The strange numbers on marble

[Viggen]

When looking at the classic way how numbers are displayed, and comparing them with this piece i found in aguntum (abbreviation of the Roman number 32 (XXXII).), or the 34 here i have two questions, was that common? (anyone have some pics of other examples?)

why did they do this? (was it maybe for asthetical reasons to fill the line (because the first example is saving space, the second example is making space)

 

cheers

viggen

[Maladict]

I don't think the rules were set in stone, as it were, much like Latin spelling in general.

Variations are known in every period, on both official and private texts. That said I've never seen that 32 variation, but I like it.

 

Slightly off-topic, I noticed on that first link (the UNRV roman numerals) lists IV instead of IIII.

Perhaps this should be changed, or is there a reason to keep the 'classical' numerals instead of those that were actually used in Roman times?

[Aurelia]

Concerning IIII vs. IV, I found this on Wikipedia:

 

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.

 

This is something I had already noticed before: that on most clock faces IIII is normally used instead of IV...

[Northern Neil]

why did they do this? (was it maybe for asthetical reasons to fill the line (because the first example is saving space, the second example is making space)

 

cheers

viggen

I would say it was to save space, when one considers that almost half the words on many latin inscriptions seem to be abbreviations. Some inscriptions I have seen are almost like modern text-speak, they are so replete with abbreviations and space saving devices.

[Nephele]

I would say it was to save space, when one considers that almost half the words on many latin inscriptions seem to be abbreviations. Some inscriptions I have seen are almost like modern text-speak, they are so laden with abbreviations and space saving devices.

 

I think so, too. Especially if the stone-cutter was getting paid per word, as Charles Dickens was. I imagine it could otherwise get expensive for the "publisher" or commissioner of the work.

 

-- Nephele

[Viggen]

thanks everyone, but what about Aurelias and Maladict`s argument?

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.

 

...did romans not use IV?

 

and wouldnt with christianity becoming state religion, the Jupiter argument no longer be an issue?

 

(@Maladict, yeah , the XXXII example is kinda cool)

 

cheers

viggen

[Northern Neil]

At Cramond, the fort at the eastern end of the Antonine Wall, there is/was an inscription which read: LEG II AVG FECIT

[Viggen]

thanks, i also found a coin, (not really pretty but one can see the IV http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/iiii_macedonica.html

the intriguing part is they called themselves Legio IIII Macedonica but on the coin is IV so it seems it was both used at the same time?

 

...another example http://dougsmith.ancients.info/acmfrugi.html (first coin on the left top shows XCIV)

[Maladict]

Interesting. It seems to have been a matter of personal preference then.