On clocks with Roman numerals why is 4 written as IIII and not IV?

Answer 1

The British Horological Institute, the organization for British watchmakers, gives three answers:

1) Being opposite VIII, IIII gives a better visual balance than IV.

2) IIII was an older alternative to IV as 4. The BHI page has a rather far-fetched reason for the change, "The Roman god Jupiter's name, when written in Latin, begins with IV, and it seems it would have been considered blasphemous to use it as a mere number". Sorry, but this is fantasy (even if a widely-held view), suggested by the fact that YH (15) and YW (16) in Hebrew numerals are not used because they spell out shortened forms of the name of God (YHWH). I don't believe there's any evidence at all of this pickiness in Latin, and without evidence it is just a poor guess. My own understanding is that IIII is easy to confuse with III and so IV was brought in.

3) The BHI page quotes _Famous Watch Houses_ by Introna and Ribolini: "The reason for this goes back to 1364 when Charles V scolded a watchmaker for writing IV on a tower clock. The watchmaker, Henry De Vick, argued his case, but the King brusquely replied: 'I am never wrong' and so IV had to become IIII"

My unromantic opinion is that (1) is the correct answer - (2) explains why there are two alternative forms, but not why IIII was selected - after all, both IV and IIII were in use when clocks began to be made.

It's also been suggested that IV and VI are easily confused: true, but then so would IX and XI. But then early clocks often had VIIII for IX and that IS very hard to tell from VIII.

[Just looked round my house in the UK: we've two clocks with Roman numerals, one Victorian, one modern, both have IIII not IV].

Answer 2

I'm going to take a stab here and guess.... They used IIII for 4 to avoid confusion with V and VI under stressfull situations, maybe at sea when a clock is not held horizontaly for instance ? One fast glance and if you see a V it's gonna be somewhere between V and VI, not between IV V and VI... I know that all sounds a bit complicated, but it's the best I can manage. Either that or it looks nicer when you have IIII at one sive and VIII the otherside for the sake of symetry and aesthetics ?

Answer 3

The notation of Roman numerals has varied through the centuries. Originally, it was common to use IIII to represent "four", because IV represented the god Jove (and later YHWH). The subtractive notation (which uses IV instead of IIII) has become universally used 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 IV and IX. A third document in the same manuscript uses both IIII and IV, and IX. Constructions such as IIIII for "five", IIX for "eight" or VV for "ten" have also been discovered.

Answer 4

I have a Slate Clock with Roman numerals...number 4 is IV on mine..

Answer 5

IIII is even more ancient from a very long time ago before IV was accepted as being more easy to write and to calculate with.

Answer 6

because that was what it was before they introduced that numeral, then they changed it in the late imperial state, to the IV version we now know!

Answer 7

You must have gotten a reject clock..It is IV on every clock that I have seen

Answer 8

My clock has IV, either is acceptable.

Answer 9

Those clocks are broken.

Answer 10

I have only ever seen it as IV so don't know where you got that from sorry x