> [Kevin Conod wrote]
> These are all rather elaborate explanations . . . couldn't
> it just be that "IIII" was used instead of "IV" simply
> because it is so easy to confuse "IV" with "VI"? [snip]
>
> [Tim Yu wrote] this simple explanation makes *very* good sense to me. I
can
> easily see a potential problem of confusing "IV" with "VI" (and vice
> versa) when reading them at differing angles.
Interestingly quite a few rural 17th century stone dials in England have the
marks confused as if the carver didn't quite understand them either (e.g.
going IX X IX, or V IV IIV). Two examples are at Warmwell (which uses
VIIII, or in fact IIIIV for 9) and Hilton (both Dorset). In Winchester
there is also a modern dial (1960s?) with the Roman numerals wrong. At
Woodstock, Oxfordshire, the church dial (C18 or early C19?) has IIV IIIV for
7 and 8 and so does a late C20 dial on the Town Hall! So illiteracy is not
confined to long ago. It is very rare though not unknown to find an
engraved clock dial with such a mistake - perhaps masons or carvers only
made a sundial occasionally whereas clock dial engravers had more practice.
Roman numbers on English clock dials almost always radiate outwards but on
longcase painted dials when Arabic numbers were used the lower numbers are
sometimes inverted and sometimes not ("tumbling hours"); Arabic chapters
were also placed vertically more often than were Roman chapters.
In old documents it is clear that the subtractive form was not always used
and one sees iiij and viiij for 4 and 9. So I tend to believe the reason
lay partly in custom and mainly in visual balance (and IX balances III
better than does VIIII, though I agree that all falls down for I and XI -
but then there was not much choice). I feel the story about the clockmaker
and the French King (variously Henry IV, Louis XIV etc) is nice but
unlikely.
But it's interesting that IV seems to occur so much more often on sundials
than on clocks.
It is so rare to see a "golden period" English clock (when arguably dial
design was at its apogee) with a IV rather than IIII, that IV is firmly
associated with Knibb and a few other makers building movements striking
Roman numerals on two bells, the lower for the V. This may well have been
invented to save power, needing only 30 instead of 78 blows every 12 hours;
useful if you are making a clock to go for a long time between windings -
three months for some of Knibb's. The Great Clock of Westminster, with its
famous IV, needs rather more power to drive it and to sound Big Ben, but at
least there is further for the weights to drop (and to be wound up every few
days)!
Andrew James
N 51 04
W 01 18
