ARABIC NUMERALS.
(Vol. ii., pp. 27. 61.)
I must apologise for adding anything to the already abundant articles which have from time to time appeared in "NOTES AND QUERIES" on this interesting subject; I shall therefore confine myself to a few brief remarks on the form of each character, and, if possible, to show from what alphabets they are derived:—
1. This most natural form of the first numeral is the first character in the Indian, Arabic, Syriac, and Roman systems.
2. This appears to be formed from the Hebrew ב, which, in the Syriac, assumes nearly the form of our 2; the Indian character is identical, but arranged vertically instead of horizontally.
3. This is clearly derived from the Indian and Arabic forms, the position being altered, and the vertical stroke omitted.
4. This character is found as the fourth letter in the Phœnician and ancient Hebrew alphabets: the Indian is not very dissimilar.
5. and 6. These bear a great resemblance to the Syriac Heth and Vau (a hook). When erected, the Estrangelo-Syriac Vau is precisely the form of our 6.
7. This figure is derived from the Hebrew ז, zayin, which in the Estrangelo-Syriac is merely a 7 reversed.
8. This figure is merely a rounded form of the Samaritan Kheth (a travelling scrip, with a string tied round thus,
). The Estrangelo-Syriac
also much resembles it.
9. Identical with the Indian and Arabic.
0. Nothing; vacuity. It probably means the orb or boundary of the earth.—10. is the first boundary, תחום, Tekum, Δεκα, Decem, "terminus." Something more yet remains to be said, I think, on the names of the letters. Cf. "Table of Alphabets" in Gesenius, Lex., ed. Tregelles, and "NOTES AND QUERIES," Vol. i., p. 434.
E. S. T.
Arabic Numerals.—With regard to the subject of Arabic numerals, and the instance at Castleacre (Vol. ii., pp. 27. 61.), I think I may safely say that no archæologist of the present day would allow, after seeing the original, that it was of the date 1084, even if it were not so certain that these numerals were not in use at that time. I fear "the acumen of Dr. Murray" was wasted on the occasion referred to in Mr. Bloom's work. It is a very far-fetched idea, that the visitor must cross himself to discover the meaning of the figures; not to mention the inconvenience, I might say impossibility,
of reading them after he had turned his back upon them,—the position required to bring them into the order 1084. It is also extremely improbable that so obscure a part of the building should be chosen for erecting the date of the foundation; nor is it likely that so important a record would be merely impressed on the plaister, liable to destruction at any time. Read in the most natural way, it makes 1480: but I much doubt its being a date at all. The upper figure resembles a Roman I; and this, with the O beneath, may have been a mason's initials at some time when the plaister was renewed: for that the figures are at least sixty years later than the supposed date, Mr. Bloom confesses, the church not having been built until then.
X.P.M.