Dress and care of the feet /

by John Lord Peck

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.