Roman numeral four - IV or IIII

[Epictetus]

How did the Romans write the numeral "four"? Did they use IV or IIII, or were they used interchangeably?

This picture is supposedly from the Colosseum:



I tried to find an image of an ancient carving which used IV, but couldn't find anything. Does this mean IIII was the norm?

[Praefectusclassis]

I vaguely recall we discussed this before and I remember that the Romans use IIII more. IX and VIIII are both used.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I believe they did also use XIV, if I can only recall the inscription.

[Nathan Ross]

I got the idea a while back that IIII was more common in the first centuries AD, with IV coming in later - I was looking at XIIII/XIV legion inscriptions at the time, and the XIIII ones tended to come from the earlier garrisons.

Now I check, IIII appears vastly more common that IV in legion inscriptions...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, I seem to recall that too, but I won't place a bet on it.... :unsure:

[M. Demetrius]

Look at a clock that has Roman numerals. Generally, IX for 9, not VIIII. The four is often IV, but nearly as often IIII. I don't know if that's a holdover, or design choice by the clockmaker, or what. But there it is.

I'm also of the opinion that the IV and IX are a little later, and the IIII, VIIII is earlier. Maybe they started running out of the numeral I, and had to conserve?

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Antony's legionary denarii give us a clue. LEG IV is the dominant type and is very common but there is a rare version with the more archaic IIII


[attachment=6851]normal_LEG_IV_001_2013-03-29.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=6852]normal_LEGIIII.jpg[/attachment]

It happens again with LEG VIIII which is rare compared to IX


[attachment=6853]normal_LEGVIIII.jpg[/attachment]

[Epictetus]

Thanks, everybody!

This is interesting: Antony's coins used IV as the dominant type, but IIII was used in the Colosseum more than a century later. Perhaps there is some good old-fashioned Roman practicality and common sense at work: IV uses less space than IIII, so this works better on a coin.

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

There is a theory being floated that Antony's legionary coins were made by two different die cutters. We say that because there are two distinct "styles" to their engraving. I'll try to dig up the article. It would be interesting to do a die study and see if one engraver made all the IIII's, VIIII. XIIII and the other the IV, IX and XIV's. Perhaps it had something to do with literacy or where they came from in Italy or the Empire.

From studying Antony's portrait coins it appears one of the die cutters also did portraits of Octavian at the Rome mint. The style suggests that this same engraver was sent with Antony to the east to do Antony's coinage. Most eastern coinage was of a cruder style but Antony's portrait coinage minted in the east is of Rome mint quality. It would be interesting to know who he was and where he came from! Perhaps the engraver who did the IIII was from the east while the Roman did the IV or vise versa!

[Jona Lendering]

To the best of my knowledge, the difference between IIII and IV, or VIIII and IX, is regional. For instance, the archaeologists studying the object below (a bronze object mentioning the Ninth Legion, found near Nijmegen) know for certain that it was made in Britain, because it says IX and not VIIII, which was usual in the Rhineland.

BTW, the Caelius Monument says XIIX instead of XVIII, which is certainly an improveent.


[attachment=7024]ewijk_leg_viiii_valkhof.JPG[/attachment]

[Jori]

From what i recall, the use of IV or IIII was pragmatic, and must be seen from the point of view of the final reader of this number.

If he was educated, he would understand the IV.
If not, he would understand the IIII.

It takes some good knowledge to undestand the I before the V is 5 - 1 = 4. Same thing for the VIIII / IX .
Roman numerals were only fixed in XIXth century, if my memory doesn't fail me.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

I have read (multiple times, I think) that the Romans did not use IV as it are the first letters of IVPPITER... But I don't know if that's true (I don't remember where I read it).

The IIII used on clocks is because of visual balance on the left and right side (on the same height at the other side is VIII, and IV looks too small compared to that).

[M. Demetrius]

@ Jori Interesting that it's XIX, not IXX, which almost makes more sense--until you get to CIXX. Clumsy system for adding sums, and very confusing for subtraction. I read that they used Greek numerals for accounting, etc. But that would be for the well-educated, also.

[mcbishop]

I have read (multiple times, I think) that the Romans did not use IV as it are the first letters of IVPPITER... But I don't know if that's true (I don't remember where I read it)

Clearly nobody told that to Iavolenus Priscus: C(aio) Octavio / Tidio Tossia/no Ia[v]oleno / Prisco leg(ato) leg(ionis) IV Flav(iae) etc etc (CIL III, 2864). RIB 1385 (a centurial stone from Heddon-on-the-Wall) suggests the ordinary soldiers were not averse to using it either.

If you've read it multiple times, then it's clearly a classy factoid!

Mike Bishop

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

I should have said "rather used IIII than IV because ...". :wink: As I said I do not remember where I got it from so I don't know if it was a trustworthy source or not. But I can imagine that even if it was the case, it would be something bound by time and context.