in the usage of the period around 1000, it wd be MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII. MIM, of
course, as the advantage of being pronounceable.
r
At 07:44 AM 5/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>From spending my share of time with medieval mss, as many of you have, it
>seems to me that the strict standardization of Roman numerals is a creation
>of 19th and 20th century elementary school textbooks, and that there is
>room for flexibility. MIM looks infelicitous to me, but I have no good
>reason whatsoever to defend that. Its meaning is clear enough. (Now,
>perhaps one's measure should be classical or hellenistic Roman
>inscriptions, but that's out of my league; it could be they had it
>standardized and the Middle Ages, as in so many areas, loosened things up a
>bit.)
>
>__________________________________
>Patrick J. Nugent
>Department of Religion
>Earlham College
>Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA
>
>(765) 983-1413
>[log in to unmask]
>__________________________________
>
>
Richard Landes
Department of History Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University
Boston University Boston University
226 Bay State Road 704 Commonwealth Ave. Suite 205
Boston MA 02215 Boston MA 02215
617-353-2558 (of) 617-358-0226 (tel)
617-353-2781 (fax) 617-358-0225 (fax)
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
http://www.mille.org
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|