24

While using an old (1907) book of transcriptions (on-line) The Parish Register of Gargrave in the County of York , I was puzzled by the number of dates recorded in the 16th and early 17th centuries that could be read easily as Roman numerals except for the addition of a j at the end. enter image description here

The pattern (if there is one) seems to be that if the number would ordinarily end with i then j is appended, but if it ends with v or x then there may be no extra character before the ordinal superscript (but in one case, there is!).

I thought this may be a style quirk of a particular clerk, but now I am seeing it in other sources (but all Yorkshire based and pre-1700, because that is what I am reading at the moment).

  1. Is this a real phenomenon or just a coincidence?
  2. How widespread was the practice?
  3. What on earth did it mean? Why did they do it?
  • So is ij = 2, iij = 3, etc? Or is ij = 1, iij =2? – Jane Aug 16 at 16:42
  • @Jane The "j" is treated as an "i", so iij=3 etc. – AndyW Aug 17 at 10:07
34

The letter j originated as a "swash" (florish) character at the end of Roman numerals, and only later became useful as a separate character.

A j was used for the final i, to make it clear the number had ended.

Until quite recent times it was still the recommended practice to use a final j in medical prescriptions, to avoid misunderstandings. See these instructions from 1919:

enter image description here

So you should interpret xvij as 17, not 16. It's part of the number, not something appended.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.