A Note on the Roman Numerals. 
165 
1907-8.] 
chi \]/, which assumed the less difficult lapidary type X, and was then 
easily assimilated to L ; while theta ©, which was employed to denote 100, 
was assimilated to C, doubtless because this letter was the initial of 
centum. For 1000 they used phi CD, which was written CD, a sign after- 
wards confounded with co or M , the initial of mille ; and the half of the 
primitive symbol CD, also assimilated to a familiar form D, was employed 
to denote 500.” 
The half-hearted approval with which this explanation was received 
was due, not so much to any inherent adequacy or excellence in the 
hypothesis itself, as to the remarkable lack of other hypotheses to contest 
its claims. The Roman sign for 1000, which assumed various forms (e.g. 
<l> [XI CO CXO CID and the late CD, with the lapidary forms jlj 
ffi), constitutes the main difficulty in all alphabetic hypotheses. The 
explanation given by Canon Taylor appears to be based on the approximate 
similarity of one of its forms to the phi CD. The way is thus opened to 
add the easy but far-reaching suggestion that l> or |) or D is the half of 
CD, just as 500 is the half of 1000. Theta (though the elimination of the 
inscribed mark from that variously formed mute, ©>, ©, 0, need not be 
regarded as constituting an objection) is then contorted or “ assimilated ” 
to the form C, and the reason of this transformation is alleged to be that 
C is the initial of centum. How centum or its initial came into {ex 
hypothesi ) independent existence is not explained ; nor is any difficulty 
found in the fact that CD was not the early form of the sign for 1000, and 
that the half of it, denoting 500, was assimilated to D, although that was 
the initial of decern. It may also be pointed out that the Etruscans, who 
did retain the three letters theta, phi, chi in their alphabet, used numerical 
symbols that were almost identical with the Roman numerals, viz. 1=1, 
A =5, X = 10, f = 50, <g>=?100. 
This hypothesis seems to involve the astounding assumption that a 
nation should have the conception of definite, high values without possess- 
ing any symbols to denote these values. Also it proceeds on a method 
which is entirely arbitrary. It discloses no common principle in the 
derivation of the forms ; for some are admittedly pictographic, while others 
are referred to an alphabetic origin. It suggests no motive for the 
selection of the three particular alphabetic characters by the Romans, nor 
any reason why non-native signs should have been arbitrarily adopted at 
all — adopted, only to be thereafter transformed into Latin characters. 
The fact that the Greeks, in their later and alphabetic notation, employed 
the signs stigma, Cj koppa, and 7% sampi, to denote the values 6, 90, 
