[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Fwd) Book date
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: (Fwd) Book date
- From: Ron Koster <psymon@ISTAR.CA>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 02:58:14 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <E0xLiuuemail@example.com>
- Message-Id: <199710161212.FAA03586@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Ton Cremers wrote:
>Please send your reply to: "Rich Giannone" < firstname.lastname@example.org>
...but I hope you all don't mind me posting to the list, too, because I'm
just curious as to what others' take on this might be, too.
At 08:00 16/10/97 +0000, Rich Giannone wrote:
>I have an old book with the date "anno (1) 1) 1( " Someone told me this
>was 1590. I was wondering if you know of a list of these (Roman?)
>numerals because I've never seen them before.
I would just assume that perhaps the printer either ran out of letters or
was trying to be visually creative. That is, I can certainly see the (1)
being *visually* like an M, and the 1) being like a D, with the biggest
stretch being the 1( for an XC. Hence...
(1) 1) 1( = MDXC = 1590
Of course, I would certainly assume the first two (i.e. M and D) and the
second digit (C) of the last one, and XC makes more sense as an
interpretation of 1( than IC would, because this last is just blatantly
incorrect as a Roman numeral (whereas XC is not) -- however, old printers
often took many liberties with spelling, etc. (whether it was intentional
or not), and so it wouldn't surprise me if it was, in fact, actually 1599
which was meant. I would agree that it's probably 1590, but either way it's
pretty weird. :\
And that's my take on it, anyway. Hope it helps!
P S Y M O N ? ? ? ?