An Attempt To Date
the Rules For Roman Numerals
G.D.O'Bradovich III
October 1, 2012
The rules of addiction and subtraction of Roman Numerals are well known and will not be addressed on this page. In Book 1 of "History: Science or Fiction" by Anatoly Fomenko, we read that that the rules of Roman Numerals were still being worked out as late as the 1600's. Of course, Mr. Fomenko gives some examples from cornerstones, but he does not provide enough details for me to agree with his statements.
The OED, under the discussion for the letter "V", gives an example from the Coverdale Bible (1535) from the book of Job. The sample text states that Job had "V.C." oxen and "V.C." asses. We know this should be read as "500" oxen and "500" asses. However, under the standard rules of Roman Numerals, this would be read as "95" oxen and "95" asses. We would expect the use of "D" for 500". Therefore, the editors of the bible may not have known that "D" was a shorthand for "500".
In 1535, "V.C." must have been read as "five""hundred". We can infer that the convention that the value of the letter "D" is equal to "500" was unknown. Additionally, the translators or editors were not aware of the well known rule of subtracting lesser numbers from greater numbers.
I can not confirm that the rules for Roman Numerals were still being worked out as late as the 17th century. However, this example from 1535 clearly demonstrates that:
1.) "V." is read as "five"
2.) "C." is read as "one hundred"
3.) there is no subtraction or addition of the numbers
4.) the value of the letter "D" has not been established.
Therefore, the rules for using Roman Numerals must date later than 1535.
Addendum October 2, 2012
Per the OED
The OED, under the discussion for the letter "V", gives an example from the Coverdale Bible (1535) from the book of Job. The sample text states that Job had "V.C." oxen and "V.C." asses. We know this should be read as "500" oxen and "500" asses. However, under the standard rules of Roman Numerals, this would be read as "95" oxen and "95" asses. We would expect the use of "D" for 500". Therefore, the editors of the bible may not have known that "D" was a shorthand for "500".
In 1535, "V.C." must have been read as "five""hundred". We can infer that the convention that the value of the letter "D" is equal to "500" was unknown. Additionally, the translators or editors were not aware of the well known rule of subtracting lesser numbers from greater numbers.
I can not confirm that the rules for Roman Numerals were still being worked out as late as the 17th century. However, this example from 1535 clearly demonstrates that:
1.) "V." is read as "five"
2.) "C." is read as "one hundred"
3.) there is no subtraction or addition of the numbers
4.) the value of the letter "D" has not been established.
Therefore, the rules for using Roman Numerals must date later than 1535.
Addendum October 2, 2012
Per the OED
Number
I V X L C D M |
Reference
5. A single line denoting unity II 4 II 2.a. X=10 b. X=December II 6. III 1, III 2. I 4. |
Years
1450 13.. 1340 1449 c 1000 a1400 1426, Wycliffe 1624 1484 1420 1459 1412-20 |
From the above, we can understand that all the Roman Numerals were in place by 1460 at the latest. The practice of subtraction was unknown until the 13th century, that is, "IV" and "VI" were both valued as six. The rule of subtraction must not have been in standard usage in the early 16th century, since the Coverdale Bible does not use it in the passage from the book of Job.
The Coverdale Bible (1535) clearly shows "144,000" is written as "hundred and xliii" in the fourteen chapter of Revelation. In the eleventh chapter, "1,260" is written as "M.iiC. and LX. dayes". The editors obviously knew the full stops (periods) have a purpose and should not be left out. In order to be read correctly, "ii" and "C" need to be interpreted as "two hundred". The Erasmus edition of 1519 has 1,260 spelled out completely as "miille ducentis sexaginta". In the Latin and English versions we do not have the number depicted as we would expect, namely, "MCCLX".
Eramsus writes out of the number of the beast in Latin ("sexcenti sexaginasex"), but for the Greek the letter values are used. (Chi Xi Stau). Chapter 14 is indicated by "XIIII", again demonstrating no knowledge of the subractive properties of Roman Numerals.
As late as 1599, the "Hutter Polygot" was depicting "14" as "XIIII".
Bishop's Bible (1557) has "syxe hondred, threscore, and syxe".
Eramsus writes out of the number of the beast in Latin ("sexcenti sexaginasex"), but for the Greek the letter values are used. (Chi Xi Stau). Chapter 14 is indicated by "XIIII", again demonstrating no knowledge of the subractive properties of Roman Numerals.
As late as 1599, the "Hutter Polygot" was depicting "14" as "XIIII".
Bishop's Bible (1557) has "syxe hondred, threscore, and syxe".