Part 6

+----------+---+------------+------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-------------+ | | H | | |C S| H | R | H | F | T | F | Pelvis. | | | e | Middle |Spine,|i f k| u | a | a | e | i | o +------+------+ | | i | point | |r e o u| m | d | n | m | b | o | | | | | g | of |length|c r f l| e | i | d | u | i | t |Trans.|Ant.- | | | h | spine. | of. |u e l| r | u | . | r | a | . | dia- |post. | | | t | | |m n .| u | s | | . | . | |meter.|dia- | | | . | | |- c | s | . | | | | | |meter.| | | | | | e | . | | | | | | | | +----------+---+------------+------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+ |European | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(average |65 | Symphysis | 22.2 | 20.5 |12.7 | 9.2 | 7.3 |17.88|14.4 |10.6 | 5.2 | 4.3 | | of 25) | | pubis. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Negro | |{ 1 inch }| | | | | | | | | | | |(average |62 |{ below }| 19.3 | 19.8 |12.1 | 9.4 | 7.7 |17 |14.4 |11.11| 4.6 | 4.1 | | of 25) | |{Symphysis.}| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Bosjesman | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(average |54 | Symphysis. | 17 | 19.6 |10.8 | 8.3 | 6 |15 |12.9 | 7.5 | 4.4 | 3.5 | | of 3) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Idiot | | | | | | | | | | | | | |(in Berlin|57 | | 19.5 | 13.5 |12 | 8.8 | 7 |16 |12.5 | 8.5 | 5 | 3.8 | | Museum) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Chimpanzee| |{ 3 inches }| | | | | | | | | | | |(average |50 |{ above }| 17 | |12.2 |11 | 9 |12.4 |10 |10.5 | 4 | 5.5 | | of 4) | |{Symphysis.}| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Orang | |{ 3-1/2 }| | | | | | | | | | | |(average |44 |{ inches }| 18 | |14 |14 |10 |10.6 | 9.2 |12 | 3.8 | 4.5 | | of 2) | |{ above }| | | | | | | | | | | | | |{Symphysis.}| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Gorilla | |{ 4 inches }| | | | | | | | | | | |(average |58 |{ above }| 21 | |16.6 |12.9 | 9 |13.9 |11.3 |12 | 5.7 | 7.3 | | of 3) | |{Symphysis.}| | | | | | | | | | | +----------+---+------------+------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+

hand; and it is only, gradually, during the advance to manhood, that the proper proportions are attained. So that the transient or immature condition of the human frame shews certain resemblances to the permanent Negro type and to that of the quadrumanous animals; and these resemblances become obliterated during further growth.

The accounts of travellers indicate that some other nations present great varieties in the proportion which the length of the foot and hand bears to the height. Bushmen and Hottentots are very diminutive, commonly under 5 feet in height; and their hands and feet are remarkably small and delicate, in which respect they differ from Negroes. Mr Bartram observes with regard to the Cherokees or Muscogulges--a tribe of North American Indians--that the women are, perhaps, the smallest race of women yet known, almost all under 5 ft.; and their hands and feet are not larger than those of Europeans of 9 or 10 years of age. He tells us, also, what is very strange, that the men of this same tribe are of gigantic stature, “a full size larger than Europeans,” many of them above, and a few under, 6 ft.; but he says nothing of the size of their hands and feet. The hands and feet of the Patagonians are said to be very small. This may be contrary to what we might expect; but it accords with what I found to be the case in the skeletons of some Giants which I measured; for in all of them the feet and the hands were disproportionately short. It would seem, therefore, that, whether the stature of the individual be diminutive or gigantic, the foot and the hand, in either case, are, usually, less than their proper relative length. A greater number of accurate data are, however, necessary to enable us to generalise correctly upon this and other points of a like nature, or to decide what truth there is in the common remark, that a long foot in a child indicates a tall man.

In former times the parts of the human body were used as measures; and it was not uncommon to illustrate the tables of measures by drawings of the human body, with descriptions of the foot, palm, &c. One of the tables of the 16th century, derived in great part from the Romans and the Greeks, is founded upon the notion, which is not very far from the truth, that in the well proportioned man, the breadth of the palm is a 24th part of the whole stature, and the length of the foot a 6th part, and the length of the cubit--from the elbow to the end of the fingers--a 4th. The measures, however, varied at different times and in different countries, even though the names were the same. The latter have, in several instances, remained, though the definite measure which they now indicate is different from what it was, and differs from that of the part of the body from which the name was taken. Thus, our present foot measure (twelve inches) is considerably more than the length of the human foot.

_The Skin of the Sole._

The SKIN of the sole is soft and yet very tough and strong. It underlies a thick pad of fat, which separates it from the bones and the plantar ligament. The fat is interwoven with fibres passing, through it, from the tissue of the skin to the bones and ligaments. It is, in this way, rendered very firm, though it retains much of the soft quality of fat; and it forms an admirable cushion for receiving the weight of the body and defending from injurious pressure both the skin and the other parts of the foot. The fibres just mentioned bind the skin to the superjacent bones and ligaments, and hold it firmly to them, so as to prevent its being displaced from them in the movements of the foot upon the ground.

The accompanying woodcut shows that these connecting fibres are most numerous where there is the greatest pressure, viz. beneath the heel and the balls of the toes. It shows, too, that they take the direction at each of those parts which is most calculated to prevent displacement. Thus, at the heel their direction is chiefly from the heel-bone, backwards, to the skin. When we place the heel upon the ground in walking, the weight of the body has a tendency to drive the heel-bone _for_wards from the skin; and the direction of the fibres, from the heel-bone, _back_wards, just resists this tendency and holds the skin and the bone firmly together. On the contrary, when we withdraw the foot from the ground the pressure is in the opposite direction, and has a tendency to drive the metatarsal bones _back_wards from the skin. The course of the fibres is, consequently, changed. They, many of them at least, run _for_wards from the bones and prevent the displacement that would be likely to occur. This direction is also very marked, and for the same reason, at the end of the great toe. A bundle of fibres radiates from the projecting process, or tubercle, which is conspicuous upon the under surface of the bone near its end; and the greater number of them run _for_wards, through the pulp of the toe, to the skin, and maintain the connection of the skin with the bone when the latter is pressed _back_wards in withdrawing the foot from the ground.

The skin of the sole has a peculiar sensitiveness, which enables it to take quick cognisance of contact with the ground or of any injurious substances lying upon the ground. The sensitiveness in the foot is rather increased by its being so much covered up. We are aroused to a consciousness of this sensitiveness when the soles are tickled, or when any one treads on our toes, especially if there happen to be a corn there. We know also how sensitive the feet are to cold, and how liable we are to catch cold from wet feet. This sensitiveness renders washing the feet a refreshing luxury, especially in hot climates or when we are fatigued. It is a luxury much indulged in by Eastern nations; “Mephibosheth had neither dressed his feet nor trimmed his beard from the day the king departed, until he came again in peace;” and among the Jews in our Saviour’s time (Luke vii. 38), when guests were made very welcome, their sandals were unloosed, and their feet washed and carefully wiped, and, if the person were of high rank, anointed.

The integument of the foot varies in different animals, according to the nature of the ground upon which they tread and other circumstances. Thus the Elephant, the Hippopotamus, and the Rhinoceros, living in jungles and in marshy districts, have a more or less soft covering of skin. Oxen and Horses gallop about upon dry ground; and their feet are soled with thick hoofs of horn. The Dog has tough pads of skin with thick cuticle upon his feet; and the feet of the Feline tribe are muffled with fur so as to enable them to approach their prey with a noiseless tread. Man’s foot is, by nature, like the rest of the surface of his body, comparatively unprotected; but as the foot, by its efficiency, emancipates the hand from the drudgery of carrying, so does the latter make some return for this relief by providing artificial coverings which enable the foot to tread upon various surfaces, and protect it against the inclemencies of the seasons.

_On Shoes._

A few words on the subject of SHOES. No one will dispute the correctness of the principle that the shoe should be made to fit the foot; yet it is not a little remarkable that this principle is so often departed from in practice, and that the usual plan is to make the foot adapt itself to the shoe. That is, the shape of the shoe is determined according to the fancy of the maker or the dictates of fashion, and the foot is expected to mould itself accordingly. This is particularly the case with the fore part of the shoe, into which the toes, or most compliant parts of the foot, are squeezed. Thus, the shape of the sole of a sound foot is about that represented in fig. 47; the great toe is seen to be free from the others, and the line of its axis, prolonged backwards, traverses the centre of the heel. Compare this with the outline of the sole of a shoe as usually made; and the violence that is done to nature is at once perceived. The shoe is made quite symmetrical, or is curved a little in the part between the heel and the sole--in the “waist” as it is called--when the shoes are to be worn on the left and right foot respectively; and the toes, instead of being allowed to spread out a little, are pressed together, and made to converge to a point in the line of the middle toe, as seen in fig. 48.

The line of the great toe is thus quite altered, and the other toes are tightly wedged together (figs. 49 and 50); or, not being able to find room side by side, they overlap one another and form unsightly projections beneath the upper leather of the shoe. No wonder that “corns” and “bunions” and “in-growing toe-nails” are the frequent result of this treatment, and that so many persons are compelled to walk in a cautious, feeling manner, and to watch the ground narrowly, lest their cramped and tender toes come into contact with a stone or other projecting body.

How greatly to be lamented it is that the foot should be thus maltreated and distorted, and that walking should be made so painful, and that the shoe, which is intended to befriend and protect the foot, and which, if well fitted, would support it and preserve its shape, and make some amends to it for the rough hard roads upon which it is compelled to tread, should be thus perverted into a means of galling it and impairing its functions.

This subject has been treated of in a simple and concise manner by Dr Meyer, Professor of Anatomy at Zurich, in a small pamphlet, which has been translated into English by Mr Craig, and entitled, “_Why the Shoe pinches_[6].” I hope it may be read by boot-makers, and may lead to some improvement in their art. Dr Meyer very properly remarks that one of the main points to be attended to is, to allow the great toe to have its normal position; and this can be done by making the inner edge of the sole incline _in_wards, from the balls of the toes, instead of _out_wards. The accompanying drawing (fig. 51) gives the outline of a shoe designed under his superintendence, and shows the difference between it and the usual shape, the latter being indicated by the dotted outline. In fig. 52 the shoe is pointed, the pointing being effected from the outer side. I have often laboured, but laboured in vain, to impress the same point, and hope the more systematic attempt of Professor Meyer may lead to better results.

[6] _Why the Shoe pinches_, a contribution to Applied Anatomy by Hermann Meyer, M.D. Professor of Anatomy in the University of Zurich, translated from the German by John Stirling Craig, L.R.C.P.E., L.R.C.S.E., price sixpence.

The preceding four figures and the two following are taken from this pamphlet with Mr Craig’s permission.

With regard to the _heel-piece_, I have already said that it should not be high because it makes the step less steady and secure, and at the same time shortens it, and impairs the action of the calf-muscle. A high heel-piece, moreover, renders the position of the foot upon the ground oblique, placing the fore part at a lower level than the heel; thus the weight is thrown too much in the direction of the toes, and they are driven forwards and cramped against the upper leather of the shoe. The high-heel of a boot, therefore, tends to aggravate the evils which are caused by the insufficient and ill-adjusted space which is allowed to the toes.

* * * * *

This account of the foot has necessarily been very superficial and imperfect. There are many points in its anatomy to which I have not even alluded; but, if I have succeeded in giving you some idea of the general plan of its construction, and in stimulating you to further enquiry respecting the mechanism of the Human Frame, my purpose will have been served. Still more will it have been so, if you carry away with you some sense both of the Pride and of the Humility which the review of such a structure is calculated to excite--of pride, not selfish pride, but pride resulting from a consciousness of the nobility of your physical nature, a pride which will make you spurn what is bad and degrading, and will help you to aspire to what is elevated and good. The impressions resulting from a comparison of this one fragment of Nature’s work with our own most laboured achievements must quell any other pride; and the very admiration with which we contemplate the structure of our body impels us to walk humbly with our God, whose gift that body is.

THE HUMAN HAND.

The great characteristic of the Hand, as distinguished from the Foot, is the mobility of the first digit, or thumb. Accordingly when this digit stands out apart from the others, and can be moved independently of them, so as to be more or less completely opposed to them, in the upper or Mammalian Class of animals, at least, we call the member a Hand. When this digit is absent, or is fixed in the same manner as the others, which is the case in each of the four limbs of Quadrupeds, we call the member a Foot. In Monkeys, or in most of them, the thumb is present and is separate and moveable in each of the four limbs; and these animals are, therefore, called “quadrumanous” or “four-handed.” Man, having the moveable thumb upon each of the two upper limbs only, is “bimanous” or “two-handed.” By this peculiarity, perhaps more definitely than by any other, he is distinguished in structure from all the rest of the animal series; and naturalists have, accordingly, given the epithet “Bimanous” to the class in which he is placed, and in which he stands alone.

The hand is the executive or essential part of the upper limb. Without it the limb would be almost useless. The whole limb is, therefore, so made as to give play and strength to the hand; and, in ever so brief a description of the hand, it is necessary, even more than in the case of the foot, to give some idea of the manner in which the other parts of the limb are constructed, and to dwell a little upon such points as have relation to its movements.

The general plan of construction of the upper limb will readily be understood by means of the drawings (figs. 53 and 58, p. 122). It resembles very much that of the lower limb (see fig. 4, page 15). The one bone of the upper arm--the _humerus_--resembles the one bone of the thigh, and is jointed, above, with the shoulder-blade, which, with the collar-bone, corresponds with the pelvis. Below, it is connected with the two bones of the fore-arm--the _radius_ and _ulna_; and these correspond with the two bones of the leg. In the wrist there are eight bones, called _carpal_ bones, arranged in two rows. These are connected with five _metacarpal_ bones; and these, like the metatarsals of the foot, are jointed with the _phalanges_. Of the latter there are three in each finger; but in the thumb, as in the great toe (page 10), there are only two.

The diagram shows how the bones of the hand are arranged in three divisions. Thus, the upper row of carpal bones (3, 4, 5) consists, practically, of three bones; the fourth (6), which is much smaller than the others, being rather an appendage to one of them than a distinct constituent of the wrist. (According to this view, the number of the wrist-bones corresponds exactly with that of the tarsal bones of the foot, viz. 7). The _outer_ of these three carpal bones (3) bears the thumb[7] and the fore-finger (I. and II.), and constitutes, with them, the outer division of the hand; the inner one (5) bears the ring-finger and the little finger (IV. and V.), and constitutes the _inner_ division of the hand; and the middle one (4) bears the middle finger (III.), and is the _middle_ division of the hand. The diagram shows, too, that the two outer bones (3 and 4), with the two outer divisions of the hand, are connected with the radius; whereas the inner bone (5) only, with the inner division of the hand, is connected with the ulna. Strictly speaking, even this bone is not directly connected with the ulna, but is separated from it, as will be shown presently, by a thick ligament.

[7] In deference to custom we call the palm the _front_ of the hand; and, therefore, we speak of the thumb as the _out_er and the little finger as the _in_ner digit: though it would better accord with the ordinary position of the part, with its correspondence with the foot and with comparative anatomy, to reverse these terms.

You frequently hear ignorant persons (and the greater number of persons are lamentably ignorant of the structure of their own body) speaking of the _small bones_ of the shoulder, or the _small bones_ of the elbow. You may think this a matter of no importance, and that it does not concern you and people generally to have any knowledge of human anatomy. But I will tell you what is very often happening, and will leave you to judge whether such complete ignorance on this subject is not attended with some practical disadvantage. A man meets with an injury, falls and hurts his shoulder. The immediate effects of the injury subside; but he does not quickly recover the use of the part; he still cannot raise his elbow, or put his hand upon his head, or put it behind him. Soon he begins to think that something more is wrong than has been suspected; and the notion creeps over his mind, and gradually takes possession of it, that some small bone is displaced. Not content with the assurances of his medical man, he resorts to a quack, called a “bone-setter.” The latter, taking advantage of the popular fallacy, gratifies the patient with the information that his fears are correct, affirms that “a small bone is out,” and proceeds forthwith to employ the requisite forcible measures for putting the said “small bone” in. I need not say with what result. Every year, in this civilized country, many persons are maimed for life by these attempts to put imaginary small bones in. I beg you, therefore, particularly to observe that _there is no small bone_ either at the shoulder or at the elbow. The only small bones are at the wrist; and these are so well fitted to one another, and so firmly bound together, that nothing short of a crushing force suffices to displace them. This remark respecting the small bones of the wrist is true of nearly all the small bones in other parts of the body. So that, in fact, small bones are very rarely dislocated; and when you hear it asserted that a small bone is out, you may pretty confidently conclude that the speaker does not know what he is talking about.

I have said that the upper limbs resemble the lower in their general construction. There are, however, some important differences; and one of the chief of these is the greater variety and freedom of the movements in the upper limbs. _Strength_, for the purpose of carrying the body, is the object in the lower limbs. _Mobility_ is the requisite in the upper limbs. Of this one example has already been given in the instance of the thumb as compared with the great toe.

_Movements at the Shoulder._

An equally striking example is afforded by the shoulder. In the first place, the “Shoulder-blade” itself can be moved in several directions--upwards, downwards, backwards and forwards;--whereas the “Pelvis,” i. e. the part which bears to the lower limb the same relation that the shoulder-blade does to the upper-limb, is immoveably fixed.