Portugal 1960 Issue - Question

Here is a 1960 Portugal issue showing the official seal of the University of Évora commemorating the 400th anniversary of the university.
On the left, in Roman numerals it shows the year the univ. was established (1559) and on the right it shows the 400th anniversary (1959).
Now, as I was taught, 1959 in Roman numerals is:
1000 = M
900 = CM (100 less than 1000)
50 = L
9 = IX (1 less than 10)
1959 = MCMLIX

I have never seen 900 shown as DCCCC; I have never seen/noticed a quad in Roman numerals, e.g. XXXX or CCCC or MMMM, etc. as a matter of fact. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

Hi Tony,

I think this is the breakdown you need.
For 1959:

M=1000
D=500
CCCC=400 (C=100 X 4)
L=50
IX=9

and for 1559:

M=1000
D=500
L=50
IX=9

Hope this helps.

Lucky

I have never seen that type of breakdown either Tony.
Perhaps it is a way they did it in Portugal in 1559 so they did it that way to make it seem more revered and older somehow?

Hi Lucky.
As I mentioned in my original post I have never seen a quad (same letter four times consecutively) in Latin numbers.
The fourth is always represented by one less than the next whole.
Why Portugal is different in this instance is what I find intriguing.
Take for example 1 to 10 - four is one less than five and nine is one less than ten:
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.
I couldn't imagine 44 (XLIV) as XXXXIIII.
If you should come across a quad anywhere on the NET I should love to see it. Perhaps there would be an explanation.

Taken from part of an article on Wikipedia about Roman Numerals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals

IIII and 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 IX and IV. A third document in the same manuscript uses IX and a mix of IIII and IV. 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.
An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The numeral translates to 1910.

Likewise, on some buildings it is possible to see MDCCCCX, for example, representing 1910 instead of MCMX â€" notably Admiralty Arch in London. The Leader Building in Cleveland, Ohio, at the corner of Superior Avenue and East 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 instead of CMXXV - MCMXXV (925 -1925).

Gives you a bit of a jog though, to see something you thought was one way and is represented in another. You think, well, that is just wrong. It doesn't fit in your understanding of the world.

Fascinating Tony. Thanks for asking. I learned something.

Thanks very much, Puzzler, never too old to learn something new.
I had never seen such Latin numerals before.
As Tacitus and Sherlock Holmes were wont to say:
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.

The notation can be found on many, many buildings, and it's the only place I've seen this type of notation

Tony is so right. You're never to old to learn something new. And the really great thing is that a lot of us can learn the same new things over and over and over again.

I have seen "IIII" often on clock faces that use Roman numerals. In fact, this web page largely deals with examples of clocks that use Roman numerals without using "IIII".

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk...lockface.htm

Ryan

Hi Ryan. On this particular clock, it makes me wonder why nine is shown IX and not VIIII.
Simply to limit the maximum number of digits to four doesn't seem very logical, does it?