself to restrain the foot from flattening; a view which
can be sustained by good anatomical and medical authority.
The ladies of Spain are said to possess the finest feet of any race
of women in the world. The fact can hardly be disputed; and to
account therefore it is only necessary to take into consideration
the general prevalence of their national habit of _dancing_, which,
by all its movements and exercises of the foot, tends directly
toward strengthening the toes and raising the arch. A person who can
support the weight of the body on the tips of the great toes, either
naturally or by cultivation, must possess not only strong muscles in
the toes themselves, but a strong arch, and strong foot throughout.
We will risk the reputation of this book on the assertion that a
broken-down arch cannot be found in the whole dancing _profession_.
Here, then, is indicated one course of practical effort by which
to avoid or ameliorate the deformity. All those movements of
gymnastics which go to strengthen the foot may likewise be adopted
with advantage. The toes must also be taught to do their share in
the process of walking; and whatever action, in short, will cause
the exercise of the muscles of the lower part of the foot, should
be favoured, and will help to develop and raise the arch. But this
effect cannot be produced immediately. It may require patience,
determination, and steady perseverance. There is no royal road to
recovery from flat-footedness, any more than there is to knowledge.
The coverings for flat feet should always be made upon lasts that
are flat in the shank like themselves. A boot made on an arched last
cannot possibly fit a foot whose sole is convex from heel to toe;
hence such feet need lasts made expressly for them. The upper leather
of the boot cannot, in this case, be too soft and pliable. It should
be loose enough to allow the bending at the ball and the movements
of the toes to be performed with ease. All the muscles must have a
chance to act freely, and the blood be permitted to circulate without
hindrance. At the same time there is no need of having big wrinkles,
or any extra looseness in the fit of the boot, if only sufficient
care is taken in the making.
Another thing to be considered is the stiffening in the shank of
boots, more particularly in those of men. If a short heel _must_
be worn a stiff shank had better go with it. A metallic shank, if
strong, will then be useful, and perhaps generally effective in
keeping up the foot. A shank-piece of leather is seldom so stiff but
that a flat foot will bend it downward to adapt it to its own shape.
So it will also depress the steel shank at the forward and middle
portions, but probably not directly in front of the heel, where the
most support is required. The shank, too, unless nearly straight,
will be apt to press against the middle of the arch—or where the
arch ought to be—so strongly as to cause discomfort; and it is a
question if such a pressure does not itself tend to weaken the foot
still more. It is thus doubtful if the metallic shank will be of any
benefit to a flat foot, unless pains are taken to make it conform
to a flat-bottomed last by straightening. Feet that are tolerably
well-arched can wear it with no difficulty.
But, further: the stiffness in the shank of the boot interferes
somewhat with the flexibility of the foot, and therefore no more of
it than is necessary to pull off the boot ought to be allowed. By far
the best way, and the only right way, is to wear a heel sufficiently
long to give all the needed support, and a shank as flexible as it
can be without breaking or clinging to the foot when the boot is
drawn off. The foot—at least the heel and arch portion—is then left
unimpeded in its natural action. If it be said that the stiffness is
intended to keep the sole in its proper shape, it is replied that
when the boot fits naturally and easily—not loosely—it will keep its
correct shape without any help, while if it does not it will tread
badly in spite of all the stiffness.
There is an additional elegance, and general appearance of elevation
given to the foot by having the sole of the boot made as thin and
light in the shank or waist as possible. This can be done in men’s
boots by driving a row of pegs through the shank-piece, putting the
pegs close together, to create stiffness, without increasing the
thickness of the leather. The shoemaker will understand. A shank
made in this manner will be firm enough in drawing off the boot, the
thickly-driven pegs not leaving room between them for the leather to
_break_; while it is much more flexible than a thick one. It is thus
_better adapted to the foot_, at the same time that it is _quite as
reliable for its own proper purpose_. One piece of leather may thus
take the place of two or three. Where a metallic shank is used, there
will of course be the appearance of lightness.
The model boot or shoe of the future, however, will be one in which
there shall exist no need of stiffness in order to draw it off, but
where this part of the sole will be so thin and flexible as to be
easily pressed downward by the large ligament under the arch when the
toes are raised, while it will cling upward close to the hollow of
the foot when the arch is raised and the toes extended.
Another hint to the bootmaker may not be inappropriate. It is
generally considered desirable to have the side seams correspond
with, or meet, the forward corners of the heel. To effect this when a
long heel is made it is only necessary to add half an inch, or more,
to the width of the _back-pattern_ at the bottom, before cutting.
This width may be added at the bottom, and lessened gradually toward
the top, or continued through the whole length of the pattern
equally, as preferred. A corresponding amount must of course be
taken off from the width of the _front_ pattern at the same time. In
a boot without sideseams the same rule applies in cutting the ends of
the outside counter.
The front of the heel should not be cut out in curved form, as is
sometimes done, because that is a virtual shortening of it; though
there is no objection to cutting out the upper lifts of the leather,
letting the point of the knife come out before touching the sole,
which makes a shortened appearance without affecting the length at
all where the sole and heel surfaces unite. A heel _rounded out_,
lengthwise, would be preferable to one curved _in_, though it might
not be thought so elegant unless indorsed by fashion. We speak thus
particularly about the construction of the heel, because it is
important; as the good or ill form of the foot’s arch seems to depend
upon it more than upon anything else, except it be the strengthening
of the muscles.
There is a third peculiarity of the Plumer last that is worthy of
notice, and which consists in a hollowing out or concaving of the
bottom or sole from the heel forward to the toe, but mostly through
the ball. This hollow is designed to be filled up with leather in
making the boot, so as to leave the bottom of the sole _flat_, while
_inside it is rounded upward_. The object of this change in the shape
of the last is to make it conform to the shape of the foot, which
it does very closely. But, at the same time, so far as this has any
effect upon the foot at all it has an injurious one. The form of the
sole of the foot at this place is one that _ought not to be conformed
to_ by the sole of the boot. There is a low arch, transversely of
the foot, from the ball of the great toe to that of the little one,
its two opposite resting points. In nature it is somewhat like the
great arch between the ball and heel. To raise the sole under it is
like supporting an arch in the middle, which would be absurd. In this
case it is entirely unnatural, and only of use _in a boot that is
very tight, or much too narrow, where it may do good by preventing
the formation of a big wrinkle in the sole of the foot, lengthwise_,
which might come from the drawing together of the opposite sides. The
following quotation strongly sets forth the impropriety of the new
mode.
“There has been a good deal said of late about the transverse arch of
the foot, and the necessity of supporting it to prevent its breaking
down, and the unfortunate possessor becoming splay-footed. Did any
one ever hear of an arch requiring support? * * * What is called the
_transverse arch_ is in reality a portion of an elliptic spring; and
the moment you fill up the natural hollow of the foot you destroy its
elasticity. What carriage-maker puts supports under the arches of his
carriage-springs? The human foot is a combination of bones and strong
muscles _that act as springs_, and at each point where it comes in
contact with the ground is placed a cushion to prevent jarring. When
the weight of the body is placed upon the foot, it spreads both in
_length_ and _breadth_, and it contracts again when the weight is
removed; and any artificial support under the hollow of the foot
_prevents this expansion and contraction_, and one may as well have a
wooden foot, for all practical purposes, as one which has a support
under the transverse arch.”[4]
As the foot spreads at every step, the arch naturally flattens in
the middle, but this is prevented when the sole is built up under
it. _It is self-evident that the foot is designed to tread on a
flat surface, as its most natural function._ Any attempt to make it
tread constantly on a _convex_ one is manifestly wrong. Yet, as said
before, it may be of use to prevent a greater evil where people are
determined to wear tight or narrow boots in spite of all reason or
propriety.
It is also true that a slight hollow will exist under the ball of a
well-arched foot, even when pressed upon by the weight of the body.
This may be filled up if desired, for, being so small, it is a matter
of indifference whether it is so or not, while there is perfect
safety in letting it alone.
We see, then, that while one characteristic of the Plumer boot—the
long heel—is a very valuable one, another—that of filling under the
transverse arch—is useless, or positively injurious. The first, or
good quality, however, overbalances the latter, and therefore the
boot is an improvement upon the old or common style. The true and
natural-shaped boot would have a _flat_ or _level_ surface from heel
to toe on the sole, not wholly, _but precisely where in this it is
hollowed out_. The parts on each side of the level strip would be
slightly convex, like the corresponding parts of the foot; not too
much so, however, for then the last would be too rounding on the
bottom, taking the whole width in view, which is as bad a fault as
the hollow, or even worse; as it interferes more with the spreading
of the transverse arch, and, by making a _concave_ upper surface to
the insole of the shoe, compels the ball to tread into just such a
hollow as would fit a broken-down, splay foot. The natural inference
is that such a shoe would tend to favour the production of just such
a foot.
It is believed that the broken-down transverse arch will almost
always be found accompanied by the broken-down arch of the instep.
Though the latter may exist without the former, yet we suspect that
the two incline to go together—that the sinking of the greater arch
tends to carry down the other along with it, while a natural weakness
of muscle would be a predisposing condition. If there are other
causes they are not yet known. The last supposition being correct,
then the most direct way to a cure would be to restore the arch of
the _instep_ to its proper shape and position; which would probably
have the same tendency to raise the other, that its depression had to
break it down. The grand recipe for this, as already given, is the
long heel; which can be made upon any kind of covering, whatever its
peculiarities. The use of the muscles of the toes must also come in
as an auxiliary help not to be underrated.
Still another remedial measure is the “_righting up_” of the foot.
Many, if not most, of the feet that have broken-down arches also
tread over inward along the whole side. In such cases the weight
of the body, as already stated, falls upon the arch in a wrong
direction. The arch, instead of standing _upright_ and receiving
the weight _directly over_ itself, supports the body _while itself
leaning over to one side_. Any other kind of arch, in a similar
condition, would quickly fall over or settle down; and it is no
wonder the foot settles down to a level in the shank. Weak muscles in
the ankle and foot of a child will allow the foot to take a one-sided
tendency, and it is not impossible the child may inherit something
of this weakness from a weak-footed parent, and thus the infirmity
be perpetuated. But with the fault existing, however produced, the
foot cannot get strong till the arch is restored to its natural
perpendicularity. The best manner of righting it up will be described
in a chapter farther on. The uprightness will give the muscles a
better chance to grow strong, while these assist the operation of the
long heel; and possibly it will prove not inferior to either of them
in promoting the desired result.
We are sorry that facts from practical effort cannot be given to
show a realized success in this direction. But in truth we doubt
that an earnest and systematic attempt was ever made to raise up
a broken-down foot. All that can be said is that the methods
recommended must necessarily tend toward the restoration of the arch.
But this alone ought to furnish assurance of success, and encourage
an archless-footed person to combine those methods, and give them a
faithful trial.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] This paragraph is from Mr. J. L. Watkins, a boot and shoe
manufacturer of New York city, who has attempted to carry into
practice the idea of Prof. Meyer.