CHAPTER II.

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 theextentto 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 towardthe 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 manufacturerwho 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.

Fig. 1.—a a,Metatarsal Bones;b,Joint.

Themetatarsalbones 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 theballorinside ball; or, morestrictly, 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 askeleton 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 beingunrolledin the manner described; that is to say, it must so lie thatthe 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 seenin the cut of a healthy foot, Fig. 2, and still more plainly in that of the foot-skeleton, Fig. 3.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

In each of these figures the difference in the width at the pointsaandbis 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 thesmallertoes should lie directly forward oftheirmetatarsal 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. Themetacarpalbones of the hand are those which answer to themetatarsalbones 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.

Fig. 4.

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 theirusefulness, 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 thatsomething, 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 everyother 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.

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 toallthe toes the freedom which properly belongs to them. The true standard form is one that will not compelanyof 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 theinside; 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.

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.

[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.

Back to Index Next