Why did they use IIII instead of IV for William?
pendragon1998
Posts: 2,070 ✭✭✭
I've been meaning to ask, when William IV was named on coinage, they used "IIII" instead of "IV" - why?
(not mine)
EDITED TO ADD:
(Found this on wikipedia:
IIII vs IV
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and E.6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912 instead of MCMXII. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904 instead of MCMIV. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV (925 -1925).
(not mine)
EDITED TO ADD:
(Found this on wikipedia:
IIII vs IV
The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent four, because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become the standard notation only in modern times. For example, Forme of Cury, a manuscript from 1390, uses IX for nine, but IIII for four. Another document in the same manuscript, from 1381, uses IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses IIII, IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered. Subtractive notation arose from regular Latin usage: the number 18 was duodeviginti or “two from twenty”; the number 19 was undeviginti or "one from twenty". The use of subtractive notation increased the complexity of performing Roman arithmetic, without conveying the benefits of a full positional notation system.
Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX – notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and E.6th Street, is marked MDCCCCXII, representing 1912 instead of MCMXII. Another notable example is on Harvard Medical School's Gordon Hall, which reads MDCCCCIIII for 1904 instead of MCMIV. In Dubrovnik, Croatia, a commemorative inscription marking the 1000th anniversary of King Tomislav’s coronation (Croatia’s first King), appears as DCCCCXXV - MDCCCCXXV (925 -1925).
0
Comments
Take clock dials for instance (grandfather clocks, pocket-watches and others...)
IIII for the 4:00 position is used more often than the IV.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Take clock dials for instance (grandfather clocks, pocket-watches and others...)
IIII for the 4:00 position is used more often than the IV. >>
Supposedly IIII is used on clocks to balance the VIII on the other side.
<< <i>...Constructions such as IIIII for five, IIX for eight or VV for 10 have also been discovered... >>
Aesthetics and practicality - the amount of available space - both contribute to the form the numerals took; the ancient Romans themselves were familiar with both additive and subtractive forms, though generally preferred the additive form. I have a rather corroded coin of Tiberius, originally struck in the 27th year of his reign (XXVII). The legend was a tight fit; they couldn't possibly squeeze in an extra "I". My coin was struck in the 28th year, so they re-carved the dies to XXIIX. The "IIX" is carved extra deep; it's the most readable part of the whole coin.
I'll post pics of it later once I dig it out.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded the DPOTD twice.
br
br
You are an academic to the end and sure correct
BR
j