When Did Roman Numeral IIII Change?

[guy]

On a numismatic forum, the point was made that "IIII" was used for the number four instead of "IV," even on more modern coins.

 

The following has been suggested by several people:

There was a reluctance to use IV because that was the standard abbreviation for Jupiter

Edited September 21, 2013 by guy

[Number Six]

The is a clear perspective bias in speculating that IV was avoided because it would be confused with Juppiter. If you simply think that IIII was the original form, there was nothing be avoided. They kept writing IIII because that was the original, traditional and common form. In the same way, they kept writing VIIII rather than IX.

 

I don't know, though, when the subtractive principle was introduced. To my understanding it was quite gradually implemented: in Roman times it was known but little used. Would be interesting to find some accademic article on the matter.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Number Six

[guy]

Thank you for responding to my post.

 

I think the other examples are a lot more common than "IV."

 

Here is an example of XXXIIX for thirty-eight (I think):

 

 

Tiberius,

Edited September 22, 2013 by guy

[GhostOfClayton]

The guy who showed us round Herculaneum was one of the top men there. He suggested IIII was used by the less educated, and IV by the more so.

[Number Six]

Thank you for responding to my post.

 

I think the other examples are a lot more common than "IV."

 

Yeah, I also read that other subtractive forms were more common than IV (which perhaps is not attested at all before Middle Ages?).

 

But, if I had to guess the reason, it must be because IIII was conceptually more... basic: I would imagine that such a basic numeral evolved more slowly than other ones, especially if the bars still kept an intuitive meaning, like fingers or sticks.

If you consider longer numerals, you can see the reason for it was needed to make them visually simpler: not so for IIII.

Finally, the language reflected the subtractive form in the long numerals: eighteen was duo-de-viginti, nineteen was un-de-viginti, but four was always quattuor.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Number Six

[guy]

On 9/22/2013 at 10:39 AM, Number Six said:

 

On 9/22/2013 at 4:29 AM, guy said:

Thank you for responding to my post.

 

I think the other examples are a lot more common than "IV."

 

 

 

But, if I had to guess the reason, it must be because IIII was conceptually more... basic: I would imagine that such a basic numeral evolved more slowly than other ones, especially if the bars still kept an intuitive meaning, like fingers or sticks.

If you consider longer numerals, you can see the reason for it was needed to make them visually simpler: not so for IIII.

 

You may be correct. Think about it: One finger is one...three fingers are three, four fingers are four. Looking at the hand, when counting the thumb for five, the fourth finger and the thumb form a "V."

 

I know that sounds ridiculous, but it might have helped younger Ancient Romans remember their Roman numerals.

 

 

guy also known as gaius