Transcriber’s Note
  Italic text displayed as: _italic_




  DRESS AND CARE

  OF

  THE FEET;

  SHOWING

  THEIR NATURAL SHAPE AND CONSTRUCTION; THEIR
  USUAL DISTORTED CONDITION; HOW CORNS, BUNIONS,
  FLAT FEET, AND OTHER DEFORMITIES ARE CAUSED,
  WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR THEIR PREVENTION
  OR CURE.

  ALSO,

  DIRECTIONS FOR DRESSING THE FEET WITH COMFORT
  AND ELEGANCE, AND MANY USEFUL HINTS TO
  THOSE WHO WEAR, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO
  MAKE FOOT-COVERINGS.

  _ILLUSTRATED._

  LONDON: WILLIAM TEGG.
  1872.




PREFACE.


The object of this little treatise is to bring before the popular
attention some ideas concerning the feet that are not generally
familiar; to exhibit the producing causes of the common deformities
and discomforts to which they are subject; to show the best means of
preserving their natural shape and condition, or of restoring it as
far as possible when lost; and to suggest better methods for their
dress and general treatment, in order to their more perfect health,
beauty, and performance of function.

The subject has already received some little attention. Some time
about the beginning of the present century Dr. Peter Camper, of
Amsterdam—a distinguished man of his time—wrote a short dissertation
upon the “Best Form of Shoe,” which was eventually translated and
published in England in 1861, in connection with a larger work by Mr.
James Dowie. Dr. Camper’s essay was excellent as a first effort in
this direction, furnishing some ideas upon the form of the foot and
the defect of its covering, which still remain hardly less just and
appropriate. Mr. Dowie added some good suggestions, and faithfully
exposed the faults of the foot-gear worn by the British army and the
humbler classes; but a considerable portion of his book was taken up
in the explanation and advocacy of elasticated leather—an article
of his own invention—while the whole was written in a style too
difficult to be generally read.

Another work published in England was the “Book of the Feet,” by
J. Sparkes Hall, issued a few years previous to that of Mr. Dowie.
Though very interesting as a concise _history_ of the shoemaking art,
it touched but slightly upon those abuses of the feet with which
shoemaking is connected.

But a late essay directly upon the subject, by Prof. Hermann Meyer,
of Zurich, Switzerland, has a value superior in this respect to that
of all the preceding ones.

The present writer has intended to include all the important ideas
of previous writers on the subject, together with such information
as could be gathered from medical and other works, but going farther
and adding such original notions as the observation and thought of
his own mind could supply, with the purpose of making the whole as
thorough and complete as possible, both from the point of view of the
_physiologist_ and that of the practical _shoemaker_.

The book is not written in the dignified style of a professor, nor
with literary correctness; but it is hoped the ideas contained,
and the nature of the subject-matter, will make it readable. It is
addressed to those who desire comfort for their feet, and no less to
those who wish to see them handsome in form and tastefully dressed.

As first prepared, the matter, under a different title, was printed
in a trade journal—the _Shoe and Leather Reporter_—in 1868, since
which a careful revision has improved and adapted it for its present
form.




CONTENTS.


  CHAPTER I.
                                                                  PAGE

  INTRODUCTORY                                                       1


  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                                                      6


  CHAPTER III.

  Distortion of the Toes and Joint—Various Causes—Want
  of Harmony between Shape of Foot and
  Shape of Shoe—Grown-in-Nails—Influence of
  Stockings, Narrow-Toed Soles, High Heels, and
  Changing of Shoes—Faults of Lasts                                 17


  CHAPTER IV.

  Prevention of Deformed Toes and Joint—New
  Forms of Sole—Eureka Last—True Standard
  of Taste—How Distorted Great Toe may be
  Straightened—Ancient and Medieval Foot-apparel—Suggestions        36


  CHAPTER V.

  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                                                              61


  CHAPTER VI.

  Natural Character of the Instep—Causes, and Prevention,
  of Sores upon it—False Taste—Callosities
  of the Heel—Counters—Criticism of Lasts                           87


  CHAPTER VII.

  _Inclinations_ of the Feet—How to Make them tread
  Squarely—Peculiar Lasts—Weak Ankles—Cultivation
  of Muscle—Turning-in of the Toes                                 100


  CHAPTER VIII.

  Corns, Bunions, and Callosities—How they Originate—Nature
  of the Skin—Various Causes of
  Corns—How to Remove them—Quotations from
  the Medical Books—Nature and Treatment of
  Bunions                                                          110


  CHAPTER IX.

  Recapitulation—Lasts for Individual Feet—Possibility
  of all Feet being Well Fitted in their
  Clothing—Ease and Grace of Movement—A Last
  Word for Children                                                128


  CHAPTER X.

  Miscellaneous—Criticism of Different Forms and
  Fashions—Elasticity—Sensitiveness—Rubbers
  and Water-proof Leather—Cure for Sweating—Qualities
  of a Good Covering                                               139




DRESS AND CARE OF THE FEET.




CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY


The human foot, it appears to us, is one of those members of the
body that have never received their due share of consideration. Like
certain _downtrodden_ members of the _social_ body, it seems to
have been looked upon as having fewer “rights that were entitled to
respect” than those organs which occupy a higher place, as the hands
and eyes. No other part has been so abused by pinching, squeezing,
chafing, freezing, and _corning_. The waist, of one sex especially,
has suffered a good deal of compression, but not so much, we think as
has the foot. It might perhaps be contended that the lowest parts of
the system perform a function equally necessary with that of those
above them and are therefore entitled to as tender care; but whether
this be so or not, it is at least certain they are “pressed to earth”
in a way that is wrong; and knowing this, it shall be our duty to set
forth their wrongs and rights as well as we may, hoping to effect
some improvement in the manner of their treatment.

The natural object and intention of the foot is the support of
the body, and the carrying of it, in all its movements, lightly,
easily, safely, and gracefully. To this object it is as beautiful
and wonderfully adapted as the eye and ear, those special objects
of wonder, to the functions performed by them. Its perfection may
be most frequently seen in the graceful steps of the dance, though
often also in the ordinary walk, while its capabilities may be
judged of by the fact, not so generally known, that men deprived of
their hands have succeeded in making their toes do the work of the
fingers in writing. Anatomy recognizes the fact, that in the number
and character of the bones, joints, and muscles of the foot and leg,
and the connection of the femur or thigh-bone at the pelvis, there
is a strict similarity or correspondence with those of the hand
and arm, and the connection of the latter at the shoulder-blade.
This justifies the conclusion, that all the variety of motion, and
complete adaptation to an infinite number of uses, which exists
in the hand, exists also to a less degree in the foot, and can be
brought out and exhibited, much of it at least, under circumstances
requiring its development. There is no reason for scepticism as to
the foot’s concealed powers—none for withholding the admiration due
to its perfect performance of the offices for which it is designed.

Nature, when allowed free scope for her work, does it thoroughly
and handsomely. Healthy children are born with arched insteps and
straight toes. Notice the foot of the little urchin who runs barefoot
in summer time around the outskirts of our cities and villages,
and there is no fault to be found with it. Though the parents’
feet have flat insteps, crooked toes, and big joints, those of the
child are regular-shaped and sound. There seems to be an intention
to give every one a fair start in the race of life with good pedal
extremities. It is not at all probable that old father Adam went
perambulating about his garden with the “hollow of his foot making
a hole in the ground,” or that his great toes pointed off in the
direction of the little ones, as though they had a secret affinity
for them, while the others were forced upward out of place, in
order to cover up the affair; nor that our beautiful mother Eve
wandered among the flowers with _her_ feet disfigured by corns and
large joints. If they had been, would the serpent have cultivated
her acquaintance in the way he did? On the contrary, does not
every painter and sculptor represent her with feet beautiful and
shapely, like every other feature of her person? Did the old Greek,
Phidias, make flat feet on his statues, and ornament them with
corns and callosities? Did old Hercules have a big toe-joint on
which to rest his club? Or did the ancients of the Golden Age know
about such things at all? The Art of the world has never recognized
them as beautiful or natural. We venture to say that in all the
painting and sculpture of the past they cannot be found. They are
entirely unnatural and deformed, belonging to the days of modern
civilization. Nature makes her feet, except in rare instances, with
arches well-marked and strong, and toes that point directly forward
in the line of the foot’s length. Yet the deformities spoken of are
very common at the present time, and in this most intelligent part
of the world. We believe, judging from a dozen years’ experience
in the making of boots and shoes for individual feet, that those
more or less deformed constitute the rule, and the healthy and
well-formed ones the exception. Such disfigurements and distortions
are thrust upon our attention every day—crooked feet—short, stumpy
feet—feet that tread inward, and those that tread only on the
outside edge—flat feet—crippled feet—and feet so disproportioned
that the part which should be an inch smaller than the instep is
often half an inch larger—feet with large ankles, and feet with long
heels—swelled feet, and feet that are nothing but bones—feet that
turn inward and outward, and backward—feet with flat insteps—with
big joints—with great toes that lie crosswise of the smaller
ones—with small ones that grow over each other—with nails grown in,
or to one side—with hard corns, and soft corns, little and big—with
callosities on insteps, and heels, and ankles—with chilblains all
over—feet with weak ankles that have lost their uprightness—sweaty
feet—sensitive feet that take cold by wetting, and give their owner
a consumption—and dirty feet that deserve to be diseased if they are
not.

The causes of these depravities, diseases, and deformities are many
and various. Thick and stiff leather coverings have had much to do
with corns and callosities. False taste and fashions, bad habits
of changing shoes, unnatural-shaped lasts, awkwardness in gait and
movement, muscular weakness, and perhaps other causes that we do not
yet know, have combined to produce flat insteps, crooked toes, large
joints, weak ankles, and all the rest.

The subject is one in which all who have not lost their feet are more
or less interested. To those who have children it is more especially
important. While much may be done to reform the feet of adult
persons, and it is intended to hold out all possible encouragement
to them to attempt it, still it is with the children that the main
work of correcting, improving, and educating must be effected. If a
child’s feet are trained up in the way they should _go_, they will
not be likely, when they are older, to depart from it, and incur
those penalties appropriately attached to an abuse of the foot’s
nature.

The particular causes of the more important of these troubles will be
shown in the succeeding chapters, and suggestions for their remedy or
prevention given.




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 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.




CHAPTER III.

  Distortion of the Toes and Joint—Various Causes—Want of Harmony
  between Shape of Foot and Shape of Shoe—Grown-in Nails—Influence
  of Stockings, Narrow-Toed Soles, High Heels, and Changing of
  Shoes—Faults of Lasts.


The doctrine concerning the shape and position of the toes is
considered to be made sufficiently clear by what has been already
advanced. As the best illustration of it, we copy from Dr. Meyer’s
book a cut of the natural, healthy foot of a child (Fig. 8), in which
the line of the great toe, continued backward, passes under the
middle of the heel. By the side of this is placed a shoe-sole of the
common form (Fig. 9), and which plainly does not harmonize with the
shape of the foot. From the ball forward instead of being straight
on the inside line, it slants off obliquely toward the middle of the
toe, making as great an inclination or curve on that side as on the
outside. As the toes of the foot cannot force the upper of a boot
over the sole to any great extent, the form of the sole determines
the shape in which the toes shall lie when they are inside the boot.
The line _c d_, in the diagram, shows where the great toe ought to
be; but, far from being there, it is turned aside into the line _c
e_, a position entirely unnatural. We will here quote again from the
book, taking the liberty to italicize:

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

[Illustration: FIG. 9.]

“It is quite clear that the foot must get into the shoe; and if the
shoe differs in shape from the foot, it is no less plain that the
foot, being the more pliable, must necessarily adapt itself to the
shape of the shoe. If, then, fashion prescribes an _arbitrary_ form
of shoe, she goes far beyond her province, and in reality arrogates
to herself the right of determining the shape of the foot.

“But the foot is a part of the body, and must not be changed
by fashion; for our body is a gift, and its several parts are
beautifully adapted to the purposes for which they were intended.

“If, therefore, we in any way change its normal form, _not only do we
not improve, but we actually disfigure it_.

“We do not, indeed at first sight, perceive the arrogant absurdity
of which fashion is guilty in going so far as to determine the shape
of our feet, because we are not alive to the fact that the case is
_peculiar_ to the feet. We only see it influencing the shape of
the shoe, and come to the conclusion that it may regulate this, as
well as the cut of the coat. To this prevalent opinion we yield,
regardless of the influence on the shape of the shoe, and thereby
on the foot. As well, indeed, might fashion one day come to the
conclusion that _fingers_ are inelegant, and decree that henceforth
the hand be squeezed into a conical leather bag; as well, indeed,
might she in one of her freaks, forbid the display of our arms, and
bind them firmly to our bodies, like those of children in swaddling
clothes.

“The shoe ought to _protect_ the foot, but it has no right to
_distort its shape_.”

Seeing, therefore, that the common form of boots and shoes, as now
made, is not the true one, and that it arbitrarily forces the great
toe into a false position, it follows that all the bad effects
resulting from this false position are to be attributed directly to
the incorrect form of the last and shoe. The first of these is a
crowding together of all the toes, in which some are obliged to find
their places _under_, and some _above_, the more ambitious of them
sometimes pushing their nails through the upper leather, the rubbing
and chafing they meet making them sore, while the more humble are
glad to curl themselves down in any way that will give them a place
of comfort. When the crowding is not so great as to force them out of
place there is still a constant pressure against each other that is
liable to create corns between them.

Another effect is the _growing in_, or to _one side_, of the nails.
The boot-upper presses the flesh against the nail of the great toe
on one side, while there is a similar pressure from the smaller toes
on the opposite side, and between both, the nail is almost compelled
to grow into the flesh, if it grows at all. If the great toe gets
the advantage, then the one next to it is likely to suffer in the
same way, and all of them are liable to the same trouble. When the
nail grows so far that its edge turns downward, the pressure against
the sole, in walking or standing, is a more aggravated discomfort.
Dr. Meyer says that “by degrees it [the toe] gets into a state of
chronic inflammation, and may eventually become ulcerated, producing
what is popularly known as ‘proud flesh.’ The ailment not only
interferes with the use of the foot, but too often requires, for
its relief, medical, and even operative interference.” A surgical
operation of this kind, which consists in removing the nail entirely,
we are assured, by those who have seen it, is an intensely painful
thing to witness, and cannot be less so to be borne. The following
description of the nature of the trouble, and of the mode of
treatment, is copied from Dr. R. T. Trall, for the benefit of those
who may wish to treat it for themselves.

“_Onyxis._—This distressing affliction consists in an incurvation of
the toe-nail from a bruise or the pressure of a tight shoe, producing
inflammation and ulceration, and followed eventually by fungous
growths, or proud flesh, which is exceedingly tender and painful. The
cure is slow but certain. The foot must be frequently soaked in warm
water, until the soreness is so far abated that it can be handled
without pain; then, with a probe, press pledgets of lint as firmly as
can be borne under the most detached point of the nail, pressing them
also between the nail and projecting portions of the flesh, as far as
possible. Cover these with the wet compress, and apply a moderately
tight bandage over the whole, frequently wetting the whole with warm,
tepid, or cold water, as either temperature is most agreeable. The
lints are to be pressed farther and farther under the nail, from time
to time, and the foot should be soaked and dressed once or twice
daily. When portions of the nail become free they may be cut off, and
mild caustics may be employed to remove fungous or indurated growths,
which do not yield to the other measures of treatment.”

A _slim_-toed shoe—one that is _thin_, and scant in the
upper—whatever be its width or shape, has a bad influence upon the
nails, not only by inciting them to grow in, but by turning them
down at the ends, and keeping them constantly irritated and sore,
a condition which effectually prevents the toes from being of any
use. The seller of such an article will sometimes try to persuade
the wearer that it is a “good fit” when snug at the forward part,
however loose elsewhere; and many persons are quite willing to be
persuaded in this way. But if they are wise they will not attempt to
wear anything that is not perfectly easy to the toes, for these may
be allowed all necessary room, and still, if the fit is “just right,”
there will be no wrinkling, nor any other bad appearance.

The next and most important of the difficulties springing from this
source is the enlargement of the great-toe joint. We continue to
quote from Meyer:

“Not less important are the evils arising at the root of the great
toe from the same cause. It has already been stated that the pressure
of the upper leather pushes the point of the great toe against the
smaller toes. The joint at the metatarsal bone thus becomes _bent
aside_, so that it forms a protuberance on the inner side of the
foot. If the point of the toe is now pressed against the ground in
walking, this protuberance must be made still greater, and so pressed
more forcibly against the upper leather. At the same time, moreover,
the great transverse wrinkle in the upper leather—the result of the
bending of the toes—presses directly on the same point, and the
protuberance at the root of the toe is thus constantly subjected
to a twofold and very injurious pressure. In these circumstances
it is by no means wonderful that this joint becomes subject to a
continual inflammation, which by extending to the bones must, in this
situation, produce permanent and painful swellings, which become, in
their turn, and even from slight causes, the source of inflammations
and new growths of bone.

“In this manner arise those unseemly and painful swellings at the
root of the great toe, which, either from mistaking their true
nature, or from wilful deception, are called ‘chilblains,’ or ‘gout,’
just as one or the other term appears the most interesting. In
many cases, moreover, this kind of inflammation of the bones, and
their investing membrane, may lead to the formation of matter, _and
eventually to the disease known as ‘caries,’ or ulceration of the
bone_.”

_Narrow-toed_ shoes furnish another influence strongly operating
to produce large joints. The great toe is drawn farther than
usual toward the others, and its joint thrown out in the opposite
direction. All the toes are more crowded, until some of them are
forced out of place while corns and grown-in nails are developed or
made worse. Width at the ball alone will not prevent these effects.
French and English styles are in this respect often pernicious. The
whole tendency of narrow toes is toward deformity; and those who
cannot because they happen to be the style, refuse to wear them,
should make up their minds to accept the consequences with a good
grace.

Another great cause of the prominence and swelling of the joint—which
our author alludes to, but gives it hardly any of its real
importance—is the backward pressure of the toe by shoes that are
too _short_. This, in addition to causing sore nails, crowds the
toes still more closely together, and pushes the joint still farther
inward, away from its proper place. To illustrate.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 10.       FIG. 11.

_a_, PHALANGES, OR BONES OF THE TOE; _b_, METATARSAL BONE; _c_,
JOINT.]

Supposing these to represent the bones of the great toe and its
metatarsal bone—which, in their normal position, are on the same
line—we can see that if the toe bones _a_ are bent toward the other
toes first, and then pushed backward, it necessarily forces out the
joint in the only direction in which it _can_ bend, which is inward.
The greater and more constant the pressure against the end of the
toe by the short boot or shoe, the larger the joint, and the more
it will project from the inside of the foot; the more liable also
to soreness, swelling, corns, bunions, inflammation, and settled
disease, and the more awkward, ill-shaped, and uncomfortable, not
only to walk with but to look upon.

_High heels_ also do their share toward bringing on this deformity.
They cause the foot to pitch downward on the toes, sometimes pushing
it a size farther forward into the boot than it would go if the heel
was only moderately high, thus creating the necessity for a _longer_
boot. _The crowding of the toes is increased; and as they meet with
resistance or a backward pressure from both sides and the end of the
shoe_, at the same time that there is a _forward pressure from the
heel_ by the weight of the body, _of course the angle formed at the
joint must be pushed out more acute, the foot_ making room for itself
by stretching and treading over the upper at the sides.

There is a peculiarity about the _Plumer_ last recommending it in
this particular. The heel, on the bottom, is quite convex, which
allows the heel of the foot to settle down into that of the boot more
than usual, and thus what appears to be a high heel, outside, feels,
on the foot, to be no higher than one made upon ordinary lasts an
eighth of an inch lower. There is hence so much less pressure upon
the ends of the toes.

A false habit, tending in the same direction, is that of _changing_
the shoes of children to make them wear evenly or prevent their
treading over to one side at the heel. It is a practice productive
of far more harm than good—a saving of shoe-leather at the foot’s
expense. _After one foot has shaped a shoe to itself, to put the
other into it forcing the great toe into the curve made by the
little toe and outside of the foot, must do much toward bending
the toe permanently out of place._ It should never be allowed or
proposed. Give children _right and left_ shoes, and guard against
their wearing on one side by good firm counters. It is their right,
when obtainable, and anything less is injustice.

While the foot is growing, it easily adapts itself to its
surroundings; and by wearing short boots and shoes it may be
encouraged to grow into a bad shape in a few years. Most old people
have joints deformed in this way. We have also seen them on the
feet of young and beautiful women, where they seemed most sadly out
of place. Young feet are often forced to grow into uncomely shape
through the good intentions of parents, whose falsely-taught instinct
of beauty induces them to put as small a shoe on the child’s foot as
it will bear, fearing that if left to itself it will grow too long,
or too wide, to be elegant in form. The motive of this action is most
commendable, but its wisdom extremely doubtful and weak. Beauty,
taste, elegance, are to be sought for everywhere and always. We have
not the least sympathy with any attempt to depreciate them. But they
are not to be sought by counteracting nature. On the contrary, nature
is most trustworthy. If not interfered with, she will make the foot
grow in due proportion to the size of the whole body; and every part
will be developed in the right proportion to itself.

“Children of a larger growth” continue to carry out the same false
idea by wearing as short and narrow a boot as they can squeeze their
foot into with any degree of comfort. While the object is to obtain a
handsome foot, _all such cramping inevitably defeats its purpose. The
effect which it invariably has and must have, is to make the joints
project, and add from one-fourth to three-fourths of an inch to the
foot’s width_, leaving out of account the torture accompanying the
process. Nobody will claim that large joints and extra width at this
point make a good-looking foot, but they are the sure results, in
greater or less degree according to the severity of the pinching, and
the length of the time it is continued.

It is well to ascertain if _stockings_ do not have some effect in
giving a bad shape to this part of the foot, although made of such
yielding materials that they may at first thought, appear harmless.
Mr. James Dowie, in a work published in England some years since,
speaking of the toes being cramped, crowded, bent, and piled over
each other, attributes part of this result to the stocking, and
recommends the wearing of one having _toes_ on it—similar to the
fingers on a glove. There is no reason to doubt that this conclusion
is correct, for while a stocking that is loose may be drawn into
almost any shape to suit the toes, one which is _tight, short, and
narrow-toed, must, and does, draw the toes together and keep them
so_, however favourable may be the form of the boot outside. It is a
fact, too, that stockings are narrow and pointed at the toe; almost
universally. The suggestion of putting _toes_ to them is a good
one. But if this is thought to be taking too much pains with such an
article—though it is evidently impossible to take too much pains in
dressing any part of the body so as to protect it from being injured
in any manner—it is perfectly easy to make the stocking _wider_ at
this part, leaving it _nearly square, or with only a slight roundness
at the end_. This would be a very decided improvement, and cannot be
urged too strongly.[2]

Like the defects of the shoe, those of the stocking must be felt more
seriously by children. They are ignorant of the matter, and would be
careless and inattentive even if they were not. But if parents will
half do their duty by them, there is no reason why they should not
grow up with well-formed feet, thankful for the care which has saved
them from distortion and blessed them with pedal comeliness.

There is here, also, a question of the comparative taste and elegance
of wide and narrow soles, which needs a little discussion. It is
the practice with many persons to wear as narrow a boot or shoe as
they can, thinking we suppose, that if they have not a narrow foot,
they _ought to have_, and that by putting it into a narrow boot they
prevent it from spreading. As such a boot is and will be _narrow at
the toe, the effect is just the opposite of that intended_ as in the
case of _short_ ones. _The toes are drawn together, and the ball
pushed out wider than before._ Then besides this tendency to _make_
it wider, the foot _looks_ wider in a shoe that is too narrow for
it, because it treads the upper over, _and the narrow toe makes it
appear all the wider by contrast_. A _foot_ that is narrow may wear
a narrow-soled shoe with propriety; for a _wide_ one to attempt to
do so is foolish. We have seen a lady’s boot trodden over so far
that a hole had been worn through the upper on each side of the sole
by its contact with the ground. The wearer doubtless thought it was
necessary for her to wear a narrow sole to prevent her foot from
spreading, and keep it in an elegant shape. She did not know that she
was taking the most direct way to defeat her object, and that her
true policy would have been to wear the widest-soled shoe she could
get. This case was extreme, but it is quite common to see the upper
worn through on _one_ side from the same cause. The right kind of
shoe for a wide foot is one so wide on the sole that the upper will
project over it on the sides but slightly, and _with as great a width
of the toe, in proportion to the ball, as there would be in a narrow
one. Such a shoe will make the foot appear narrower, by contrast,
than it really is_, and the greater the width of the toe, the more
this effect is produced. Besides, the shoe or boot _keeps its proper
shape_ much better and longer when not too narrow or too short. If
the _foot_ be _short_ proportionately, as well as wide, the covering
should be of good _length_—at least a full size to spare at the toe,
after being worn a few days and fitted, or broken in. These doctrines
may not be readily accepted, but let any one who doubts give them
a trial, and we are willing to be judged by the opinion formed
afterward.

There are those who appear to urge the idea that broad soles are
eminently proper always, and for everybody, which doctrine we do
not endorse; but we mean to say that persons who have wide feet
naturally, or who have made them wide at the joints in the ways here
pointed out, ought to wear wide soles. It is also quite certain that
if people wore soles of the correct shape from childhood there would
be a far less number than now of those feet, that require this extra
width of sole, for nine-tenths of them _are forced into a width which
they would not have by nature_, and, when once deformed, no pains
taken in fitting them can make them look _well_, or like those which
keep their proper shape.

A _narrow_ foot must not be confounded with a _slim_ one. Feet that
are slim—that measure less than an average in circumference—are
often found _wider_ than most of those of the same length which are
of medium size or fulness. These are feet that _spread_, and may
generally be found on individuals of spare or muscular temperament.
Such persons ought to wear boots made on wide lasts, with wide toes,
though at the same time sufficiently slim to fit. As such lasts
cannot easily be found ready-made, those having feet of this shape
ought to possess a pair made expressly for themselves.

There is an opposite style of feet, those which are long and narrow,
while they may be also _full_, or thick, vertically. These are
usually found on persons who are tall, yet round, and fleshy in
physique. They can wear boots made on lasts that are comparatively
narrow, such as may be found at any shoe-shop. It is not intended
to argue in favour of any _unnecessary_ width in either case, but
simply to urge the necessity, not only for comfort, _but especially
for elegance also_, of having sufficient width to accommodate the
foot easily, and preserve the natural shape of both the foot and its
covering.

Bad fashions of _lasts_ have had much to do in producing a deformed
condition of the feet, as well as the false ideas and tastes of the
people. Shoemakers, and more especially last-makers, who should have
studied the nature of the foot, and given the people, who looked
to them for a correctly-shaped last and shoe, something truly and
naturally adapted to its purpose, have failed in this part of their
duty. The latter have made lasts of all varieties of shape except the
true one, while the maker of the shoe has made a bad matter worse
with his high and short heels.

Formerly the great majority of ladies’ shoes and gaiters were
made upon lasts that were _straight_, and the same is true even
yet. Almost the whole of the cheaper kinds of work got up in the
manufactories is of this style. Slippers are hardly ever seen
made upon other than straight lasts. The whole custom is a wrong
one, for this reason; the middle of the toe of shoes made upon
straight lasts is nearer to the outside than it is in those made on
rights-and-lefts. Hence they draw the great toe farther toward the
outside of the foot than do those of the latter kind, _and have a
greater effect in producing all the evils that go with deformed toes
and joints_. No woman ought to be asked to wear them, nor should she
allow herself to do so if those of another form can be obtained.
Girls whose feet are growing cannot have them forced into straight
shoes, especially if tight, without perpetrating a kind of tyranny
very similar in character to that of the Chinese. Right-and-left
boots and shoes are the natural right of all men, women, and
children. Men and boys have, in this respect, the advantage over
their sisters, as their foot apparel is almost wholly of the better
shape. There is no reason why women and girls should not have the
benefit of the improvement in form, though it is only a slight one,
and they are counselled to take it whenever they can. In fact,
there is no excuse for straight shoes, except that they can be made
a little more cheaply—that is, there is a little less expense for
the lasts used. They do not wear more evenly than the others—on the
contrary, they are quite as liable, if not more so, to tread over
at the heel. They never fit the foot so well in the hollow, at the
instep, or on the side. There is no _necessity_ for their existence,
for there is no form of foot-covering but might be made on crooked
lasts with equal facility. Ladies’ slippers are believed to be
the only article that is _always_ made straight, and for these,
right-and-left lasts, properly adapted to the purpose, might be used
without the least difficulty. Considering these facts, and that there
is but a slight advantage to the manufacturer, and to him only, in
their production, and that the children and poorer class of women,
who wear them—the most helpless classes in the community—are almost
compelled to deform their feet in doing so, it becomes a disgrace to
the shoemaking profession that straight shoes are not abolished.

Many right-and-left lasts are made _so nearly straight_ that the
difference in form, and the benefit arising from it, amount to but
very little. This must be remedied by the people learning what is to
be desired, and making a demand for it. It is sometimes argued that
the straighter the last is, the less liable is the foot to tread the
boot over to one side; but this we hold to be a fallacy, and that
the liability to tread over, is determined by the shape of that part
of the last between the heel and instep. The form of the _toe or
forward part_ has nothing to do with the matter. It is generally,
however, an advantage to the foot, though not to the boot, if it
succeeds in treading the latter over to the _outside_. It thus gives
the boot a more distinctly right-and-left shape, and can hence more
easily preserve its own. When it goes over _inside_, there is a good
prospect of a big joint being soon produced.

The last-makers have given us toes of many styles, from the turn-up
toes an inch longer than necessary, to the stub-toes half an inch
shorter than the foot; and from the round toe narrowed to a point, to
the square one nearly or quite as wide as the ball. All that needs to
be said of them is, that the wider they are, except the extreme just
noted, the better for the foot, at least while the present lasts
are in use, and generally the handsomer also; that the long toe is
unnecessary, and therefore unhandsome; while the short or stub toe
is decidedly awkward and clumsy-looking, besides being injurious to
the foot, and utterly unworthy of toleration by any person of sense
or taste. The true and most tasteful shape will be found near the
half-way point between the two extremes in each direction. Whether
round or square is of no material consequence.

       *       *       *       *       *

Here, then, we have found several causes for the deformities of the
forward part of the foot—the crooked great toe, the cramped and
distorted smaller ones, the corns between, the grown-in nails, the
big joint, and the increased width. The cause first operating to
produce them is the wrong shape of the shoe at the inside, which
gives the oblique position to the great toe. Narrowness and shortness
are stronger influences acting in the same direction, aided still
further by extreme height of heels, by changing, by narrow-toed
stockings, etc. And it is especially worthy of being noticed that the
short and narrow toes, and the high heels often adopted to improve
the foot’s appearance, do thus inevitably defeat that purpose.

The attention of those who regard their own foot-comfort is earnestly
directed to the points and reasoning presented in this chapter. Just
as earnestly it is desired that those whose principal aim in dressing
the foot is its beauty, elegance, and perfection of form, should give
a thorough consideration to what has been said. Both classes will
easily see that, in order to gain the object sought, there must be a
reform in the shape and style of the foot’s covering. The nature of
that improvement is already partially shown—that is, as far as the
toes are concerned—and will be shown fully in what is to follow.

The cuts below, showing some of the worst deformities of the forward
part of the foot, and adding the force of illustration to what has
been said, are an appropriate conclusion to this chapter. It will do
no harm to contrast them with Fig. 8 and Fig. 3, previously given.

[Illustration: FIG. 12.]

[Illustration: FIG. 13.]


FOOTNOTES:

[2] We have lately seen stockings for sale that were nearly
square-toed, and these should obtain the preference in buying.




CHAPTER IV.

  Prevention of Deformed Toes and Joint—New Forms of Sole—Eureka
  Last—True Standard of Taste—How Distorted Great Toe may be
  Straightened—Ancient and Medieval Foot apparel—Suggestions.


Let us next endeavour to ascertain what shall be done toward
substituting an improved form of covering for the present false
style, as a method of _preventing_ distortion of the toes and the
evils connected with it; and also inquire how far these deformities
can be relieved by proper effort after they have been induced.

The shape of sole previously described and illustrated (Fig. 7) is
taken to be as near the absolutely correct one as anything that can
now be devised, and to be approximated and realized as soon in the
future as possible. It is true that people should be capable of
recognizing its correctness, and of adopting it practically, at once;
and, doubtless, there are some who can conscientiously disregard the
strong tendency to conformity with the prevailing false styles, and
wear a boot or shoe which represents the right idea, or one as near
to it as it is possible for them to obtain. All such are earnestly
advised to take this course, and continue it, both for their own
good, and as a means of developing a sentiment in favour of the
change.

But there are other people, in larger numbers, who will not be
persuaded to attempt so much of a change without some encouragement
from popular sympathy. These must not only be taught to know what is
right and wrong in the matter, but be led to adopt the right through
gradually approximating steps, that do not vary so far from the style
at any time prevalent as to be unpleasantly _odd_. The eye must
become accustomed to different forms, and first to those that deviate
least from the present fashion. Bearing this in mind, what is the
best improvement that can be made generally acceptable?

Our principal care is the preservation of the shape of the great toe
and inside joint, not forgetting that the little toe is also entitled
to care; still, the great one is much the most important, and if
only one can be properly attended to, the little one must wait its
opportunity. Its deformity consists in being bent and twisted under,
and though the pressure causing this may also develop corns, and
injury of the toe joint, the joint itself is not forced out of place,
nor is the bad effect so common, nor so serious as in the case of the
large one.

[Illustration: FIG. 14.—COMPROMISE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 15.—COMMON SOLE.]

Figure 14 represents the sole of a crooked last, such as may
occasionally be seen in use by some of our best boot-makers at the
present time. Contrasted with the one beside it, which is a pretty
fair specimen of right-and-left lasts generally, it is evidently
nearer to the true form. In it, the line drawn from the middle of the
heel to the middle of the ball region passes through the toe nearest
the outside corner, leaving the greater space at the inside; while in
the other the line passes through the toe at the middle, thus making
it virtually only a _straight_ last, hollowed out a little the most
at the inner side. For the purpose of giving the great toe a straight
position, it is seen at a glance that the form of Fig. 14 is far
superior to that of Fig. 15, though the tendency to distortion would
still remain with it to a considerable extent. For the sake of a name
to distinguish it, this may be called the _Compromise_. It is not so
much in advance of the common styles that many people would notice
the difference at all, and last-makers and shoe manufacturers might
adopt it, and with a slight effort force it into general use, with
great benefit to those feet that are still tolerably well-shaped, if
not to their own direct advantage. At least, the acceptance of it is
one step in the right direction for those who are not ready to make a
more radical innovation.

Our next form is something better. The reason for it is the rule
given, some fifty or sixty years ago, by Dr. Peter Camper, of
Amsterdam, who wrote an essay on the subject, in which he stated
_that the proper form of shoe was such as to allow all the toes to
lie parallel with a line drawn through the middle of the sole from
heel to toe_.

This, though not perfect, was, considering its date, a pretty good
standard; but the shoemakers, if they were ever governed by it
at all, have transgressed it since, until its intention has been
entirely defeated. They have done this by narrowing the toe of the
sole so much that the toes of the foot, instead of lying parallel to
each other and to the line of the foot’s length, have had their ends
drawn together at an angle till they were compelled even to lie one
over the other.

When the toes lie as closely together as they can without
crowding—parallel, the middle ones at least, to the line of the
foot’s length—there is but little variation on the inside of the foot
from a straight line. The cuts 16 and 17 represent, one a foot in
which the toes are drawn together just enough to touch, and one as
they usually appear in the common boot.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.—TOES PARALLEL.]

[Illustration: FIG. 17.—TOES DRAWN TO AN ANGLE.]

Here it may be observed that in Fig. 16 the lines drawn past the
sides of the toes are nearly parallel to the line through the foot’s
centre, while in Fig. 17 they quickly form an angle with it.

Dr. Camper’s rule, strictly interpreted, would have made a
right-and-left last of the most extreme character, but by narrowing
the toe from inside and outside alike, it was converted into one no
better than straight. What is now proposed is, that we take this
rule and amend it by providing _that when the inside of the sole has
the right form to let the great toe lie parallel to the line through
the middle, any further narrowing of the toe shall be done from the
outside only_; and as the ball of the last projects slightly over the
bottom or sole, it is conceived that the inside margin of the _sole_
should be nothing less than straight, and parallel to the line of the
foot’s length, from the ball forward, in order to give the great toe
the position claimed. This would make a last a little more straight
on the inside than the one described as the _Compromise_. We will
call it the _Excelsior_, and represent it by a diagram, Fig. 18.

[Illustration: FIG. 18.—SOLE OF EXCELSIOR LAST.]

Our reason for insisting that the toe be narrowed only from the
outside is the fact already stated, that the consequences of bending
the great toe are far worse than those of bending the little ones.
Besides, it is not intended to draw them together any farther than
to make them touch, and this can be done without distorting any of
them, by leaving the great one in its natural position, or nearly
so, and making all the curve of the sole on the outside. The outside
toes being shortest, they permit this to be done without bending
them more than a very little. Of course it must be remembered that
the sole cannot be narrowed beyond a certain limit without injury to
the foot. A medium width of toe is the narrowest that is allowable,
consistently with the object we have in view.

The _last-maker_ will understand that the thickest part of the toe of
the last is not to be at the middle, but at the inside, in order to
give room for the great toe in the straight-ahead position claimed
for it. At the ball the wood is expected to project, as in all lasts,
very slightly over the bottom.

This is, perhaps, the best form—the nearest approach to that of the
foot—which is practically attainable while the modern boot and shoe
retain their present peculiarity, of a sole narrower at the toe
than at the ball. On the whole, it is probably equal or superior to
that recommended by Prof. Meyer, for though his is more crooked,
giving larger latitude to the great toe, it is a question if it does
not, by the extreme curve, tend to cramp the little ones more than
necessary, thus making a balance between a good point and a bad one.
Prof. Meyer’s form may be best for certain feet, and for a particular
purpose, as will be explained in speaking of the remedy for crooked
toes, but for general purposes we have more faith in this. If it
were adopted in general use, and more especially for the shoes of
children, and those who have not yet seriously deformed their feet
at the joint, the next generation would show that crooked toes,
soft corns, inverted nails, big joints, and bunions had been almost
abolished. Such a result is entirely worthy of a noble effort on the
part of those who furnish foot coverings. Such an effort, too, when
made, will surely be seconded by the growing intelligence of the
whole people, who will be constantly learning a better appreciation
of the reform. It is to be hoped that manufacturers and wearers will
both see what is for their credit and interest, and unite in securing
its realization.

But it will not do to be content with what is, after all, only
a rough approximation to the perfect form, for, superior as is
the Excelsior last to all the existing shapes, it is still but a
transition to one more complete and more permanently enduring. Like
all the others, it fails to give the outside toes a chance to keep
their natural form. The foot, in its normal condition, does not very
closely resemble any of the shapes that have here been illustrated.
It is only after it has been distorted that there appears any real
fitness between it and the shoe. The forward part of the foot is
wider than the middle; but this fact is not recognized in making
its covering. Even Prof. Meyer is no more consistent than others,
as may be seen by contrasting one of the specimens of natural feet
which he shows us with the sole of a shoe such as he would have it
clothed with. As exhibited in the cuts below, is there any good
correspondence between the two, except that both have a general
straightness upon the inside?

[Illustration: FIG. 19.—MEYER’S FORM OF SOLE.]

[Illustration: FIG. 20.—NATURAL FOOT.]

The foot is a wide one, and the shoe-sole rather narrow; but this
need not be taken into account, for the same want of harmony would
exist if the widths were alike. A narrow foot, however, may be seen
by reference to Fig. 8, in a preceding chapter.

The only way out of this awkward inconsistency is the acceptance
of the form before suggested, and here reproduced (Fig. 21) to be
compared with its competitors.

[Illustration: FIG. 21.—EUREKA.]

This has all the merits of any of them, and the additional one that
it allows as much freedom to the toes at the _out_side of the foot as
to those at the _in_side. All have a chance, provided other things
are as they should be, to develop normally and to perform their
functions without interference. There _is_ an agreement between
_it_ and the _foot_, not only on one side, _but on both sides and
all around_. It represents completely the idea of Dr. Camper, which
cannot be done by anything of the narrow-toed form. By a very slight
addition to the width from the ball forward, on the inside, it also
represents the idea of Prof. Meyer. So far as we can see, it fulfils
all the requirements that can be made concerning the _form of sole_.
It is proposed to name it the _Eureka_.

If a requirement were made that it should agree with the present
popular taste, this pattern would signally fail. But though it does
not do this, still, if it corresponds with the true form of the foot,
and possesses the merits claimed, its excellence will, in time, be
acknowledged, and public taste will come to see its _elegance_ also.
If there is any reason at all why a thing is beautiful, that reason
consists in its fitness or propriety; and if there is any shape more
fit and proper for a sole that is to be trod upon by an undeformed
foot, will some one discover it and make it known.

Taste comes, at least to a great extent, from education. The teaching
of China creates a taste which admires a short, stumpy, small,
useless foot, as beautiful on a lady. In more enlightened countries
a more intelligent taste condemns such a foot as anything else than
elegant. A still better educated taste will admire only one that is
entirely normal; and to bring opinion up to this standard is the
object of effort. People are to learn that pointed toes and big
joints are not natural; that they do not come of themselves, and
that the foot-gear which produces them cannot have any propriety or
beauty. The various long-toed, narrow-toed, broad-toed, stub-toed,
short-heeled, thick-soled, stiff, awkward things that are worn by
the masses must be seen to be, as they are, unfit coverings to be
put upon a decent human foot. Shapes, styles, and fashions must be
judged by their harmony or want of harmony with natural requirements,
and accepted or rejected accordingly. There must be less deference
to an unreasoning, arbitrary opinion, and more of original thought
and independent action; though it could hardly be supposed that for
such a matter any great amount of personal independence would be
required. A different set of views and tastes will thus, however,
be substituted for the present ones, as the work of time and a more
general knowledge of the subject.

There is no difficulty in starting a revolutionary movement. Any of
the proposed forms of lasts can be obtained from the last-makers
of the large cities—all but the Eureka very readily—and often the
shoemaker himself, if ingenious, can provide them for individual feet
_by altering some of those now in use_.

This is not so very difficult when the last has sufficient thickness
at the toe. At the inside, from the ball forward, it may be shaved
or rasped off enough to give a plane surface half an inch or more
in width, a shoulder being cut at the commencement near the ball.
Successive layers of firm, solid sole-leather are then pegged or
nailed very strongly to the wood without splitting it, each thickness
separately, to make the work more firm, until enough are on to bring
the corner out where it should be, when they are rasped into the
form required. Nails must not be driven in the outside pieces. The
opposite side of the toe may be narrowed, curved, and thinned to
give the whole the proper shape.

There is no reason why those persons who are capable of appreciating
the doctrine of this treatise should not set an example worthy of
imitation; and as the abuses complained of are so very common, it
is quite probable they might soon find themselves in the company of
a large number. Ultimately, it is expected that something not less
perfect than the form last proposed, and having all the qualities
desirable in a model shoe, will be universally adopted.

There will still remain to be discovered a mode of covering the foot
which will secure to it all its natural freedom. What this will be it
is not easy, just now, to tell. Possibly it may take the peculiarity
of the glove, and provide separate apartments for each of the toes,
becoming thus a kind of foot-glove, with a flexible sole, separated
between the toes, and which will allow them to bend or spread, and
the whole foot to lengthen or contract without hindrance whenever
occasion may require. It will be an article of luxury, rather than
otherwise, and there is no prospect of its immediate production. Yet
such an one cannot, without difficulty, perhaps, be made sufficiently
thick to be a good protection against dampness and the coldest
weather. Some compromise, with the existing style of boot will become
necessary, though a shape better adapted to the comfort of the toes
may be given to the forward part of it, as by the time it is made,
the cramping, narrow-toed boot will be out of favour; and this brings
us again to the Eureka as the most appropriate form.

       *       *       *       *       *

What, now, can be done toward the cure of crooked toes and enlarged
joints after they have been induced? The way of their prevention
is already made plain, but to remove the disfigurement after it
has become a settled thing is a much more difficult matter. The
toe must be forced back to its former position, and kept there
by a steady, constant pressure, and the parts be allowed time to
gradually re-adapt themselves and grow fixed in their proper shape.
The straightening of the toe will allow the bones to come nearer
together at the joint, and this, when not sore, may perhaps be pushed
back slightly, toward the middle of the foot, by the pressure of a
narrow boot. As this process is the exact opposite of that by which
the deformity is developed, it ought, with proper time, patience, and
thoroughness, to be tolerably successful. Dr. Meyer even leaves it to
be inferred that toes which are not badly distorted will gradually
re-assume their primary position _without any assistance_, provided
the shoe is of the right form, with plenty of room at the end, and
the stocking is not allowed to prevent.

For straightening the toe it would seem that some efficient
mechanical contrivance could be easily arranged, but as yet there
is nothing entirely satisfactory. To be completely successful it
ought to be something that can be easily fastened to the bare foot,
so that all the toes may be brought to their proper place before
covering with the stocking. But there is a difficulty in making the
little toe, or even more than one of them, act as a point of support
from which a force can be brought to bear against the great one. So,
while unable to do better, this stationary point must be found in the
sole of the shoe. The best thing we have been able to discover is a
simple plate of metal, standing upright between the great toe and
its neighbour, so securely fastened to the insole as to prevent the
toe from inclining toward the side. Of course nothing can be done in
a boot or shoe of the common form, as in such a one the toe cannot
be straightened by any means whatever. The last on which it is made
must be one like that described as the _Excelsior_, or, what is still
better for this case, one of the form proposed by Dr. Meyer. There
is no danger of going to an extreme in so shaping the last as to
turn the toe inward, because, the toe, after being fastened at its
end, tends strongly to resume its old, deformed position by pushing
the upper over the edge of the sole at the joint. It thus partially
defeats the object, and will be straightened less than the form of
the last (and shoe) indicates that it ought to be. Hence it is well
not to let the _ball of the last_ project over the bottom, and thus
try to keep back the joint from pushing over the upper of the shoe.
And, even if the last is crooked inward at the toe a little _more_
than Meyer’s rule directs, there will be no harm. It should also be
well hollowed or curved on the inside, at the region back of the
ball and above the shank. The more the wood is taken off here, the
more the foot will be thrown toward the outside of the shoe, or made
to tread outside, and this will somewhat counterbalance the tendency
which the toe has, when the end of it is made stationary, to push the
joint and whole foot toward the inside. The crookedness will appear
extreme, and perhaps ridiculous, but it will be found in practice
that it takes a _very_ crooked shoe to make a big toe straight.

We believe, however, that this tendency of the toe and joint to keep
their old position by treading over inside can be counteracted by
putting a low counter or stiffening of sole-leather into the upper of
the shoe at the ball, in the same way a similar one is inserted at
the heel. Or, if the joint is too sensitive to be touched by stiff
leather, let the stiffening piece be placed just back of the ball,
in the shank. The top part of it must be thinned, while the bottom
part remains thick and firm. It has not been fairly tried, but if the
joint is not sore it can hardly fail to be effective.

It should be a _false_ insole to which the partition or separator is
fastened, so that it can be easily changed, because there is some
difficulty in fitting it exactly right the first time, and, besides,
the wearer may wish, even when it suits as well as possible, to
remove it and give the toe a resting-spell in its old position; while
if the partition is secured to the proper insole of the boot, it must
remain there, whether right or wrong, and in the latter case the
boot will be worthless.

A strip of _thick tin_, half or three-fourths of an inch wide, and
two and a half inches long, is all that is required for the material.
If preferred, it may be of thin sheet iron or sheet brass. Any
tinsmith will furnish it, bent and doubled into the form represented
in the diagram.

[Illustration: FIG. 22.—SEPARATOR.]

The upright part is five-eighths or three-fourths of an inch high,
according to the thickness of the toes. A cut is made in the insole,
and this part put through, while the ends are fastened to the
under-side of the sole by some very small-headed tacks, such as every
shoemaker has upon his bench, or can readily procure, and can drive
after making holes through the tin with a sharp-pointed peg-awl,
clinching their points on his lap-iron; or if the part goes through
snugly, there is no real need of fastening at all. It is best not to
set the partition very far back from the end of the toe, because at
the first joint there is but a thin covering of flesh to guard the
bone from being hurt. The exact place for it must be determined by
carefully measuring the foot, _while the toe is kept straight_ by
the hand, and afterward measuring the same length on the insole, with
the size-stick; the _width_ of the toe, as well as the foot’s length,
being also taken, and in the same way. To make sure that it shall
not chafe the toe, the partition or separator may be covered neatly
with cloth, or with a piece of thin sheepskin or kid leather. The
following cut shows it when ready to be put into the shoe.

[Illustration: FIG. 23.—INSOLE WITH SEPARATOR.]

The edges and corners of the separator need to be smoothly rounded,
and the forward upright corner may be lowered by filing off, if
desired, to prevent its showing against the upper. It should not
be _wider_ or thicker at its forward part, that is, it should not
be triangularshaped,[3] so as to separate the toes more at the
ends than farther back, for if so it would prevent the smaller ones
from straightening out to correspond with the large one. The large
toe often pushes the smaller ones to the outside—part of them, at
least—and when the great toe is restored to straightness the smaller
ones should be allowed to follow it, as they will be inclined to do,
while the curve of the shoe on the outside tends also to push them
back toward the inside. Almost anything between them will keep them
apart temporarily, as for the purpose of giving ease to a sore joint,
where there is no intention to continue the improvement.

When the shoe is made ready there may still be some difficulty about
getting the foot into it. There must first be a toe made in the
stocking; which can be done in a rough way by sewing two parallel
seams, an eighth of an inch or so apart, from the end of the stocking
to a depth equal to the length of the great toe, of sufficient width
to give room for it, and then cutting down between these seams with
the scissors. The stocking should itself be of good width, to give
space for the smaller toes to be separated also. An ingenious woman
would probably find a better way of making the toe, but this will
answer if necessary. Then, if the joint is not too stiff, or the toe
too much bent aside, it can be kept straight while going into the
boot by the fingers of one hand pressing against it outside of the
upper leather; and when this is the case the foot may be clothed in
any kind of a boot or shoe, and no difficulty will be experienced
in putting it on. A man’s calf boot may be drawn on in this way the
first time it is worn.

But when the deformity is too decided to allow of the toe being
kept straight by the hand in this manner, a shoe _which laces in
front_ must be made, the opening being cut down _somewhat lower than
usual_—as low, in fact, as will answer—though the line of the vamp
is still curved so much that the seam will not cross the joints—a
direction which the maker will understand. On account of the vamp
being so short, the shoe will look better if made rather long for the
foot.

With this the foot can be turned a little, and worked around in
such a way as commonly to get the toe to go in on the right side of
the partition; but if there is still difficulty, a pretty sure way
of accomplishing the object is to take a yard of tape, ribbon, or
something similar, wind it up around the finger into a large, compact
wad, and crowd it in between the toes till the great one is well
straightened out, taking care to leave one end of the tape hanging
outside the shoe. The toe will then be likely to go into the place
made for it, and the tape can be pulled out by its free end before
the shoe is fully drawn on.

A low shoe is still better than a high one for these difficult cases,
as the lower it is the more freedom will be allowed to turn the foot
one side in entering the toe.

Even where no trouble of this kind is anticipated, it is still
advisable that the first trial be made with a laced shoe—whether
high or low is not material—when, if entirely successful, a boot, or
a Button gaiter may next be ventured; and to those who cannot feel
sufficient faith in these statements to risk a failure on a pair of
good shoes, we recommend that they have a pair made of the poorest
and cheapest materials, and try them as an experiment.

The methods here given of straightening the toe, and the way of
making the shoe and getting the foot into it, have been tried with
fair success. Great toes that were badly deformed have been brought
back so much as to give the appearance of well-formed feet, without
creating any discomfort, and with positive ease and benefit to all
the other toes. Of course, the less the distortion, and the less
time it has existed, the easier to accomplish the purpose. There
may be many cases which there would be little use in attempting
to reform; but the great majority can probably be improved; and
though a complete success may not be always attainable, the gain
in appearance, to say nothing of comfort, ought to be sufficient
inducement to make a trial of the plan.

In some cases an unpleasant feeling to the toe or joint may be
occasioned by the change, as might be expected in any change of
a similar kind, but it is likely to become less and less till it
entirely disappears.

The greatest direct benefit, however, will doubtless be in the case
of bunion or other soreness of the joint, where the straightening of
the toe would give immediate relief, and furnish a motive to continue
the new habit. The difficulty of effecting this in the common-shaped
shoe is well known to those who have had occasion to try it. With the
new form it will be comparatively easy.

Having the great toe corrected, and the smaller ones left free to
correct themselves, being also influenced to do so by the curve on
the outside of the shoe, there is the best reason to believe that
by perseveringly continuing the position for a sufficient length of
time, all the parts would return permanently to their natural form.
In the worst cases this time might be several years; in others only
as many months. The law that any limb or organ of the body will adapt
itself to a change of position is one that cannot be questioned;
the only doubt is as to the extent of the change which may be thus
effected. When the foot has been years in growing into a bad shape,
it cannot be expected to right itself immediately, though much may
depend upon the thoroughness with which the remedy is applied.

Prevention, however, is said to be far better than cure. It certainly
is in this matter, and, being so easy and simple, there can hardly be
any good reason for its neglect.

As a means of developing some hints that may be of service in
originating an article superior to any now worn, as well as a matter
of curiosity, and to show some of the elegance formerly existing,
we give a few representations of the foot-apparel worn in ancient
and medieval times. It seems possible there may be some peculiarity
about them that can be adopted and made of use for the future. We are
indebted for them to Mr. J. S. Hall’s “BOOK OF THE FEET.”

[Illustration: FIG. 24. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN.]

[Illustration: FIG. 25. ROMAN.]

[Illustration: FIG. 26. OLD ENGLISH.]

The first cut is that of a sandal worn by the aristocracy of Egypt in
the earliest ages. There is a fastening over the instep, and another
passing from that, to a point between the great toe and the smaller
ones, to prevent slipping toward either side. The foot is a handsome
one—evidently that of a lady—and the sandal seems appropriate to a
dry, warm climate, in the days when a partially bare foot had not
become disgraceful.

The second figure represents the _cothurnus_ of the old Romans—a sort
of boot-sandal, laced in front down to the roots of the toes, but
leaving the toes themselves exposed and free, and with a sole like a
sandal, evidently shaped to fit the foot—not the foot to fit _it_.
The sturdy conquerors of the world did not, it is plain, believe in
subjecting their toes to any such tyranny as we impose upon ours.
Who can say the foot is not finely formed, although the toes are not
drawn together into a pile? or that the covering is not appropriate,
neat, and elegant?

Figure 26 shows us a form of shoe in fashion among the nobility of
England in the fifteenth century. Though the toe is somewhat lengthy,
the shoe is otherwise eminently sensible. We ought to be, and think
we are, able to improve upon what was done by our ancestors of four
hundred years ago; yet here is a sole that, notwithstanding its
ridiculously long toe, is better adapted to fit the natural foot
and preserve its shape than any of those made at the present day. A
turn-up toe is not so objectionable, when of moderate length, as it
leaves less necessity for a high heel. And if our shoes must have
long and narrow toes, something like this is decidedly _better_,
and no more ridiculous, than the cramping, distorting shapes now in
use. It is at least extraordinary that with all our modern wisdom
we are not yet able to produce a better form than any of them. But
while waiting for the right thing, if the Paris _cordonniers_ will
adopt this, and return it to us duly indorsed as the latest orthodox
French style, there will be reason for gratitude to them, and for
congratulation among ourselves.

It may be noticed that the form here shown would, if its long
toe were taken off, have a strong resemblance to that called the
_Eureka_, the breadth at the part where the toes lie, being its best
and most important point. And thus comparing the Eureka with all the
_modern_ shapes of boots and shoes, we are compelled to re-assert
that it is not only the best of any for all proper purposes, but
that, looked upon with a rightly educated taste—with a knowledge that
the forward part of the foot is, and ought to be, the widest—it is
also the most beautiful.


FOOTNOTES:

[3] There is no objection to this form in particular cases where it
is desired to go to an extreme in straightening the toe, provided
that side of the separator next the small toes be kept straight,
and the increase of width made to throw the great one still farther
inward. It may be done by filing off the forward corner of the
upright portion till its two sides are separated nearly back to the
opposite corner, when a wedge of leather can be inserted to keep them
apart. There must be plenty of room in the upper, or the pressure of
such a separator may create soreness at the nail.




CHAPTER V.

  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.




CHAPTER VI.

  Natural Character of the Instep—Causes, and Prevention, of Sores
  upon it—False Taste—Callosities of the Heel—Counters—Criticism of
  Lasts.


In the last chapter the _instep_ was spoken of as a part of the whole
arch of the foot. It is now to be looked at from the upper side. When
the foot is in its best shape this part is elevated and prominent,
with a well-marked and graceful rise from the ball upward, and a
distinct projection or convexity at its upward portion, or about
half way between the joint and the ankle, which is the upper surface
of the first cuneiform bone, or the point where that bone joins the
first metatarsal. This place is subject to callosities or thickenings
of the skin, resembling corns, but more frequently is affected by
soreness without any thickening of the skin. In the broken-down foot
there is no convexity here at all, or but very little, the instep
being a straight inclined plane from the ankle to the ball, and
sometimes even bending downward. Insteps of this kind, whatever bad
effects may come from their flatness, are not afflicted in the way
just described. Corns and callosities are never known to fasten upon
them; an advantage which shows that some good is mixed with evil, in
the foot as well as elsewhere. It is the best formed instep, on the
contrary, that is most subject to callosity and tenderness.

This tenderness or callosity, whichever it may be, has one cause in
the general tightness of the boot worn, and may have two others,
arising from the shape of the lasts used. One of these is in the fact
that the corresponding part of the last—technically called the _cone_
of the instep—does not extend far enough forward, or is shaved off
too much—is left _too flat_, for the fitting of well-arched feet.
There is not wood enough, proportionally, in the last at this point.
The other cause comes from the whole instep, being placed too near
the _middle_, instead of on the _side_, where the foot has it. Mr.
Watkins, who was referred to in the last chapter, thus explains this
defect:

“If the instep is not in the right place, the foot swells in that
place. I have seen very troublesome sores on the instep, and very
difficult to cure, arising from the misplacing of the instep of the
last. By a peculiar measurement[5] I have been enabled to obviate
all difficulty in that respect, so that none of my customers now
complain of tender insteps. The insteps on ordinary lasts are placed
near the middle, which is erroneous, as the point of the instep lies
on one side, and not in the centre, and common sense would indicate
that the thicker parts of the lasts should be on the side of the
large joints and toe, and the thinner on the outside of the foot,
where the small toes are placed.”

It may seem, at first thought, as we look at a boot after it is made,
that the leather will accommodate itself to the shape of the foot
with the greatest ease. It appears perfectly pliable, ready to take
any form or place that the foot may give to it; and this is true to
a great extent, but it is not so entirely. When the boot is made the
leather is _stretched_, and worked into a definite shape—that of the
last. When a foot large enough to fill it is put inside, if it be of
a different form there will be more or less force exerted to change
the shape and adapt it to that of the foot. This is one reason of
the difficulty often experienced the first time, or first few times,
a new boot is worn. The resistance, pressure, and friction may be
considerable, or only slight, with a corresponding effect.

This misplacement of the instep is true of the ordinary
right-and-left lasts, and it is necessarily still more marked in the
_straight_ lasts on which the great majority of ladies’ boots and
shoes are made. If women’s insteps do not suffer from this difficulty
more than men’s, it is because they wear softer material, and boots
fitting less tightly than those of men. The latter have an advantage
of the former in this respect, as in some others; for while they
have right-and-left lasts wholly, with ladies the straight last is
the rule, the other the exception. As long as woman does not have
her boots and shoes made _right and left_, she is losing one of her
“rights,” and subjecting her feet to an “oppression” which, unless
they can bear a great deal, they will be likely to complain of in
an unpleasant way. And this right is not so unimportant, but that
it will be found best to give it a little attention, although the
remonstrating “subject” may be in a very humble position.

The best thing to be done for feet with sore insteps is to have lasts
made to fit them, and their coverings made by some one who knows the
real source of the trouble. The sore will generally disappear soon
after removing the pressure. The prevention of it is a much better
thing, and will come with a more general understanding of the foot’s
nature, and with the more correctly-shaped lasts and more perfect
skilfulness which that knowledge will give to the shoe manufacturer.

There is another deformity of the foot, chiefly of the instep, which
might be called the _stub-foot_. It is not the natural short, thick
foot of short, stout persons, but seem an unnatural chubbiness, made
by prevention of the foot’s growth lengthwise. It is an approximation
to the Chinese foot—thick and large round the ankle and instep, but
short and small at the toes. There is no correct proportion between
one part and another. The arch is high, but thick and clumsy,
without its natural regularity and beauty. The constant cramping of
small shoes, worn when the feet are young, is most probably the cause
of such development, by preventing a normal and perfect growth. As
the forward parts of the foot, being smaller and weaker, are more
easily cramped, the increase of size is at the heel, and around and
above the arch.

It is a very Chinese idea of perfection which admires feet of this
character. A correctly educated taste prefers to see a foot equally
well developed in all its parts, and of a size _proportionate to the
size of the whole body_. This is the idea of the artist, as opposed
to that of the Chinaman, and has a reason for it, while the other has
none.

If a chance is given the toes to develop themselves before the body
gets its full growth, the fault may perhaps be partially outgrown;
but after that, the foot will be almost sure to keep the same shape
always. The thing to be remedied, is the strange taste which looks
upon feet that are abnormally small with any more admiration than
would be given to a small head, or short legs, or stumpy fingers.
When people who are otherwise intelligent come to see that the foot
has the same right to a full and natural growth that belongs to any
other part of the body, they will not cramp it with tight boots, or
consider a foot of this kind as any more beautiful than a pug nose, a
dwarfed limb, or any other lack of development whatever. The defect
will then become the result of chance or misfortune only, instead of
intention, governed by a false standard of beauty.

It is not, however, intended to deny that there are many feet which
are proportionally too large, made so by some occupation or habit
demanding an extreme development of bone, muscle, and strength.
Nature committed no mistake in their production. She made them no
larger than was necessary to adapt them to the habits of their
possessor, or of the parents from whom they were inherited. To
attempt to improve them by cramping, is only to make them worse by
distortion. They will probably decrease their size somewhat in time,
if circumstances favour them in so doing; but if not, they are still
no worse than big hands, big noses, big bodies, or many of those
other unbalanced developments from which none of us can claim to be
entirely free.

Callosities upon the heel, sometimes so bad as to be called corns,
are often troublesome, and mostly so to those persons whose feet
are bony and spare of flesh. In these, if they are not broken down,
the heel bone, at its upper part, projects backward distinctly. If
the boot worn slips at the heel, there is no flesh over the bone to
ease the pressure and friction of the leather, and the skin must
thicken for its own protection. After a while it becomes so thick,
callous, and hard, that every pressure upon it hurts the bone, as
much as before it was formed. It has become similar to a hard corn,
and must be removed. This can often be done without any softening, by
carefully cutting, scraping, or lifting up gradually with the knife.
It will probably grow again, and need relifting occasionally as long
as the irritation continues. It is due to flat feet to say that they
usually escape these annoyances, as well as sores of the instep.

Slipping of the boot at the heel, is almost always the fault of the
boot-maker. It may come from bad cutting, from bad fitting of the
upper, from bad lasting, and from badly shaped lasts upon which the
boots are made. When the cutting is wrong—which affects _men’s_ boots
mainly—it is the leg through the ankle that is too large, or there
is some defect that will not allow the upper to _last_ properly.
Sometimes it is fitted badly, so as to produce the same result. More
often than either of these it is the workman, who neglects to draw it
over the last in the right way; sometimes from want of knowledge, and
sometimes from carelessness or indifference. The error consists in
not drawing it over the toe sufficiently tight to make it fit closely
at the heel.

A bad fit upon the foot is another cause, in addition to those
mentioned; and it is also true that the heels of well-arched feet
are more liable to slip than those whose arches are more or less
flattened down.

Still another and very decided influence in producing callosities on
the heel, is a counter that is hard and stiff at its upper portion.
Counters of this kind are very common, and ought to be as commonly
avoided. The stiffness of a counter _should be at the bottom of it,
where there can hardly be too much, while the upper half, or more,
should taper to a thin edge, that is soft and flexible_. Then, while
firm at the proper place, it bends and fits snugly to the heel,
preventing its slipping; when, if it stands up straight and stiff
throughout, the foot will slip almost invariably.

Lasts, particularly boot lasts, are at fault in this respect
generally. Those upon which shoes and slippers are made are so shaped
_as to force the shoe to set tightly at the heel and ankle_. The
principle upon which they are formed is well known, and is a correct
one. It is difficult to see why it should not be carried further
in its application, and govern the making of lasts for _boots and
gaiters_ as well as of those intended for _low shoes_. The necessity
is the same in both these styles; there is only a _difference in
degree_, which is greater in the _low shoe_ and _slipper_ than in
the _high gaiter_ and _boot_. The tightness at the ankle which
prevents slipping, is supplied, more or less perfectly, in side
spring gaiters, and those that are _laced_. Lacing compels the boot
to fit closely, whether it does so easily or not. In men’s boots,
where there is no lacing this effect is produced only by having them
so small about the heel and ankle that the foot can hardly move at
all after it is crowded inside. This may, or may not, be too tight
for comfort, but it is doubtful if there is need of its being so for
the sake of having a well-fitting boot. The fit can be produced in
the same way as in the slipper or shoe, and the demand for doing it
is the same, _only not to the same extent_. The slipper has nothing
to keep it on the foot, unless strings are resorted to, _except the
tightness lengthwise caused by the peculiarity of the last_. A boot,
by covering the instep is held more securely, yet it often slips at
the heel, and is all the more likely to do so when the foot is well
arched.

It seems to us that the way to remedy this trouble in boots is
precisely the same as the means taken to _prevent_ it in _shoes_:
that is, to make _more spring in the last forward of the instep;
in other words, a greater curve on the bottom_. The amount of this
_spring_ or curve need not be so great as in the shoe last, for the
reason just stated, that the boot is confined at the instep, while
the shoe is not, to the same extent. A good shoemaker would not like
to make an _Oxford shoe_ upon a boot last, although it is laced well
up toward the ankle. Why should he be willing to make a boot on it,
when the boot is confined at the instep no more than the shoe? There
is the same danger of slipping in both cases, and why should it not
be guarded against in the same way? Every one who has made or sold
shoes knows that a slipper, or low shoe of any kind, will fit on the
foot much better if made on a shoe last; that it is less liable to be
loose at the sides, and to show big wrinkles across the ball; that,
in short, it _must_ be made on such a last. The same reasoning and
the same rule applies almost as well to the boot or gaiter. If there
is any exception, it is the side-spring boot, with its elastic sides
to draw the surface smooth, and even this is not an exception when
the material is leather, though it may be when cloth of any kind is
used. In fact, there is no kind of foot clothing manufactured but
would have a better fit upon the foot, both in front and at the heel,
sides, and ankle, if a last more closely resembling the common shoe
or slipper last was used in the making. There may not be, and we are
confident there _is_ not, a necessity for having it so _flat in the
shank_ as the common slipper last, nor so _wide_ through the same
region, but the upward curve of the forward part should be nearly
or quite as great. The curve of the shank might be very nearly the
same as that of the hollow of the foot, while at the toes it may
curve, we will say, one-half as much as the whole bend of the toes in
walking. This form makes it a shoe last at the fore part, while the
shank is but little different from the ordinary _boot_ last. The part
between the heel and instep need not be so wide at the bottom, nor,
perhaps, so narrow at the top, as the best shaped lasts for shoes.
It is believed possible, however, to make the shank sufficiently
wide, at a slight distance _above_ the bottom, to accommodate the
foot easily, while it may be suddenly narrowed _below_ sufficiently
to allow a narrow-shanked sole to be made upon it, if desired,
without difficulty. If so, this would be the blending of _taste_ with
_comfort_ in the fit. The outside edge would be a little _lower_
than the other, as it is in the foot. Perhaps the whole may be well
described as half-way between the extremes of the two different
styles. There would be no difference between those designed for men
and those for women, except in width and bulk—none in the general
form.

It may be feared that a tongued boot—patent leather or Napoleon—may
be more difficult to draw on the foot if made upon a last of this
style. We believe that it can make but very little difference,
probably not any after the boot is bent in the shank, while it _will_
do much to prevent slipping at the heel when cut with a large ankle,
as is usually the case. The pitch of the leg will be very nearly the
same when on the last as when the boot is worn.

It may be observed, however, that an improvement has lately been made
in many lasts by giving them a greater degree of this curve on the
bottom. But it is easy to carry it to an extreme. The sole can be
curved too much as well as left too straight. Men’s lasts of medium
size have been made with the toes raised an inch and a half above
the level of the ball and heel; which is half an inch more than is
necessary, or useful. Too much spring, in a thick-soled, stiff boot,
prevents the straightening of the toes, while in a thin one, where
the toes can be straightened, it may create longitudinal wrinkles in
the upper, near the sole at the inside joint. An average spring of an
inch in men’s lasts, and three-fourths of an inch in those for women,
is not far from the proper standard.

Forms of lasts have always been subject to change. Fifteen or twenty
years ago boot lasts were made very hollow in the shank, and very
much curved upward at the toe. After that came the stub-toes—flat in
shank, and with scarcely any curve at all; and, in addition to all
the changes fashion has imposed, besides the two indicated, every
manufacturer seems to have a style of his own, more or less distinct.
The principles which should govern their form seem to be very loosely
understood, and hence all the differing shapes and styles.

All this is exactly the opposite of what it should be. We have no
more right to change the shape of lasts every few years than we have
to change that of the foot, and to do this, for it amounts to nothing
less, when Nature has formed it exactly in the best way to adapt it
to its design and use, is simple absurdity. To change either is just
as foolish as it would be to make hats that would flatten the head
on the back or sides, and compel it to grow in an upward direction.
The whole matter of the shape of lasts is something which fashion has
no right to meddle with, unless, it may be, to round or square the
toes. It has no right to _narrow_ them beyond a certain limit, nor
even at all except from the outside. The business of the last-maker
is to learn what is the true shape of the natural, healthy foot, and
then to imitate it as closely as possible, making only the slight
differences for different kinds of coverings that have been pointed
out. And when so formed, let it be considered as a thing not to be
altered, except to make it resemble the foot still more perfectly.
Fashion and taste may change and dictate the cut and style of the
upper parts of the boot or shoe to almost any extent, but they must
not be allowed to shorten the length of the heel, nor to interfere
in any manner with the shape of the last.

We have been somewhat particular in description, for the sake of
influencing the makers of lasts and boots, as well as for the
comfort of those who are to wear the latter. When these principles
govern in its manufacture, the boot will fit almost as easily at the
first putting on as it will after a week’s wearing. The trouble of
“breaking in” will be nearly abolished. It may also be promised that
slipping at the heel will be of rare occurrence, and the callosities
produced by it be got rid of with little difficulty. When once
removed they will not be likely to come again, with a boot that
causes no irritation.


FOOTNOTES:

[5] A measurement for such cases may be taken by drawing the
strap-measure from the _point of the instep_ around the _heel_, to
give the size, while the distance between the same two points, in a
straight line, should be taken by the _size-stick_, in the same way
we take the _length_ of the foot, to show how far forward the point
of the instep ought to be located on the last. The measure _around_
the foot at the latter place must also be taken.




CHAPTER VII.

  _Inclinations_ of the Feet—How to Make them Tread Squarely—Peculiar
  Lasts—Weak Ankles—Cultivation of Muscle—Turning in of the Toes.


There remains still one other defect to be noticed—that of treading
upon the side of the foot. This is a very common fault, and seems to
be a habit often acquired quite early. The feet appear to leave the
old, upright way of getting through the world, and take a sidewise
deviation. Having commenced losing their uprightness when young,
they, unless speedily helped, seldom recover it entirely afterward.
The individual who possesses such unfortunate _inclinations_ never
has the satisfaction of knowing what it is to stand up in _perfect
rectitude_. Whether the physical leaning of the feet has any tendency
to create a moral one-sidedness may be considered an open question.
It is hardly safe to say that it does _not_, when we know that the
whole carriage, attitude, and dress of the individual has an effect
upon the condition of the mind. But leaving that to be settled as it
may, we must see what can be done to straighten the feet up to their
natural position.

Feet that tread upon the _inside_ are, many of them, _flattened_
somewhat at the same time. This latter fault may come from any of
the influences previously pointed out, or from a natural weakness of
the muscles and ligaments of the ankle, which condition frequently
exists in children. When this is the case, the arch of the foot being
turned, the weight of the body is improperly directed upon it—that
is, the arch bears this weight slightly upon one side instead of
directly _over_ itself. This tends to break it down and make the
foot flat. The flatness, if already existing, may tend to throw the
foot still more toward the side. Either way, the first thing to be
done is to counteract the flatness by a sufficiently long heel under
the shoe, to support the arch. The shoe should also be made upon a
flat-bottomed last, and one that will compel it to draw tight along
the sides and ankle. Another requisite is that the counter shall be
very _stiff_ on the inside, while on the opposite side it should be
_weak_. It should also be high as well as firm, sometimes _very_
high, as when the ankle requires very much support. When, however,
it reaches so high as to touch the prominences of the joint, it must
be carefully thinned on the edge to prevent chafing the bone. If the
weakness is but slight, the principal part of the stiffness may be
near the bottom, where a good deal of it will do no harm.

All persons having feet thus turned should patronize the last maker
before expecting to accomplish much toward correcting them. An
ordinary last is, in these cases, good for nothing. It needs to be
straight, or nearly so, on its outside edge, from heel to ball, and
that part between the heel and instep—the back half of it—should be
very full on the outside, while it should be much hollowed out on the
_inside_. In other words without altering the general form of the
front part, _the bulk of the wood in the back and middle parts should
incline toward, and be on, the outside_. The bottom of the last,
_particularly at the heel_, may then be thinned off at the outside
edge of the _sole_, leaving it deepest, or thickest, relatively, at
its _inside_. It then has the appearance of being _inclined over
outwardly_. The shoe or boot made upon it would really be inclined
outwardly, and possess a tendency to push the foot which wore it
over in the same direction. This is its precise intention. The maker
must not forget to see that the upper is lasted over equally on both
sides, or more on the outside, if either. Then it is just such a
shoe as would fit easily and comfortably a foot that treads outside;
and _for that very reason_ it is exactly such a one as _ought to be
worn_ by a foot that treads _inwardly_. All the force exerted by the
stiffness of the counter, and the _inclination of the whole shoe_,
goes toward righting up the foot and pushing it over outwardly. Still
there is nothing that can _hurt_ the foot—only a steady and gentle
pressure in the right direction, which does not interfere with the
use of the muscles.

In extreme cases a further precaution may be taken by building the
heels more upon the inside than the other, and raising them a little
the highest on that side, fortifying them still more by some large
nails, while the _outside_ is not guarded at all. The inside edge of
the sole, if sufficiently thick, may be treated in the same way.

We have said the last should be _flat_. It ought to be quite as much
so as the foot; and the long heel must not be forgotten. Of course if
there is _no_ flatness of the shank, as is sometimes the case, there
need be none in the last.

This plan of treatment will not only right up the foot, but we
believe it will be a great help toward raising the flattened arch.
At least, it ought not to be neglected in any case of flat-foot
associated with treading inward; for as long as the foot treads
on the inside, there is one cause—weight wrongly directed on the
arch—constantly operating to break it down. And this might defeat all
the efforts for its restoration.

Those feet that tread _outside_ need exactly the same treatment
recommended for the others, only, in the shoes made for them, it
must be directed in a way exactly opposite. The stiffness of the
counter must be on the outside, as also the guarding of the heel.
The last must be straight and _very full_ upon the _inside_. The
main bulk of the wood between the heel and instep should be on that
side, projecting well over the bottom at the ball, while it is spare,
thinned, or hollowed on the other. The bottom should be thinned off
at the inner edge, so that when placed upon a level surface it seems
to lean that way. In a word, it will look as though it would fit
beautifully a foot that treads _inward_. _Then it is just adapted for
one that goes outward._ The whole shape and fit of a boot made upon
such a last exerts an easy pressure, tending to right up the foot
and force it to tread on the opposite side. The principle has not
heretofore been generally recognized. Let it not be forgotten that
the last that would appear to fit a foot that treads outward is just
the one to be used for a foot that goes inward, and _vice versa_.
When this is acted upon, the principal step is taken in overcoming
the difficulty.

But as many persons having such feet preserve the natural form of
them by treading the boots outside, it is about as well to let them
go so, as attempt to right them up, even if a little more leather
is thus worn out. On the contrary, when the tendency is to tread
_inside_, the remedy can not be applied too soon if it is wished to
avoid the big joints that result from such a habit.

Without the lasts here mentioned, however, a little temporary
improvement can still be effected in those feet that tread over but
slightly, by what shoemakers call “working under” the sole of the
shoe on the side opposite that which treads over, and by also putting
a piece of leather on the last _above the sole or bottom_, to make
room in the upper at that side without increasing the width of the
sole. The _sole_ may be “worked full” on the _treading-over_ side at
the same time.

Feet that tread outside generally, if not always, have good arches.

The directions here given, if put in practice by a shoemaker who
can appreciate and apply them thoroughly, will, it is believed,
straighten up and cure any case of treading-over feet that can be
helped at all. And this probably includes the majority of instances.
The adoption of such lasts has never been fairly tried, as far as we
know, and we are quite confident they will prove successful.

The turning over of the foot is believed to be sometimes occasioned
in children by their being obliged or encouraged to stand or walk
upon them for too long a time, when making their first attempts, in
infancy. The bones, ligaments, and muscles being all soft, tender,
and weak at this period, they may be forced into almost any shape
by pressure or overstraining. This is something worthy of careful
attention from parents. It is very easy to let a child contract a
habit of walking which will render the feet and legs deformed through
a whole lifetime. It is also very easy to prevent it, and give the
child a natural, upright, easy, and graceful walk by taking a little
pains at the proper period. And it should also be remembered that
crooked feet and ankles are more easily straightened while they are
young than when the foot has obtained its growth, and every part
become firmly settled in its false position.

The legs and feet may turn inward, developing knockknees and
flat-foot, or outward, growing into bow-legs, with the feet
invariably treading over the opposite way. If a child grows up with
either of these distortions, after being born with sound limbs, which
might have been continued in their natural perfection, there is, on
the part of somebody, a sad lack of duty.

It is quite possible, also, that this habit may be adopted by
children sometimes from wearing a shoe that hurts the foot. The
sufferer may turn it on one side to avoid a peg, or some rough
projection on the insole, and in this way the fault may be developed
in some of those cases where one foot treads over, while the other
stands upright. And children will often get into an awkward manner
of standing or walking, even without any reason for it—from sheer
carelessness—and require a great deal of watching, in order to train
up their feet correctly.[6]

It is to be borne in mind that in all cases of weak ankles, except
those incurably so, the object should be to support them no more than
is necessary; but instead, to allow the muscles to be used as much as
possible for the sake of _strengthening them_. When the whole support
comes from braces—in the shoe or outside of it—there is nothing
left to be done by the muscles on the side of the foot and leg, and
consequently they remain weak. The law of growth and strength is use,
exercise, or labour. Hence, though guards and braces are sometimes
required for weak-ankled children, there ought to be plenty of room
between them and the foot; and it will be well to discard them as
soon as a leather stiffening in the shoe can be safely substituted.

There are many movements of the _Light Gymnastics_ that for weak
ankles would be highly beneficial. It would be well, where there is
an opportunity, to adopt all those movements in which the muscles of
the feet are called into play such as charging, leaning, bracing,
springing on the toes, and, in short, almost the whole routine of
exercises; and to practice them, cautiously at first, but thoroughly,
until the muscles and ligaments become strong enough to do their duty
in bracing up the foot without any assistance.

There are many feet in which the _toes_ turn inward in walking—a
habit which may be easily corrected by a little care and
perseverance, and the subject of it enabled to go on his way
rejoicing in the knowledge that he has gained a respectable walk in
place of one that was ridiculously awkward. All that is required
to change the habit is to develope the strength of the muscles by
calling them into exercise. An every-day practice of turning the
feet outward as far as possible, for a few minutes at a time, will
do a great deal. If, in addition to this, the step is constantly
watched, the toes being kept turned out until the muscles are
tired, and then, after resting by a return to the old step, the toes
are again forced outward, and this is repeated continuously for
a few weeks, the awkwardness will be entirely gone. The practice
of light gymnastics is a good corrective for this fault; and the
dancing-school is another equally excellent. It is to be hoped that
both of them will have their due influence in this respect, till an
ungraceful walk is far less common than it is now. With such easy
means of correcting and avoiding these faults, any one who will not
make a little effort for that purpose, deserves, to say the least, a
good share of ridicule.[7]

There is a less number of feet that are turned _too much_ outward,
and these can be brought into their right place by the same means
directed in the opposite way. The only trouble with them usually is
a habit, or a weakness of particular muscles. If the toes are turned
in, and perseveringly kept so for a short time, a great difference
will be discovered. A further continuance in well-doing will bring
its reward in an easy, natural, and graceful step.

Those feet that are wholly turned, or deformed by being drawn up at
the heel or toe, and those impaired by disease of the structure, are
cases belonging to the surgeon and physician. Many of them might
probably have been prevented by calling in the surgeon’s aid during
the childhood of the unfortunate possessor. Let us hope that few who
can be saved from such disfigurement will be allowed to suffer from
it through ignorance or culpable negligence in the future.


FOOTNOTES:

[6] Another reason for care in guarding against weak ankles is thus
given in a work upon the “Theory and Practice of the Movement-Cure,”
by Dr. Charles F. Taylor.

“Weak ankles, often the result of the ungraceful, and, in other
respects, pernicious fashion of wearing high, narrow-heeled shoes,
straining them by their rolling about, etc., may be the exciting
cause of _lateral curvature of the spine_. The weaker ankle is
generally the _left_, and the individual soon forms the habit of
standing on the right foot. The lower portion of the spine is thrown
to the _left_, and the dorsal portion necessarily thrown to the
_right_.” In another place he repeats: “We find that almost without
exception, in curvature to the _right_, the _left_ ankle is much
weaker than the other. Movements of the foot must be employed, such
as inward and outward flexion, twisting the whole leg from the hip,
and many others, calculated to strengthen the left leg, hip, and
ankle.”

[7] As a matter not wholly out of place, it may be said that the
graceful walker stands upright, and in taking a step uses the
muscles and joints of the _hip_, the _knee_, and the _toes_. Many
people use the toes but very little, and their step lacks _spring_,
_elasticity_, _life_, and _grace_; while others do not use the
muscles in front of the hip enough, and their walk has no dignity.
Instead of swinging the whole leg, they seem as though kicking their
feet along ahead of them, swinging only that half of it below the
knee. Stiff coverings on the feet, or very high heels under them,
effectually prevent all gracefulness in walking.




CHAPTER VIII.

  Corns, Bunions, and Callosities—How they Originate—Nature of the
  Skin—Various Causes of Corns—How to Remove Them—Quotations from the
  Medical Books—Nature and Treatment of Bunions.


We come now to another class of difficulties to which the foot is
subject, though they affect the outside mainly, not its structure,
and which appropriately call for a notice here, and for some hints
concerning their nature and treatment. Almost every one, at some
period in a lifetime, forms their unpleasant acquaintance; and to
know how to avoid them entirely, or to destroy and remove them at
pleasure, may be considered information worth possessing. Although we
lack the familiar practical knowledge of the man who makes corns his
profession, the reader shall have the benefit of as much as we are
able to supply.

A common corn is caused by friction or irritation of the skin—the
chafing and pressure of the foot against the leather of the boot,
or the crowding of the toes against each other. The skin thickens
and hardens to protect itself in the same way that it does upon
the hands or other parts of the body exposed to rough contact, the
fact and law of which are familiar to everybody. As the irritation
is continued the skin continues growing harder and thicker, until a
large and ugly corn is produced. To understand its nature more fully,
and why it assumes a sharp point, thus turning its protection into a
torture, it will be necessary to explain something more of the nature
of the skin itself.

There are two layers of membrane composing the skin—the _cutis vera_,
dermis, or true skin, which is the inner portion; and the cuticle,
epidermis, or scarf-skin, which is the outside layer. The dermis, or
true skin, consists mainly of a net-work or web of fibrous material,
having outside of this a net-work of capillary blood-vessels and
lymphatics, interwoven with still another net-work, of nerves, both
blood-vessels and nerves terminating in projecting or upright loops,
each loop formed of a blood-vessel and a nerve-cord, the two being
together side by side. These loops, which are the most extremely
sensitive portion of the skin, are called _papillæ_, and they form
the projecting fine ridges that are seen on the palm of the hand,
where their abundance gives the hand its superior sense of feeling or
touch. All these parts—the fibrous meshes, the blood-vessels, nerves,
and loops of papillæ—are microscopically minute.

The outside skin or cuticle has no blood-vessels or nerves, and
hence no life or sensation, but seems to be a _covering_ to protect
the true skin, and to modify or diminish its otherwise too extreme
sensitiveness; besides being of use in other ways to the general
system. It is that part which is raised up when a blister is
produced; and the sensitiveness of the papillæ under it, where it
is taken off, shows its necessity. The matter of which it is formed
is secreted or poured out by the true skin, and is the same matter
which, when dried and hardened in various degrees, becomes the
thick skin on the sole of the foot, the callous place on the hand
or elsewhere, the dandruff of the head, the hair on any part of the
body, the nails of fingers and toes, the hard portion of warts, and
the hard or soft corn. All these are essentially the same thing under
different modifications. It is constantly worn off from the external
surface, and as constantly added to at the under side.

This internal or under-side layer of the cuticle is commonly
distinguished as the _rete mucosum_, and contains a colouring
matter secreted from the true skin, which, as it is greater or
less in quantity gives the different shades of complexion; the
semi-transparent nature of the matter outside allowing it to show
through. The oil tubes and perspiratory ducts take their rise
immediately under the skin, and find their way to the surface, while
nerves and blood-vessels traverse it forth and back.

Some further idea of the nature of the skin may be gained by
observing a piece of thick sole-leather in which that part called
the grain is the cuticle or epidermis, and the thicker portion is the
dermis, or _cutis vera_.

Now, when any portion of these sensitive loops is injuriously
irritated by pressure or friction, they sometimes push entirely
through the cuticle, growing large and covering themselves with hard
cuticular matter, thus forming the warts that appear on the hands
and other parts of the body. Some corns, we believe, are produced in
a similar way—a larger number of the papillæ projecting and being
covered completely and thickly with epidermis, which, becoming dry
and hard, still further pains the sore and sensitive papillæ as it is
pressed upon by the boot. This kind of corn can be cured only as a
wart is removed—by burning the papillæ, or, as they are called in the
wart, the _roots_; thus changing the structure of the skin, or, in
other words, making a scar.

Ordinarily a hard corn commences at a point, or by the irritation of
a small surface of the skin, or only a _few_ of the papillæ. From
this point an increased supply of the cuticular matter is pushed out
in every direction to protect them, growing harder as the process
advances, and being more pressed against by the shoe, while the
increasing external pressure incites the foot to push out a still
larger corn. Thus it grows; and as the matter first thrown out is
the first to become hardened, a point is formed, and the pressure
forces it into the flesh, which is compelled to retire before it. The
longer this is continued the larger the surface of skin that is made
sore, the larger and more conical in shape the corn becomes, and the
farther its point is forced into the flesh.

This description is more especially true of the smaller corns; those
which extend over a large surface being, probably, originated by a
slighter irritation of a larger portion of the skin; hence they have
less of a point and penetrate less deeply.

Soft corns appear between the toes, and are soft for the reason
that, so situated, they are kept moist by perspiration. Some of them
are secretions of epidermis having no centre or point, but thrown
out from the foot at the bottom and sides of the spade between the
toes, and giving a sensation as of some foreign body, like a pea
or a gravel stone, confined there. There may be others that are
accompanied by projections of the papillæ.

It is to be noticed that a corn is thus composed wholly of cuticular
matter, and is entirely outside of the true skin.

It has been suggested that here is an instance in which the remedial
effort made by Nature converts itself into a diseased and painful
action, defeating its primary purpose and creating a worse condition
than the one sought to be relieved. But this is not correct. Nature
does not put the boot on the foot, nor continue its wear after the
corn has originated. On the contrary, if her intimations were heeded,
the boot would be discarded the first time it pinched, and there is
every reason to believe that then the growth of the corn would be
discontinued, and what had already formed would disappear. It is
stated in medical works that persons confined by sickness for a
considerable time have had their corns entirely leave them without
any treatment at all, simply because there was no pressure to keep up
the irritation, and consequently no demand for their existence.

It has been generally considered that tight boots were the great
_cause_ of all the corns and bunions with which the feet have been
tormented, and tight boots have accordingly been cursed from toe to
heel for their mischievous qualities in this respect. Though it is
true that the unnecessary tightness of boots is a principal source
of corns, there are others that may not be overlooked. _Loose_
boots, that allow the heel to slip up and down, or the whole foot
to slide forward at every step, are effective in the production of
these annoyances. Hard, stiff leather is another quite efficient
thing in this way. Whether the boot be tight or loose makes not much
difference, if it be stiff and hard. Large wrinkles over the joint
may sometimes have an effect of the same kind, especially if the
leather is no softer “than it ought to be.” High heels, that pitch
the foot forward, and keep it constantly bearing against the leather
over the toes, have a great tendency to develop corns. The drawing
together of the toes by boots and shoes that are _narrow_ at this
point, forcing the toes to crowd against each other, and pushing out
the great-toe joint, is one of the most productive of all causes.
When occurring upon the bottom of the foot, a peg or some hard
projection of the insole of the boot is the agent to which they may
be attributed. Between the toes they are most frequently developed,
probably by the pressure of a boot that is too narrow, not only at
the ends of the toes, but at their roots or metatarsal joints.

_Bunions_, we believe, are never found except upon the joint of
the great toe, and the projection of this joint, from the wearing
of short and narrow-toed shoes, can not be otherwise than strongly
influential in producing them. From wearing foot-coverings of this
fashion, which is almost the only kind we have at present, there is
the constant tendency of the joint to enlarge, widen, and project.
This increases its pressure against the leather, and may even create
a pressure where there was none at the time the boot was first worn.
It is not strange, therefore, that bunions make their appearance
under such circumstances.

Thus it is seen that, setting aside the habit of wearing boots
that are tight enough to pinch the foot, there is already found
an abundant cause for corns. It ought to be sufficiently obvious
that the principal characteristics of the present foot-covering—the
narrow toes, being often short besides, and the high heels—are
corn-producing in all their tendencies. If to these is added the
practice, as with many persons, of wearing boots and shoes that are
too tight for comfort, and often too narrow on the sole, there is
ample reason for the fact that corned feet are numerous.

We do not know what first induced people to wear boots unnecessarily
tight, unless it was the Chinese idea of taste, which desired to
prevent the full development of the feet, or make them appear as
small as possible. If this be still the motive, it is only necessary
to repeat that a true taste demands that a foot be of a size
proportionate to the size of the whole body, whether that be large or
small. If it is to make the boot fit more smoothly and handsomely,
then the object is more often defeated than accomplished. A boot
that is too tight—tight enough to be uncomfortable—is not the boot
that best fits the foot. It will have as many wrinkles in it as a
loose one, and even more, if the leather be thin, while the foot
can not go into it naturally. The best fitting boot or shoe is one
made of the right shape to adapt it to the particular foot; which is
just snug enough to confine it without any uneasy feeling; and into
which it goes easily and naturally to its proper position. There is
sufficient length to allow the toe to move without pressure on the
nail, and sufficient width to let the toes lie side by side, in which
position they appear much better than when piled one over another.
There are no wrinkles made by loose leather—none by over-tightness.
The room is entirely filled, while at the same time the foot is easy,
and can make its natural movements in walking with ease and grace;
which it can not do when squeezed into a boot that is too tight. A
person wearing a tight boot has a stiff and unnatural walk, which can
not be compensated by any beauty of the fit so gained, provided it
_is_ gained. There are only the soft and fleshy feet that can bear
compression with any benefit to their appearance, and with these
still the same rule is equally good—they must not be squeezed more
than comfort will allow. If complaint is made that the upper leather
stretches out, and the foot treads over the sole, and spreads and
sprawls about more than appears neat and proper, it is only to be
replied that if a shoe of the right shape, and sufficiently wide is
worn, there will be no trouble of this kind.

On the whole, tight-boot-wearing is a humbug. It is entirely
unnecessary, doing no good, while often defeating itself when its
object is to improve the foot’s appearance. Besides the ordinary
discomfort created by it, the whole tendency of extreme tightness is
toward corns and deformity.

How much, now, it may be inquired, is meant by _extreme tightness_?
The answer is—_discomfort_. A new boot or shoe that fits as it
should, may be worn without serious discomfort for several hours, or
half a day, when first put on. After three or four days it may be
worn all the time. It ought not to be expected that it can be worn
constantly at first; for if loose enough, for this it will soon be
too loose for a handsome fit. Then, an article that is tight for a
foot belonging to a weak and delicate organization, with a feeble
circulation of blood, may be perfectly easy to a foot of the same
size and shape belonging to a strong, healthy constitution with an
energetic circulation; and for the same reason a person can wear a
tighter shoe when young than when advanced in life, or failing in
health; but either of these, and at any time, may be governed by the
rule, that positive discomfort indicates extreme tightness. There are
some kinds of material that stretch considerably under the foot’s
pressure, and boots made from these should be a little tighter at
first than those made of firmer stock. Besides, there are some feet
so sensitive that very slight pressure or friction will develope
corns on them, and such must wear a softer material than is worn
by feet that are more hardy. The question of tightness is somewhat
complicated by such considerations. Most of us, however, can usually
tell for ourselves what is tight, and we have no right to decide for
others.

       *       *       *       *       *

Ordinary hard corns, when young, may be removed by scraping up the
callous skin around the borders and prying out carefully with a
pocket knife. There is no need of cutting through the under skin.
In more difficult cases some further treatment will be necessary,
and for them we quote the following methods, the first from Cooper’s
“Dictionary of Surgery.”

“Wide, soft shoes should be worn. Such means are not only requisite
for a radical cure, but they alone often effect it. Though the
radical cure is thus easy, few obtain it, because their perseverance
ceases, as soon as they experience the wished-for relief.

“When business or other circumstances prevent the patient from
adopting this plan, and oblige him to stand or walk a good deal,
still it is possible to remove all pressure from the corn. For
this purpose from eight to twelve pieces of linen, smeared with an
emollient ointment, and having an aperture cut in the middle exactly
adapted to the corn, are to be laid over each other, and so applied
to the foot that the corn is to lie in the opening in such a manner
that it can not be touched by the shoe or stocking. When the plaster
has been applied some weeks the corn commonly disappears without
other means. Should the corn be on the sole of the foot, it is only
necessary to put in the shoe a _felt_ sole wherein a whole has
been cut, corresponding to the situation, size, and figure of the
induration.

“A corn may also be certainly, permanently, and speedily eradicated
by the following method, especially when the plaster and felt with a
hole in it are employed at the same time. The corn is to be rubbed
twice a day with an emollient ointment, such as that of marshmallows,
or with the volatile liniment, which is still better; and in the
interim it is to be covered with a softening plaster. Every morning
and evening the foot is to be put, for half an hour, in warm water,
and while there the corn is to be well rubbed with soap. Afterwards
all the soft, white, pulpy matter outside of the corn is to be
scraped off with a blunt knife; but the scraping must be left off
the moment the patient begins to complain of pain from it. The same
treatment is to be persisted in without interruption until the corn
is totally extirpated, which is generally effected in eight or twelve
days. If left off sooner the corn grows again.”

The “Hydropathic Encyclopædia” recommends a more summary mode of
dealing.

“These well-known toe-tormenters are produced by tight shoes or
boots. The first principle of cure is to give the feet a respectable
‘area of freedom;’ and the second is, to soak them in warm water and
shave off the horny substance, and then touch them with the nitric or
nitro-muriatic acid. When the corn is inflamed or highly irritable,
the tepid foot-bath should be employed to remove this condition
before the acid is applied. The _aqua-regia_—nitro-muriatic acid—is
the ordinary secret remedy of the ‘corn-curers.’ When the corn is
fully formed, or ripe, a membrane separates it from the true skin,
so that it can be taken off without injuring that surface; and this
circumstance enables professional chiropodists to ‘elevate the grain’
on the point of a penknife, after an application of the acid.”

Another mode, similar in character, is taken from a late work by Dr.
Ira Warren.

“Corns should be shaved down close, after being soaked in warm water
and soap, and then covered with a piece of wash-leather or buck-skin,
on which lead plaster is spread, a hole being cut in the leather the
size of the corn. They may be softened so as to be easily scooped out
by rubbing glycerine on them. Manganic acid destroys warts and corns
rapidly.”

Still another, and one very easy to practice, is from Dr. Calvin
Cutter’s “Anatomy, Physiology, and Hygiene.”

“To remove these painful excrescences, take a thick piece of soft
leather, somewhat larger than the corn; in the centre punch a hole of
the size of the summit of the corn; spread the leather with adhesive
plaster, and apply it around the corn. The hole in the leather may
be filled with a paste made of soda and soap on going to bed. In the
morning remove it, and wash with warm water. Repeat this for several
successive nights, and the corn will be removed. The only precaution
is, not to repeat the application so as to cause pain.”

It is altogether probable that the last treatment here advised for
hard corns would be equally effective for soft ones, if we could
contrive to cover up the surrounding parts with a plaster so as to
admit of its application. The other remedies are, to keep continually
cutting away at them with the knife, or burn them out thoroughly with
caustic.

In all these cures the essential parts of the treatment are, first,
the emollient ointment or warm water to soften the skin and remove
soreness; then caustics—soap and soda, nitric, muriatic, and manganic
acids—to destroy the mass of the corn; after which the remainder is
lifted out with a knife; the leather and felt serving as a protection
from the shoe.

It is said, and with considerable evidence to support the statement,
that ordinary mild corns may be cured in a couple of weeks by winding
a cotton rag around the toe or foot, so as to cover the corn with
several thicknesses, and then keeping this bandage constantly wet
by bathing the feet twice a day in cold water. To which it may be
added, that many corns will probably disappear if constantly kept
moist and soft in any manner, provided the external irritation is
entirely removed.

Very often it is the case that new corns, both hard and soft, grow up
in the places where they have been taken away before, re-appearing,
some of them, several times; and it is a question if the common
practice of putting leather with a hole in it around the corn does
not tend to make the latter grow up again by pressing on the edges
of the cavity. It is perhaps better, therefore, that the leather
or felt be worn for some time after the corn is gone, to keep the
pressure of the boot away from the part till it has regained its
natural condition, and it is well to make the hole in the plaster
_so large_, that even the border of the sensitive cavity will not
be touched. When a surface has been secreting corn-material for a
length of time, it is not strange that it should continue the habit
without much provocation. In these cases where the corn grows again,
it may perhaps be advisable to touch the most central part, or place
of the _point_, with nitric acid or some other caustic, to destroy
the papillæ, and change the structure of the skin, as is done with
a wart; where it is so effectual that the wart never re-appears. It
is not necessary to burn the surrounding surface, or make anything
more than a very small burn anywhere. The acid should be applied with
some sharp-pointed instrument, just wet with it, so there shall be no
danger of putting on too much. If there is any fear of creating too
much inflammation, it can be postponed till the acute sensitiveness
has become somewhat abated.

For soft corns it is doubtful whether any other treatment than
burning will be completely successful, though it may be well to try
some other method first. Burning is rather severe, but reasonably
sure, and a thousand times better, than to suffer from the corn.
But little acid need be applied at a time, and as soon as the under
skin becomes inflamed the desired effect is accomplished; for when
it heals, the corn is “done for” and gone. Something soft may be
put between the toes to separate them, and prevent any unnecessary
irritation during the process.

Corns on the bottom of the foot are amenable to caustic like the
rest, the felt sole with a hole in it being used for protection
during the operation.

Inflamed and suppurated corns are to be cut down as much as possible
and lanced, according to Erichsen—one of the best authorities—though
it would seem to one unacquainted with the matter that they might be
removed like the others. They are intensely painful, and a surgeon’s
skill is necessary to treat them properly.

Some of the medical books represent that there is more or less danger
in using caustics in severe cases, where the patient is an old
person, or one of feeble vitality, or extreme nervous sensibility.
It is always well to proceed safely, and have medical advice before
operating on such a patient.

In addition to the ordinary hard and soft varieties, _black_ and
_bleeding_ corns are described by one writer on the subject, some of
which are reported very difficult to cure and dangerous to manage;
their injudicious removal being liable to result in convulsions, and
even lockjaw and death; all of which frightful consequences may be
accepted as inducements to avoid the productive first causes of the
trouble.

In regard to the treatment of _bunions_, the following from the
“Hydropathic Encyclopædia,” is the only thing we are able to find in
the books.

“This affliction, though generally regarded as a kind of corn, is
really an inflammation and swelling of the _bursa mucosa_,[8] at the
inside of the ball of the great toe; it often produces a distortion
of the metatarsal joint of the great toe, and is produced by the same
causes as corns. The treatment is, warm foot-baths when the part is
very tender and irritable; at other times frequent cold baths; and
when a horny substance, resembling a corn, appears externally, the
application of caustic. I have known bad corns and bunions cease
to be troublesome after the patient had been a few months under
hydropathic treatment for other complaints.”

The straightening of the great toe in the manner previously described
will probably do more toward the relief and cure of bunions than
any other remedy. The material of a shoe for that purpose should,
of course, be soft—the softest kinds of calfskin are good—but not
of _too_ yielding a nature, or the toe and joint will force it into
their own abnormal shape in spite of the form of the shoe, unless
this can be prevented by a stiffening piece of sole-leather at the
ball (see Chapter Four), because the parts tend to assume their old
position, and do so, as far as the leather will allow. With the
ordinary shoe, all that can be done, is to give the foot the softest
of leather—buck-skin, when obtainable, is the best—and make the shoe
over a last having also a big joint upon it, made of sole-leather, in
the exact place to fit that of the foot, and thus allow it plenty of
room.

The callosities that come upon the heel, instep, or other part of
the foot, can almost always be lifted or scraped off, without the
necessity of using caustic, and there is less probability of their
re-appearing after the cause is removed than in the case of corns.
But if the pressure that caused them first is continued, of course
they grow again. When they are so bad as to make it difficult to
remove them without softening, they can be subjected to the same
treatment which softens corns.

Sore insteps, big joints, and corns, when no positive means are
adopted for their cure or removal, may often be made tolerably
comfortable by having the shoe carefully adapted to fit them. This
is done by making leather corns or joints on the lasts before the
shoes are made. Particular places in a shoe can also, generally, be
stretched, so as to render them much more easy.[9]

Trusting that those readers who are not able to avail themselves
of the services of a professional chiropodist, will here find a
sufficient guide for the management of ordinary difficulties of this
kind, attention will next be called to a re-statement of some of the
ideas and points of argument previously advanced in this treatise.


FOOTNOTES:

[8] The _bursa mucosa_ is a synovial membrane lining the joint, and
secreting a lubricating fluid, like similar membranes in other joints.

[9] It will, perhaps, not be amiss here to give a cure for
_chilblains_, taken from a recent work upon the “Movement Cure,” by
Dr. George H. Taylor. It consists in raising the foot, with the shoe
upon it, and giving it thirty or forty smart blows upon the sole with
a heavy stick of convenient length to be handled. The shock upon the
foot dissipates the congestion of blood in the capillary vessels
under the skin, which causes the intense itching and smart. It is so
simple that every one afflicted ought to try it, and is asserted to
be, with few repetitions, a permanent cure.




CHAPTER IX.

  Recapitulation—Lasts for Individual Feet—Possibility of all Fee
  being Well Fitted in their Clothing—Ease and Grace of Movement—A
  Last Word for Children.


We have heretofore endeavoured to show what is the true, normal shape
of the healthy foot, as recognized by science, art, and common sense;
that in it the toes lie directly forward of the metatarsal bones, in
the same line, having plenty of room for all of them to come to the
ground, or the surface on which they tread; that there is no occasion
for grown-in-nails, big joints, or corns until after the adoption
of false habits in the manner of the foot’s clothing; that the
elevation of the instep is made by a well-formed and distinct arch,
the breaking-down of which, as manifested in the flattened instep
and elongated heel, is unnatural; that all the various deformities,
weaknesses, and ailments pointed out and remarked upon are so many
vitiations or perversions of the foot’s condition. It has been made
plain, also, _that all our present habits and ways of dressing the
feet tend, more or less directly and strongly, toward this depravity
and distortion_. We have seen that the common sole, by being curved
where it should be straight—on its inside line—inevitably draws
the great toe to one side, and all the toes too closely together,
pushing out the joint, creating corns between and outside the toes,
and lameness or bunion at the joint itself; that this tendency is
_increased_ by _straight_ and _narrow-toed_ soles; that it is made
still worse by _high heels_, which pitch the foot far forward; while
the practice of wearing boots and shoes that are too short makes yet
another addition toward the production of the whole bad result.

So also it is seen that the old-fashioned _short heels_, so long
worn, have had an influence in producing the broken-down arch of the
flat-foot; while other defects in the construction of the foot’s
covering manifest themselves by callosities on the heel and instep,
the turning over to one side, and the pressure, squeezing, and
general discomfort in the fit.

We have, still further, tried to indicate what is the true, natural,
and proper shape of _last_, and wherein it differs from those in
common use. This it will do no harm to re-state. First it was proven
that a correctly-formed last was not a thing to be changed by fashion
or custom, but on the contrary, to be as permanent in its form as
that of the foot which it imitates; that one of its peculiarities was
the straight line on the inside, with the curve upon the outside;
that another was the _spring_, or curve on the bottom; another, the
additional thickness over the place of the great toe; another, the
level bottom side-wise, from the shank, through the middle, forward;
another, the placing of the instep nearer to the side than is done
in lasts of the present time. This was offered as a positively sure
preventive of all those troubles arising from distortion of the toes,
while also having a tendency to encourage feet already deformed in a
return to their natural state.

From several of the positions thus taken, it necessarily follows that
straight lasts are entirely wrong in formation and use, _and that
nothing inferior to, or essentially different from, a right and left
last of the form described, can fully serve the natural requirements
of the foot_.

       *       *       *       *       *

For flat-footedness the long heel was recommended as one great help
toward recovering the natural position of the arch. A _long_ heel
is the next best thing to no heel at all. It supports the arch the
most nearly as it is supported when the bare foot is pressed upon
the ground or floor. Where this will not restore the shape, it will
at least be likely to prevent the fault from becoming any worse.
The other remedies—the proper exercise and full development of
the muscles at the bottom of the foot, and the righting of it up
when it treads inward—must be considered as in no way inferior, if
not _superior_, to the first. Taken together, they offer a strong
encouragement to those who wish to overcome the weakness, while they
furnish a sure prevention of it where it does not already exist.

       *       *       *       *       *

The importance of having lasts made expressly to fit individual feet
has not been sufficiently urged. Though many persons can get their
feet very well fitted at any time without them, and others may be so
situated that they can buy a handsomer and better article than they
can get made, yet where a good shoemaker can be relied upon to make
such a covering as is wanted, there is advantage in knowing how a
good fit can always be obtained. This is by having a pair of lasts
made as nearly right as possible, then allowing the shoemaker to
test and correct them after making a first pair of boots or shoes
on them, when they will be right for the remainder of a lifetime.
The shoemaker may also, after making the first pair, have a pattern
for any particular form of the upper, likewise corrected and made
reliable for further use. The expense of such lasts is not great, and
the custom shoemaker can himself furnish those from his own stock
for a large proportion of his customers, altering and fitting them
up as may be necessary, and supplying their places with others from
the last-maker. They will need to be so fitted up that they can be
slightly raised or lessened in size for thick or thin stockings,
or an increase or decrease of flesh. If a perfect fit is not made
when they are used the second time, a further slight correction will
insure it. After this there will be no dissatisfaction on the part
of the buyer; no fear of loss by misfits on the part of the maker.
Those who have any peculiar notion about their foot-apparel can be
suited. There will be very little trouble from delay, or from getting
the foot accustomed to the boot when first worn. Still further, and
better, the danger of making corns, bunions, grown-in nails, and sore
insteps is reduced to almost nothing; for the covering, being a good
fit, is neither tight nor loose, and does not pinch, cramp, or chafe
any part of the foot.

All these considerations are much more forcible when the feet differ
from an ordinary size and shape. A ready-made article to fit cannot
be bought. It is often difficult for even the best mechanic to make
work that will fit easily and handsomely upon feet that are flat, and
have corns and large joints besides—a combination of difficulties
he is frequently called upon to meet. There is the additional
fact that many feet can seldom or never be measured twice alike,
for all feet vary in size under different conditions, and some of
them a great deal; and hence the uncertainty of being fitted by a
shoemaker the first time he is employed.[10] But when a last of the
right size, length, width, and general shape has been obtained,
with all the corns, joints, sore insteps and other peculiarities
fairly represented upon it, the owner may expect more comfort for
the feet, and a better-looking boot, than has ever been realized for
them before. But such a last cannot be made perfectly correct at
first, and the customer must not be discouraged at finding a little
difficulty. The final satisfaction will repay all the trouble.

A pair of lasts for _boots_, if made in the right way, with a good
width at the shank (or just above it), while rather narrow at the
top, and with a full amount of spring at the toe, can be used for
making _shoes_ and _slippers_, in ordinary cases, by filling up the
shank with a piece of sole-leather in a way well known to custom
shoemakers; although the most perfect results are obtained by having
a separate pair designed for slippers and low shoes. Those who have
difficult feet had better limit themselves to one pair for all kinds
of coverings.

There is hence no need of feet being badly fitted because they are
badly shaped, if their possessors will act upon the suggestions
given. Yet it must not be expected that big joints and flat insteps
can be made _handsome_ by any degree of skill; they can be well
fitted, but their shape remains visible.

A boot or shoe ought to fit easily, yet snugly and smoothly, all
over the foot—around the heel and ankle as well as the forward part
There is no necessity for pinching the instep or crowding the toes;
no occasion for loose leather at the ankle and heel; no propriety in
wrinkles over the instep of a flat foot, nor having a slipper loose
at the sides. All _boots_ must have wrinkles at the ankle, and all
kinds of covering must have some across the foot at the joints. There
need not be any of marked size elsewhere, nor should these be as
large as they commonly are. A new boot should be put on with care to
avoid making them.

The ease and grace of movement connected with feet in their normal
condition, and when properly dressed, has been hinted at several
times previously. This is a consideration almost entirely overlooked;
yet it is not a thing of small importance. Everybody, in greater or
less degree, admires grace and beauty. Nearly everyone who has a
consciousness of being awkward in any way, suffers from that feeling
or knowledge. This love of the beautiful is as much a part of human
nature as conscience; and contributes as much to our pleasure as
almost any other sentiment or affection. When turned more in this
direction, as it should be, it will appreciate beauty in the feet
as quickly as elsewhere. Its influence must be brought to bear in
developing the true and elegant in this department, no less than in
others. It should appreciate a well-formed foot, whether small or
large; and a graceful, easy step in the street as well as in the
ball-room. Let the shuffling or stamping gait of flat-footed persons
generally, be contrasted with the light yet dignified carriage of
those whose feet are properly arched; let the stiff walk of a man
in tight boots be noticed, and then the step of one who goes along
in a pair of light, easy shoes with low heels. The difference in
each of these cases will be very plain. A person cannot walk easily
and handsomely—much less _run_—in boots that are uncomfortable, or
with corns and sore joints crying out at every step. High heels
necessarily give an unnatural character to the step, because the heel
of the foot does not come near the surface, as Nature intended. The
weight of the body is thrown too much upon the forward part of the
foot, which would seem likely to have some tendency toward breaking
it down, _while it prevents that very spring upon the ball and toes
which is the most essential thing in graceful walking_.[11]

Besides this, it is known that high heels _prevent the full growth
of the calf of the leg_, by preventing the full exercise of those
muscles which raise the heel at every step. As it is kept constantly
raised already by an inch and a half of leather under it, of course
there is less required of the muscles, and they are decreased in size.

_Stiffness_, also, has a decided effect upon the carriage of the
body. One who has always worn stiff, clumsy foot-gear has a stiff,
awkward walk, because all the muscles of the foot and leg brought
into play by natural walking have been interfered with and cramped
by the miserable clogs on the feet. As these will bend, or allow the
foot to bend, but very little, there can be but little use of the
muscles which form the calf of the leg and raise the heel. Hence the
calf remains weak and undeveloped, instead of presenting the full,
round, muscular appearance it shows in a well-developed leg, and
which is so necessary to a light, easy, elastic step, and graceful
movement.

The fashionable world—those people whom the earnest thinker and
the practical utilitarian look upon almost as useless idlers in
the community—still have their superiority in one direction, over
the thinker or business man, which must be fairly acknowledged.
They are artists in the matter of dress and personal ornamentation.
They possess that taste and keen sense of the beautiful which forms
everything around them into elegance, grace, and charm. Though
they sometimes sacrifice strength and usefulness, and often go to
foolish extremes, as do the plainer sort in an opposite way, yet
they generally manifest a propriety in dress and surroundings which
compels the admiration even of those sensible and steady ones who
think so highly of the useful, but depreciate the value of beauty.

To the fashionable class, then, no less than to others we appeal to
adopt a fashion in dressing the feet which will tend strongly to
develop beauty in their _form and appearance_, and grace in all their
_movements_. What this is, has been sufficiently well explained. It
may be added that no one should be satisfied without a good fit, and
an article as tasteful and carefully selected as anything that is
worn upon the head, or any other part of the person. The foot has the
same right to be well dressed that is possessed by any other portion
of the body.

A shape of the sole that would be a compromise between the common
form and the correct one, has been suggested for the benefit of those
who could not be persuaded to have anything better. This is a good
one for such feet as are somewhat distorted at the toes, and whose
owners are not disposed to attempt any correction. But we protest
against putting anything less perfect than the “Excelsior” upon
_young_ feet, that are still undeformed, and hence entitled to a
covering that will correspond. Parents have no right to treat their
children in such a way as to induce any of the troubles that have
been described. But this they are almost sure to do, in greater or
less degree, by compelling them to wear the ordinary boot and shoe.
It is true the better kind cannot be obtained ready-made at first,
though the demand will produce them in a reasonable time, yet some
approach to the true thing can be made by a shoemaker of intelligence
and ingenuity, even though, in the absence of proper lasts, he is
obliged to alter and improve some which he already has. Some day the
better article will be both obtainable and inexpensive. In the mean
time those most interested must take the best substitute within their
reach—that which comes nearest the true standard.


FOOTNOTES:

[10] To those custom shoemakers who continue trying to fit everybody
without any specially-made lasts it is suggested that in some of the
most difficult they make a _trial_ shoe, the upper for it being cut
from some cheap material, such as cotton drilling for representing
serge or cloth, and split-leather or sheepskin for leather uppers,
while a piece of insole-leather will answer for the bottom. The
upper can be sewed together without lining, only some eyelets
being necessary for lacing, and when drawn over such a last as is
judged likely to fit the foot it may be roughly fastened down all
around with a waxed thread. After trial on the customer’s foot, the
upper can be ripped off and the sole-leather used for an insole or
something else, while if the shoe fits badly the last is easily
modified, before making a permanent article. The same plan might be
tried with any new last designed for a particular foot.

[11] The effects upon the foot are not the only bad results springing
from heels that are extremely high. The work of Dr. C. F. Taylor has
already been quoted from to show the influence of weak ankles in
developing lateral curvature of the spine. We also find in it some
hints concerning _stoop-shoulders_, which are thus expressed.

“Man has a much narrower base of sustentation than most other
animals, which renders it important that that base should not be
lessened by cramping the feet in narrow shoes, rendering progression
difficult, awkward, and quickly fatiguing. But probably the most
serious fault in the feet-coverings is the elevated heel often given
to them. By elevating the heel, besides the still narrower base
given, whether in progression or standing, the anatomical relations
of the whole body as an instrument of locomotion are materially
changed. As in lateral curvature of the spine, a deviation from the
proper position at one point may cause several other compensating
curves at other points, so an improper position of one part of the
locomotive apparatus will cause a succession of other false positions
of other parts. By elevating the heel and constantly keeping the
flexors of the feet [the muscles on the upper side] on the stretch,
relief to them is instinctively sought by a slight flexion at the
knee; this would destroy the perpendicularity of the figure, were
not another slight flexion made at the hips; but as this would throw
the trunk forward still another flexion backward is required, and
then forward, etc. But in the spinal column a compromise is effected
by a forward curve and inclination of the head. Thus, high heels
tend to produce and permanently establish a succession of zigzags
from the ankles upward, with the weight of the body supported by the
tension of the muscles, and not, as in erect stature, by the bony
framework.”—_Theory and Practice of the Movement-Cure_, p. 75.

The position here described is an approach to that assumed by old
people—those “bent over by age”—who are unable from weakness to stand
upright. The abdominal muscles are relaxed, the chest sinks, the head
falls forward, and the spine adapts itself by bending at the neck
and shoulders. The author goes on to show that these effects are
felt more sensibly by women than by men, and that their diseases and
weaknesses are thus rendered more aggravated, and the complete cure
of them retarded or prevented by the wearing of high heels.




CHAPTER X.

  Miscellaneous—Criticism of Different Forms and
  Fashions—Elasticity—Sensitiveness—Rubbers and Water-proof
  Leather—Cure for Sweating—Qualities of a good Covering.


It has been said that fashion should never be allowed to change the
shape of the sole, or interfere with the form of the lasts used in
the construction of the foot’s coverings. This restriction, however,
does not apply to the materials of which they are made, nor the form
into which the _uppers_ may be cut. The latter may be of a great
variety of forms, and the material of almost any kind or quality,
and of all colours and descriptions of ornamentation. Yet there are
many particulars that are matters of style now, which will give way
to something different in another year, or in two or three years.
Each of the different kinds of boots has certain peculiar advantages
which, in addition to its being fashionable, contribute to make it
popular. The side-spring boot, that has been a favourite so long,
seldom slips at the heel, and this is a decidedly good point; it
also, by fitting closely at the ankles, gives a feeling of snugness
and security which is comfortable, while it admits of perfect
freedom in all movements of the ankle in walking. There is less
trouble in putting it on and off than with most other descriptions of
boots and shoes which is a recommendation to many people who value
time or dislike extra labour.

The _Balmoral boot_ for ladies has its recommendation in its
_superiority of fit_. This has made, and keeps it, a favourite,
causing it to be more generally worn than any other. The mariner of
lacing enables the wearer to draw it smooth and snug over the instep
and around the heel and ankle—an advantage possessed by no other,
except, partially, by the side-laced boot; which is likely to come
again into favour.

The _Polish boot_ takes the place of the Balmoral when a greater
height upon the leg is required. There is no other difference in its
form, and the quality of fit is the same. Its worst disadvantage is
the amount of time required in lacing and unlacing it, although, when
made of thick leather, it may have a slight cramping effect upon the
muscles of the ankle.

The _Button boot_, often called the Hungarian, when cut high like
the Polish, is at this time the most fashionable. It is quite as
handsome, but has not usually the neatness of fit which the Balmoral
possesses.

One style, not generally introduced, but of which a pair has been
made occasionally, is superior to the Polish or Hungarian in that
there is only half as much trouble in lacing. It may be made very
high—thirteen inches, if desired—being laced or buttoned about as
far up as the Balmoral, when the upper part of one quarter is folded
over past the opening, and fastened with two or three handsome clasps
attached to elastic straps, which give and retract sufficiently
to accommodate the action of the leg, while at the same time the
leg is snugly fitted. This is a good heavy winter boot for ladies,
where an extreme height or length of leg is in demand. The _Highland
buckle_ is similar to it, the part that laps over being fastened
with one inelastic strap. We have also noticed a high boot made
with gores like the side-spring—one at the ankle and two above on
each side—which would seem to be a very convenient thing to put on,
but one that needs the best gores to make it serviceable. It is not
probable that either of these varieties will be extensively popular.
The first is of the three the most deserving.

The quality needed by all laced, buckled, or buttoned boots is
_elasticity_ at the leg, ankle, or instep, such as is possessed at
one point—the ankle—by the side-spring. A great advantage would be
gained if this elasticity could be extended down even to the ball
or joint. One purpose of it is _to give free play to the muscles of
the leg and ankle, and also allow the foot to lengthen and spread
without hindrance as its arches expand under the weight of the body
in walking or standings and another is to keep the upper closely
drawn over all parts of the foot, ankle, and leg, when the arches
are contracted and the muscles inactive, as in a state of rest; both
objects—ease to the foot and beauty of fit—being secured by the same
means_. Buckle and button boots for gentlemen, with this quality
supplied at the ankle by a narrow goring on one side of it, while
the buckles or buttons are on the other side, have lately been made.
The gored Oxford shoe supplies the elasticity at the instep. Perhaps
some other style can be invented that will do as much for the ball
and transverse arch as these kinds have done for the parts above.
Any boot or shoe with this peculiarity is superior to the same thing
without it. It must not, of course, be supposed that such a shoe will
fit a thick or a slim foot equally well, for the elastic may be too
tight for ease in one case, and too loose for a good fit in the other.

In connection with this matter, strong elastic cords for laces are
suggested as worthy of a trial in Balmoral and Polish boots. If
successful, they accomplish the same result as elastic goring, and,
besides, may be drawn tightly or loosely to meet the defect of the
boot, or suit the convenience or taste of the wearer.

Cloth and leather materials are joined together in ladies’ work in
all sorts of proportions. In regard to this practice it may be said
that those kinds of shoes in which the higher part is made of cloth
or lasting, and the lower and forward parts of leather, are to be
preferred for one reason: the softer part at the ankle allows of
more freedom and ease to the muscles, while the leather below serves
all the purposes it would if extending throughout, and thus the
advantages of both are combined. There is no difficulty in making
this union, whatever the _cut_ of the boot may be—whether gored,
laced, or buttoned.

Tender feet may find what suits their wants in the softer kinds of
kid and morocco, when cloth is not preferred. There is no reason why
a woman’s boot, though a heavy one, should be hard and stiff; as a
good quality of oiled morocco, pebbled calf, or calf-kid leather, to
be obtained almost anywhere, will commonly be found pliable enough,
even for moderately sensitive corns. Still more softness may be given
by double linings of flannel.

There is no leather worn by ladies that is water-proof, and that
quality ought not to be expected. Their heaviest boots are made with
a double sole and double upper, which give additional warmth, and
protect against ordinary dampness. But the only thing they have as a
sure protection against wet is rubber. Rubber sandals or shoes for
the sidewalk or a rainy day, and high rubber boots for snow, are a
complete security.

Men are, in this respect, better provided for. There are several
kinds of leather worn by them which, if saturated with grease or
special preparations, will be water-proof, though exposed for a
considerable time. They have the benefit of rubber besides.

The Napoleon tongued boot, for a heavy one, is supposed to have a
superiority of fit about the ankle, and is more tasteful in a general
way.

The double-footed boot is considered, with some reason, to be
_warmer_ than a single one of the same thickness. For men’s feet
that are very sensitive to cold, perhaps the best thing is a doubled
boot, having the inside part, or foot-lining, made of fur-calf—calf
skin dressed with the hair on—or some other kind of fur. Arctic
overshoes are very excellent for riding in cold weather, provided
they are not too small. Cork soles, covered with wool or flannel,
for either sex, are another help toward keeping the feet warm, with
which, in addition to flannel linings and other provisions, the most
cold-footed ought to be tolerably comfortable. It must not, however,
be expected to keep the feet warm in any kind of a covering that is
_tight_.

But as this kind of sensitiveness is, in healthy persons, very much
a matter of habit, it is perhaps quite as well for such to accustom
themselves to wearing an ordinary doubled boot through the winter,
unless much exposed, and put on a light boot, shoe, or gaiter for the
summer. Appropriateness and adaptation to weather or circumstances
are always to be considered. A heavy leather boot with double sole
is as much out of place and time in a warm day, as a light cloth
gaiter in a snow-storm. While the latter would expose the foot
unnecessarily, the first, besides being uncomfortable, keeps the foot
in an unnaturally sensitive condition. It is not intended to make
any suggestions to _invalids_. We only state the well-known rule
that exposure to cold makes the feet, or any other part of the body,
more hardy, when there is an ordinary state of health, or sufficient
blood in the system to be easily drawn to the surface by this
demand. Where there is too little vitality for this, the experience
of the person or the counsel of the physician is the best guide.
So also in regard to dampness or wetting the feet. While making no
law for sickly or feeble constitutions, it seems to us very evident
that the more often the feet are exposed to damp or wet, the greater
the ability acquired by the system to resist it;[12] and that when
the feet happen to get wet only occasionally, the consequences of
the exposure are proportionately more serious. It is probable that
if care were taken to keep the feet _comfortably warm_ when wet,
either by exercise, as in walking, or in some other manner, there
would be very little danger from the wet alone, unless in cases
of invalid feebleness, or where they were dampened so seldom that
the intelligence of the physical system was unprepared for such an
occurrence.

One of the well-established facts of physiology is that anything worn
upon the feet which, like rubber or patent leather, prevents the
passing off of the insensible perspiration, is detrimental to the
health. Those who regard the organic laws as having any sacredness,
will not use patent leather boots covering the whole foot, for
constant wear, but limit them to particular occasions. Rubbers ought
to be removed, and something else substituted in their place, as
soon as the feet come out of the wet which occasions their being put
on. The same is true of all boots that are water-proof. They should
be worn only when times of exposure make them necessary. This is
sufficiently well known with regard to rubbers; but few know that
leather boots are objectionable, for the same reason, in proportion
as they are watertight. There are comparatively few of them which
are perfectly so; yet there are many, which, worn as they are, day
after day, in dry weather as well as wet, must, by retaining a large
part of the foot’s perspiration, have an unhealthful effect. It is a
good practice to bathe the feet after removing a pair of water-proof
boots which have been worn during the day. With many men this is a
necessity, and it would be such with many more if they knew all the
requirements of the laws of hygiene, to say nothing of any other
reason. To give the boots themselves a washing-out occasionally might
be advantageous. The feet must be allowed to perspire naturally, or
the skin in some other part is liable to be overtasked; and it is
stated by medical authorities that skin diseases have been produced
by neglect of the feet in this particular.

The following cure for abnormal sweating of the feet is taken from
one of our first-class periodicals;[13] and from the nature of the
remedy it would seem that it ought to have the effect indicated.

“Pulverized tannin sprinkled inside the boots or shoes in three
days prevents tender feet from perspiring and blistering. Tanning
thus applied, rapidly strengthens and hardens the skin, softened by
the simultaneous action of moisture and heat; perspiration being
thus reduced to the proper degree, without its healthy action being
in the slightest interfered with, the exhalations as a matter of
course cease to be offensive. The cessation of disagreeable odours
is explained by the fact that the products of the ammoniacal
decomposition of the skin are immediately combined with the tannin
and so carried off.”

Rubber-soled shoes for ladies, with leather or other material for
the uppers, have been manufactured to a slight extent; and, as far
as we know, are a success. The objection on account of health does
not apply to them seriously, because the rubber is at the bottom.
Possibly, however, an uncomfortable effect may be produced upon the
sole of the foot.

Water-proof serge or lasting, also, is among the late inventions.
It is claimed to be sufficiently porous to allow the escape of
perspiration, yet water-proof under all ordinary exposure. The two
qualities are incompatible and if really water-proof it is only fit,
like rubber, to be worn occasionally.

Cloth materials of different kinds have been much worn. They permit a
partial saving of leather, and are equally handsome. They are light,
soft, may be made sufficiently warm, and are far more favourable
to health. They answer nearly every requirement for a good shoe,
except the defence against dampness; and their wearing ought to be
encouraged. The defect named must be supplied by rubbers.

Nearly all the coarser and cheaper kinds of men’s shoe goods have
the bad quality of general stiffness. Their wearing makes, in a very
decided and proper sense, _stiff feet_. They are all the worse for
having pegged soles. Whether the soles are curved or straight makes
not much difference, for the stiffness prevents the use of either the
upper or lower set of the foot’s muscles. As these goods can not be
generally manufactured at the present time without being made stiff
by pegs, in addition to the firmness of the leather, there is but
little chance for improvement. Those obliged to wear them are advised
to do so only so far as they are compelled, and to keep the upper
parts in as pliable a condition as possible by frequent applications
of oil. It is to be hoped that something softer will some time take
their place.

The value of all these various styles, and of any other that may
come up hereafter, may be tested by the presence or absence of
the following general qualities: sufficient porosity of the upper
to admit the passage of the insensible perspiration; softness and
pliability sufficient to allow of ease and comfort to the foot in
all its movements; flexibility and elasticity that will yield to
accommodate the action of the muscles at the ankle and top of the
foot, yet draw the upper tight enough to fit smoothly; general good
shape and proportion; flexibility of sole; strength for protection
and service. The more of these there can be combined into any species
of foot-clothing the better will the foot be protected and preserved,
and at the least expense of money and trouble in proportion to the
benefit gained.


THE END.


BILLING, PRINTER, GUILDFORD, SURREY.


FOOTNOTES:

[12] It may become an important problem to the physiologist and
physician to determine whether the same law does not hold good
in respect to _whatever_ is naturally injurious to the human
constitution _in any way_, so long as its resisting power _is not
overbalanced_. If all kinds of unhealthy conditions, surroundings,
and exposures can be made to produce the good effects of healthful
stimulation when made use of to the proper extent, however little
that may be, while only past that limit they become destructive,
then a change will come over a great many notions and practices.
Some facts are reconciled by such a theory which are otherwise quite
contradictory.

[13] _Appleton’s Journal_—department devoted to Science.




  Transcriber’s Notes

  pg 21 Changed: which is excedingly tender and painful
             to: which is exceedingly tender and painful

  pg 27 Changed: it invaribly has and must have
             to: it invariably has and must have

  pg 129 Changed: The “Hydropathic Enclyclopædia” recommends
              to: The “Hydropathic Encyclopædia” recommends