The Ancient Practice of Painting

If my Readers have followed me with any attention up to this point, they will not be surprised to hear that life is somewhat dull in Flatland. I do not, of course, mean that there are not battles, conspiracies, tumults, factions, and all those other phenomena which are supposed to make History interesting; nor would I deny that the strange mixture of the problems of life and the problems of Mathematics, continually inducing conjecture and giving the opportunity of immediate verification, imparts to our existence a zest which you in Spaceland can hardly comprehend. I speak now from the aesthetic and artistic point of view when I say that life with us is dull; aesthetically and artistically, very dull indeed.

If my readers have paid any attention so far, they will not be surprised that life in Flatland is somewhat dull. Of course, I do not mean we lack battles, conspiracies, riots, factions, and all the other things supposedly making history interesting. Nor would I deny that the strange mixture of life's problems and mathematical problems gives our existence a special excitement. These problems constantly invite guesses and offer the chance to check those guesses immediately. You in Spaceland can hardly understand the excitement this brings. When I say our life is dull, I mean only from an aesthetic and artistic point of view. In beauty and art, our life is very dull indeed.

How can it be otherwise, when all one's prospect, all one's landscapes, historical pieces, portraits, flowers, still life, are nothing but a single line, with no varieties except degrees of brightness and obscurity?

How could it be otherwise, when everything you see is just a single line? All your landscapes, historical paintings, portraits, flowers, and still lifes are nothing more, varying only in brightness and darkness.

It was not always thus. Colour, if Tradition speaks the truth, once for the space of half a dozen centuries or more, threw a transient splendour over the lives of our ancestors in the remotest ages. Some private individual—a Pentagon whose name is variously reported—having casually discovered the constituents of the simpler colours and a rudimentary method of painting, is said to have begun decorating first his house, then his slaves, then his Father, his Sons, and Grandsons, lastly himself. The convenience as well as the beauty of the results commended themselves to all. Wherever Chromatistes,—for by that name the most trustworthy authorities concur in calling him,—turned his variegated frame, there he at once excited attention, and attracted respect. No one now needed to "feel" him; no one mistook his front for his back; all his movements were readily ascertained by his neighbours without the slightest strain on their powers of calculation; no one jostled him, or failed to make way for him; his voice was saved the labour of that exhausting utterance by which we colourless Squares and Pentagons are often forced to proclaim our individuality when we move amid a crowd of ignorant Isosceles.

It was not always like this. If Tradition speaks the truth, Colour once briefly brightened our ancestors’ lives in the most distant ages. This splendour lasted six centuries or more. A private individual, a Pentagon whose name is reported differently by different sources, happened to discover the ingredients of simpler colours. He also discovered a basic method of painting. He is said to have started by decorating his house, then his slaves, then his Father, his Sons, and Grandsons. Last of all, he decorated himself. Everyone appreciated both the convenience and the beauty of the results. The most reliable authorities agree in calling him Chromatistes. Wherever Chromatistes turned his multicoloured body, he immediately drew attention and respect. No one now needed to "feel" him. No one mistook his front for his back. His neighbours could easily follow all his movements without the slightest strain on their ability to calculate. No one bumped into him or failed to make way for him. He was spared the exhausting effort of calling out to identify himself. We colourless Squares and Pentagons are often forced to do so when moving through a crowd of ignorant Isosceles.

The fashion spread like wildfire. Before a week was over, every Square and Triangle in the district had copied the example of Chromatistes, and only a few of the more conservative Pentagons still held out. A month or two found even the Dodecagons infected with the innovation. A year had not elapsed before the habit had spread to all but the very highest of the Nobility. Needless to say, the custom soon made its way from the district of Chromatistes to surrounding regions; and within two generations no one in all Flatland was colourless except the Women and the Priests.

The fashion spread like wildfire. Before the week was over, every Square and Triangle in the district had followed Chromatistes’ example. Only a few of the more conservative Pentagons still resisted. Within a month or two, even the Dodecagons had caught the fever for the new fashion. Before a year had passed, the habit had spread to everyone except the very highest of the Nobility. Of course, the custom soon spread from Chromatistes’ district to the surrounding regions. Within two generations, no one in all Flatland was colourless except the Women and the Priests.

Here Nature herself appeared to erect a barrier, and to plead against extending the innovation to these two classes. Many-sidedness was almost essential as a pretext for the Innovators. "Distinction of sides is intended by Nature to imply distinction of colours"—such was the sophism which in those days flew from mouth to mouth, converting whole towns at a time to the new culture. But manifestly to our Priests and Women this adage did not apply. The latter had only one side, and therefore—plurally and pedantically speaking—NO SIDES. The former—if at least they would assert their claim to be really and truly Circles, and not mere high-class Polygons with an infinitely large number of infinitesimally small sides—were in the habit of boasting (what Women confessed and deplored) that they also had no sides, being blessed with a perimeter of one line, or, in other words, a Circumference. Hence it came to pass that these two Classes could see no force in the so-called axiom about "Distinction of Sides implying Distinction of Colour"; and when all others had succumbed to the fascinations of corporal decoration, the Priests and the Women alone still remained pure from the pollution of paint.

Here Nature herself seemed to put up a barrier and argue against extending the innovation to these two classes. Having many sides was almost essential to the Innovators’ justification. "Nature intends different sides to have different colours." This was the false argument that spread from mouth to mouth in those days, winning whole towns over to the new culture. But clearly this saying did not apply to our Priests and Women. Women had only one side and therefore, to insist pedantically on the plural, NO SIDES. The Priests, meanwhile, claimed to be true Circles, not merely high-class Polygons with infinitely many, infinitely small sides. If the Priests maintained this claim, they too had no sides. They regularly boasted of this, though Women admitted the same thing with regret. The Priests were blessed with a boundary consisting of one line, or, in other words, a Circumference. So neither of these two Classes found the supposed axiom about "Different Sides implying Different Colours" at all convincing. And when all others had surrendered to the attractions of bodily decoration, the Priests and Women alone remained untainted by paint.

Immoral, licentious, anarchical, unscientific—call them by what names you will—yet, from an aesthetic point of view, those ancient days of the Colour Revolt were the glorious childhood of Art in Flatland—a childhood, alas, that never ripened into manhood, nor even reached the blossom of youth. To live was then in itself a delight, because living implied seeing. Even at a small party, the company was a pleasure to behold; the richly varied hues of the assembly in a church or theatre are said to have more than once proved too distracting for our greatest teachers and actors; but most ravishing of all is said to have been the unspeakable magnificence of a military review.

Immoral, sexually unrestrained, lawless, unscientific: call those ancient days of the Colour Revolt whatever you like. Yet artistically, those days were the glorious childhood of Art in Flatland. Sadly, that childhood never grew into adulthood or even reached the flowering of youth. Back then, simply being alive was a delight, because living meant seeing. Even at a small party, the guests were a pleasure to look at. The rich variety of colors in church or theatre audiences reportedly proved too distracting for our greatest teachers and actors. This is said to have happened more than once. But the most breathtaking sight of all was said to be the indescribable splendor of a military review.

The sight of a line of battle of twenty thousand Isosceles suddenly facing about, and exchanging the sombre black of their bases for the orange and purple of the two sides including their acute angle; the militia of the Equilateral Triangles tricoloured in red, white, and blue; the mauve, ultra-marine, gamboge, and burnt umber of the Square artillerymen rapidly rotating near their vermilion guns; the dashing and flashing of the five-coloured and six-coloured Pentagons and Hexagons careering across the field in their offices of surgeons, geometricians and aides-de-camp—all these may well have been sufficient to render credible the famous story how an illustrious Circle, overcome by the artistic beauty of the forces under his command, threw aside his marshal's baton and his royal crown, exclaiming that he henceforth exchanged them for the artist's pencil. How great and glorious the sensuous development of these days must have been is in part indicated by the very language and vocabulary of the period. The commonest utterances of the commonest citizens in the time of the Colour Revolt seem to have been suffused with a richer tinge of word or thought; and to that era we are even now indebted for our finest poetry and for whatever rhythm still remains in the more scientific utterance of these modern days.

Imagine a battle line of twenty thousand Isosceles suddenly turning around. The dark black of their bases gives way to the orange and purple sides that meet at their acute angle. The Equilateral Triangles of the militia wear red, white, and blue. The Square artillerymen spin rapidly beside their vermilion guns, displaying mauve, ultramarine, gamboge yellow, and burnt umber. Five-coloured Pentagons and six-coloured Hexagons dash and flash across the field, serving as surgeons, geometricians, and aides-de-camp. All these sights may well have been enough to make the famous story of an illustrious Circle believable. Overwhelmed by the artistic beauty of the forces he commanded, the Circle cast aside his marshal's baton and royal crown. He exclaimed that from then on he would exchange both for an artist's pencil. The language and vocabulary of that period give some indication of how greatly and gloriously the senses must have developed. During the Colour Revolt, even the most ordinary remarks of the most ordinary citizens seem richer in language or thought. Even now, we owe that era our finest poetry. We also owe it whatever rhythm remains in the more scientific language of modern times.