Irregular Figures

Throughout the previous pages I have been assuming—what perhaps should have been laid down at the beginning as a distinct and fundamental proposition—that every human being in Flatland is a Regular Figure, that is to say of regular construction. By this I mean that a Woman must not only be a line, but a straight line; that an Artisan or Soldier must have two of his sides equal; that Tradesmen must have three sides equal; Lawyers (of which class I am a humble member), four sides equal, and generally, that in every Polygon, all the sides must be equal.

Throughout the previous pages, I have assumed that every human being in Flatland is a Regular Figure. Perhaps I should have stated this basic principle clearly at the beginning. Being a Regular Figure means having a regular shape. By this I mean that a Woman must be not just a line, but a straight line. An Artisan or Soldier must have two equal sides. Tradesmen must have three equal sides. Lawyers must have four equal sides. I am a humble member of this last class. In general, all the sides of every Polygon must be equal.

The size of the sides would of course depend upon the age of the individual. A Female at birth would be about an inch long, while a tall adult Woman might extend to a foot. As to the Males of every class, it may be roughly said that the length of an adult's sides, when added together, is two feet or a little more. But the size of our sides is not under consideration. I am speaking of the EQUALITY of sides, and it does not need much reflection to see that the whole of the social life in Flatland rests upon the fundamental fact that Nature wills all Figures to have their sides equal.

The length of the sides would, of course, depend on the individual's age. A Female at birth would be about an inch long, while a tall adult Woman might reach a foot. For Males of every class, an adult's sides generally add up to two feet or a little more. But I am not discussing the length of our sides. I am speaking of the EQUALITY of sides. A little thought makes it clear that all social life in Flatland rests on one fundamental fact. Nature intends all Figures to have equal sides.

If our sides were unequal our angles might be unequal. Instead of its being sufficient to feel, or estimate by sight, a single angle in order to determine the form of an individual, it would be necessary to ascertain each angle by the experiment of Feeling. But life would be too short for such a tedious grouping. The whole science and art of Sight Recognition would at once perish; Feeling, so far as it is an art, would not long survive; intercourse would become perilous or impossible; there would be an end to all confidence, all forethought; no one would be safe in making the most simple social arrangements; in a word, civilization would relapse into barbarism.

If our sides were unequal, our angles might be unequal too. Feeling or judging a single angle by sight would no longer be enough to determine an individual's shape. Instead, we would have to determine every angle through Feeling. But life would be too short for such tedious examination. The whole science and art of Sight Recognition would immediately disappear. Feeling, to the extent that it is an art, would not survive much longer. Social interaction would become dangerous or impossible. All trust and all planning ahead would end. No one could safely make even the simplest social arrangements. In short, civilization would fall back into barbarism.

Am I going too fast to carry my Readers with me to these obvious conclusions? Surely a moment's reflection, and a single instance from common life, must convince every one that our whole social system is based upon Regularity, or Equality of Angles. You meet, for example, two or three Tradesmen in the street, whom you recognize at once to be Tradesmen by a glance at their angles and rapidly bedimmed sides, and you ask them to step into your house to lunch. This you do at present with perfect confidence, because everyone knows to an inch or two the area occupied by an adult Triangle: but imagine that your Tradesman drags behind his regular and respectable vertex, a parallelogram of twelve or thirteen inches in diagonal:—what are you to do with such a monster sticking fast in your house door?

Am I moving too fast for my Readers to follow me to these obvious conclusions? Surely a moment’s thought and one example from everyday life must convince everyone. Our whole social system rests on Regularity, or Equality of Angles. For example, you meet two or three Tradesmen in the street. You recognize them at once as Tradesmen by their angles and their sides, which quickly fade from view. You ask them into your house for lunch. At present, you do so with complete confidence, because everyone knows how much space an adult Triangle occupies. Everyone knows it to within an inch or two. But imagine your Tradesman dragging a parallelogram behind his regular, respectable vertex. The parallelogram measures twelve or thirteen inches diagonally. What are you to do with such a monster stuck fast in your doorway?

But I am insulting the intelligence of my Readers by accumulating details which must be patent to everyone who enjoys the advantages of a Residence in Spaceland. Obviously the measurements of a single angle would no longer be sufficient under such portentous circumstances; one's whole life would be taken up in feeling or surveying the perimeter of one's acquaintances. Already the difficulties of avoiding a collision in a crowd are enough to tax the sagacity of even a well-educated Square; but if no one could calculate the Regularity of a single figure in the company, all would be chaos and confusion, and the slightest panic would cause serious injuries, or—if there happened to be any Women or Soldiers present—perhaps considerable loss of life.

But I am insulting my Readers’ intelligence by piling up details obvious to anyone fortunate enough to live in Spaceland. Clearly, measuring a single angle would no longer be enough under such alarming circumstances. You would spend your whole life feeling or measuring the perimeter of everyone you knew. Even now, avoiding collisions in a crowd tests the judgment of even a well-educated Square. But if no one could determine the Regularity of a single figure present, all would be chaos and confusion. The slightest panic would cause serious injuries. Or, if any Women or Soldiers happened to be present, perhaps many lives would be lost.

Expediency therefore concurs with Nature in stamping the seal of its approval upon Regularity of conformation: nor has the Law been backward in seconding their efforts. "Irregularity of Figure" means with us the same as, or more than, a combination of moral obliquity and criminality with you, and is treated accordingly. There are not wanting, it is true, some promulgators of paradoxes who maintain that there is no necessary connection between geometrical and moral Irregularity. "The Irregular", they say, "is from his birth scouted by his own parents, derided by his brothers and sisters, neglected by the domestics, scorned and suspected by society, and excluded from all posts of responsibility, trust, and useful activity. His every movement is jealously watched by the police till he comes of age and presents himself for inspection; then he is either destroyed, if he is found to exceed the fixed margin of deviation, or else immured in a Government Office as a clerk of the seventh class; prevented from marriage; forced to drudge at an uninteresting occupation for a miserable stipend; obliged to live and board at the office, and to take even his vacation under close supervision; what wonder that human nature, even in the best and purest, is embittered and perverted by such surroundings!"

Practical concerns therefore join Nature in approving Regularity of shape. The Law, too, has been eager to support their efforts. "Irregularity of Figure" means as much to us as moral corruption and criminality combined mean to you, or more. It is treated accordingly. Admittedly, some advocates of paradoxical ideas argue that geometrical and moral Irregularity are not necessarily connected. "The Irregular", they say, "is rejected by his own parents from birth and mocked by his brothers and sisters. He is neglected by the servants, scorned and suspected by society, and barred from all positions of responsibility and trust. He is also excluded from all useful activity. The police closely watch his every movement until he comes of age and presents himself for inspection. Then he is destroyed if his shape deviates beyond the fixed limit. Otherwise, he is shut away in a Government Office as a clerk of the seventh class. He is forbidden to marry and forced to toil at an uninteresting job for miserable pay. He must live and eat at the office, and even take his vacation under close supervision. Is it any wonder that such conditions embitter and corrupt human nature, even in the best and purest people!"

All this very plausible reasoning does not convince me, as it has not convinced the wisest of our Statesmen, that our ancestors erred in laying it down as an axiom of policy that the toleration of Irregularity is incompatible with the safety of the State. Doubtless, the life of an Irregular is hard; but the interests of the Greater Number require that it shall be hard. If a man with a triangular front and a polygonal back were allowed to exist and to propagate a still more Irregular posterity, what would become of the arts of life? Are the houses and doors and churches in Flatland to be altered in order to accommodate such monsters? Are our ticket-collectors to be required to measure every man's perimeter before they allow him to enter a theatre or to take his place in a lecture room? Is an Irregular to be exempted from the militia? And if not, how is he to be prevented from carrying desolation into the ranks of his comrades? Again, what irresistible temptations to fraudulent impostures must needs beset such a creature! How easy for him to enter a shop with his polygonal front foremost, and to order goods to any extent from a confiding tradesman! Let the advocates of a falsely called Philanthropy plead as they may for the abrogation of the Irregular Penal Laws, I for my part have never known an Irregular who was not also what Nature evidently intended him to be—a hypocrite, a misanthropist, and, up to the limits of his power, a perpetrator of all manner of mischief.

All this reasoning sounds very plausible, but it does not convince me that our ancestors were wrong about a basic policy. Nor has it convinced the wisest of our Statesmen. Our ancestors held that tolerating Irregularity is incompatible with the safety of the State. Certainly, an Irregular has a hard life. But the interests of the Greater Number require that his life remain hard. Suppose a man with a triangular front and a polygonal back were allowed to live and produce even more Irregular descendants. What would become of the practical skills of everyday life? Must the houses, doors, and churches in Flatland be altered to accommodate such monsters? Must our ticket-collectors measure every man's perimeter before letting him enter a theatre or take a seat in a lecture room? Should an Irregular be excused from serving in the militia? If not, how can he be prevented from devastating the ranks of his comrades? Then again, what irresistible temptations to fraud such a creature must face! How easily he could enter a shop with his polygonal front facing forward! He could order unlimited goods from a trusting shopkeeper! Let the advocates of falsely named Philanthropy argue as they please for repealing the Irregular Penal Laws. For my part, I have never known an Irregular who was not exactly what Nature evidently intended him to be. Every one was a hypocrite, a hater of humanity, and a doer of every kind of harm within his power.

Not that I should be disposed to recommend (at present) the extreme measures adopted by some States, where an infant whose angle deviates by half a degree from the correct angularity is summarily destroyed at birth. Some of our highest and ablest men, men of real genius, have during their earliest days laboured under deviations as great as, or even greater than, forty-five minutes: and the loss of their precious lives would have been an irreparable injury to the State. The art of healing also has achieved some of its most glorious triumphs in the compressions, extensions, trepannings, colligations, and other surgical or diaetetic operations by which Irregularity has been partly or wholly cured. Advocating therefore a VIA MEDIA, I would lay down no fixed or absolute line of demarcation; but at the period when the frame is just beginning to set, and when the Medical Board has reported that recovery is improbable, I would suggest that the Irregular offspring be painlessly and mercifully consumed.

Not that I would recommend, at present, the extreme measures adopted by some States. In those States, infants whose angles differ from the correct angle by half a degree are immediately killed at birth. Some of our greatest and most capable men, men of true genius, had deviations in their earliest days. Those deviations were as great as forty-five minutes of a degree, or even greater. Losing their precious lives would have caused the State irreparable harm. Medicine, too, has achieved some of its greatest triumphs through treatments that have partly or completely cured Irregularity. These include compression, stretching, trepanning, binding, and other surgical or dietary treatments. I therefore advocate a middle course and would set no fixed or absolute boundary. But suppose the body is just beginning to take its final shape, and the Medical Board has reported recovery unlikely. At that point, I would suggest that the Irregular offspring be painlessly and mercifully consumed.