IIII

IIII (pronounced fawr (U) or fohr (non-U))

A translingual form, an alternative form of IV: the Roman numeral representing four (4), the other known forms being iv, iiii & iiij

Circa 500 BC: The Roman numeral system spread as Roman conquest expanded and remained widely used in Europe until from circs 1300 it was replaced (for most purposes) with the more adaptable Hindu-Arabic system (including the revolutionary zero (0) which remains in use to this day.

IIII as a representation where the value four is involved has long been restricted to the value 4.  To avoid numbers becoming too cumbersome, the Roman system always used subtraction when a smaller numeral precedes a larger numeral so the number 14 would be represented as XIV instead of XIIII.  The convention which emerged was that a numeral can precede only another numeral which is less than or equal to ten times the value of the smaller so I can precede only (and thus be subtracted from) V (five) & X (ten).  However, these “rules” didn’t exist during Antiquity and weren’t (more or less) standardized until well into the medieval period; it’s thus not unusual to find old documents where 9 is represented as VIIII instead of IX.  The practical Romans, unlike the Greeks for whom abstraction was a calling, were little concerned with the concepts of pure mathematics, such as number theory or geometric proofs, and other abstract ideas, devoted instead to utilitarian purposes such as financial accounting, keeping military records and building things.

The numeral system had to be manageable to make simple calculations like addition and subtraction so it was attractive to make the text strings conveniently short: 44 as XLIV obvious preferable to XXXXIIII.  Although its limitations seem obvious to modern eyes, given the demands of the times, the system worked remarkably well for almost two millennia despite the largest numeral being M (1000).  It was silly to contemplate writing a string of 1000 M’s to indicate a million (presumably not a value then often used) so the Romans concocted a bar (the vinculum) which, when it appeared above a numeral, denoted a multiplier of 1000: MMMM (6000) could thus appear as V̄Ī and a million as M̄.  Compared with the Hindu-Arabic system, it was a fudged but one which for centuries proved serviceable.

Where Roman numbers are occasionally still used (book prefaces & introductions, some aeroplanes & automobiles and charmingly, some software), the number four is almost always represented by IV rather than IIII.  One exception to this however is watch & clock faces where the use of IIII outnumbers IV, regardless of the cost of the device.  Watchmakers have provided may explanations for the historical origin of this practice, the most popular of which dates from Antiquity: Because “I” stood for the “J” and “V” for the “U”, IV would be read as JU and thus Jupiter, an especially venerated Roman god, Jupiter Optimus Maximus being the king of all gods, chief of the pantheon and protector of ancient Rome.  The suggestion is that invoking the name of Jupiter for such a banal purpose would be thought offensive if not actually blasphemous.  Thus IIII it became.

Lindsay Lohan wearing 19mm (¾ inch) Cartier Tank Americaine in 18 karat white gold with a quartz movement and a silver guilloche dial with Roman numerals including the traditional IIII.  The Cartier part-number is B7018L1.

There’s the notion to that the convention arose just because of one of those haphazard moments in time by which history sometimes is made.  The appearance of IIII was said to be the personal preference of Louis XIV (1638–1715; le Roi Soleil (the Sun King), King of France 1643-1715), the Sun King apparently issuing an instruction (though there’s no evidence it was ever a formal decree) that IIII was the only appropriate way to write the number four, watchmakers ever since still tending to comply.  Whether Louis XIV wished to retain some exclusivity in the IV which was part of “his” XIV isn’t known and it may be he simply preferred the look of IIII.  Despite the belief of some, it’s anyway wrong to suggest IIII is wrong and IV right.  The design of the IIII was based upon four outstretched fingers which surely had for millennia been the manner in which the value of 4 was conveyed in conversation and V denoted 5 in tribute to the shape the hand formed when the thumb was added.  The IV notation came later and because it better conformed with the conventions used for writing bigger numbers, came in medieval times to be thought correct; it was thus adopted by the Church, becoming the “educated” form and that was that.

Not all agree with those romantic tales however, the German Watch Museum noting that in scholarly, ecclesiastical and daily use, IIII was widely used for a millennia, well into the nineteenth century, while the more efficient “IV” didn’t appear with any great frequency until circa 1500.  The museum argues that the watch and clock-makers concerns may have been readability and aesthetics rather than any devotion to historic practice, IIII having display advantages in an outward-facing arrangement relative to the centre of the dial (ie partially upside down, such as on wall, tower or cuckoo clocks), any confusion between IV (4) & VI (6) eliminated.  Also, a watch, while a functional timepiece, is also decorative and even a piece of jewellery so aesthetics matter, the use of III rendering the dial symmetrically balanced because 14 individual characters exist on each side of the dial and the IIII counterbalances the opposite VIII in the manner IX squares off against III.  So there’s no right or wrong about IIII & IV but there are reasons for the apparent anomaly of the more elegant IV appearing rarely on the dials of luxury watches.