Historic artificial limbs

Abstract

Abstract Prosthesis a (Stibbert) is doubtfully assigned in the catalogue to the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. If we remember that the arm-piece “alla moderna” (volume 12), appeared in armor near the beginning of the sixteenth century, and that probably it was adopted in the construction of limbs after it had become general in armor, we may argue that prosthesis a belongs definitely to the sixteenth century, possibly not to its early years. We have already referred to the resemblance between the pattern of the fenestration of prosthesis b and that of the Kaiserliches Museum. This fenestration, which to this day is used to lighten artificial limbs and orthopedic apparatus, was even more important in those made all of metal, where weight became a serious problem. The cut, balance and design of the fenestration may be said to depend on the taste, experience, technical ability and artistic sense of the workman. Rough, geometrical in the Alt-Ruppin hand, these openings become decorative features in prosthesis b and in that of Kaiserliches Museum prostheses and also prosthesis e . Of course these simple designs are not to be compared with the beauty of engraving nor of jewelling, but still they show in their designer a more advanced and mature sense of art. Therefore it may not be incorrect to consider all these as of later date than that of Alt-Ruppin. In prosthesis b the taste for ornament induced the workman to nail on the anterior trough of the armpiece an elegant but useless rosette of metal, identical in form and size with those to be seen on the magnificent cuirass of the Museo Stibbert (Cat. 2:141). For hands c and d we agree with the dates assigned them in the catalogue of the Museo Stibbert, that is fifteenth century, although it is difficult to decide because, as everything has been sacrificed to efficiency, there are no esthetic elements for comparison. In conclusion these old limbs, which we have described, show that from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century not only were there attempts to restore to cases of war injury the limb lost on the field of battle so that the warrior might suffer as little as possible in appearance and efficiency, but also they tried to help the manual laborer and the cripple. The problem of prosthesis, attacked by artizans not specialising in it (armorers, smiths, watchmakers, and possibly patients themselves) could only in exceptional cases be solved by standards and methods which can withstand modern criticism and give us new ideas. Nevertheless one cannot fail to recognise that some of the pieces described have more than a purely historical value. In some one perceives the nucleus, although primitive and crude, of the principles applied in modern prosthetic work.