Page:The Annual Register 1758.djvu/359

 MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS. 345

did ufe their letters for numerical the numbers which letters were firft

charatUrs ; but from the manner ufed to exprefs ? And what reafon

in which they ufed them, I draw can be afiigned why D, the firffc

my firft argument, to prove that letter in the Latin worA decevi, iex\j

letters were nc)t thus ufed by the (hould not rather have been chofen

Romans, Every letter in the alpha- to ftand for that number than for

bet was ufed to denote feme num- 500, becaufe it had a rude rchm-

ber by the Creeks and Orientals, blance to half an Ml But if thefe

and each letter denoted a lefs or qaeflions could be fatisfactorily an-

gieater number, as it was nearer or fwered, there are other numeral

more renotc from the firil letter in letters, which have never yet been

their alphabetical order, and no accounted fox at all. I think thefe

letter, which in the order of the confiderntions render it probable,

alphabet Itands after another, ever that the Romans did not, in their

denoted a number lefs than the let- original intention, ufe letters to

ter thai Hands before it. Now, if exprefs nujubers at all ; the moll

the Romans, who derived their natural account of the matter feems

letters originally from the Greeks, to be this :

had derived alfo their numeration The Romans probably put down by letters, it is in the highcll de- a fingle Itroke I for one, as is ftiil gree probable, that thefe particu- the praftice of thofe who fcore en lars would have been the fame in a fiate, or with chalk ; this ftroke both: but as not one third of the I they doubled, trebled, and qua- Roman letters are numerah, fo nei- drupled, to exprefs 2, 3, and 4.: ther is the numeral value of thofe thus, II. lU. IV. So far they that are fo, more or lefs, accord- cculd eaiiiy number the minums, ing to their place in alphabetic or flrokes, with a glance of the order ; for D and C, which are eye, but they prefently found, that among the firft letters of the alpha- if more were added, it would fooji bet, and M and L, which are in be neceflary to tell the ftrokes one the middle, are of much greater by one: for this reafon, when they numeral value than X and V, came to 5, they expre'fed it by which are near the end. joining two flrokes together in an But it has been fuppofeJ that the acute angle, thus V, which will Romans ufed M to denote 1000, appear the more probable, if it be becaule it is the firft letter of M/V/i?, confidered, that the progreiiion of which is Latin for looc ; and C to the Roman numbers is from 5 to 5, deno'e 100. becaufe it is the firll /. e. from the fingers on one hand letter of Centum, which is Latin for to the fingers on the other. ICO. Your correfpondent alfo fup- Ovid has touched upon the ori- pofes, that D being formed by ginai of this in his Fajiorum, lib. dividing the old M in the middle, iii. and Vltruv. lib. c. I. has made was therefore appointed to ftand for the fame rem.ark. 500, that is, half as much as the After they had made this acute M flood for when it was whole ; and angle V. for five, they added fingle that L being half a C, was, for the ftrokes to it to the number of 4, fame reafon, ufed to denominate thus, VI. VIL VIII. VIIIL and 50. But what reafon is there to then as the minums could not be fiippofe, that 1000 and 100 were further multiplied without confu-

fion.