I can find room in Plate IV. for only two instances of coloured Number-Forms, though others are described in Plate III. Fig. 64 is by Miss Rose G. Kingsley, daughter of the late eminent writer the Rev. Charles Kingsley, and herself an authoress. She says:--
"Up to 30 I see the numbers in clear white; to 40 in gray; 40-50 in flaming orange; 50-60 in green; 60-70 in dark blue; 70 I am not sure about; 80 is reddish, I think; and 90 is yellow; but these latter divisions are very indistinct in my mind's eye."
She subsequently writes:--
"I now enclose my diagram; it is very roughly done, I am afraid, not nearly as well as I should have liked to have done it. My great fear, has been that in thinking it over I might be led to write down something more than what I actually see, but I hope I have avoided this."
Fig. 65 is an attempt at reproducing the form sent by Mr. George F. Smythe of Ohio, an American correspondent who has contributed much of interest. He says:--
"To me the numbers from 1 to 20 lie on a level plane, but from 20 they slope up to 100 at an angle of about 25°. Beyond 100 they are generally all on a level, but if for any reason I have to think of the numbers from 100 to 200, or from 200 to 300, etc., then the numbers, between these two hundreds, are arranged just as those from 1 to 100 are. I do not, when thinking of a number, picture to myself the figures which represent it, but I do think instantly of the place which it occupies along the line. Moreover, in the case of numbers from 1 to 20 (and, indistinctly, from 20 up to 28 or 30), I always picture the number--not the figures--as occupying a right-angled parallelogram about twice as long as it is broad. These numbers all lie down flat and extend in a straight line from 1 to 12 over an unpleasant, arid, sandy plain. At 12 the line turns abruptly to the right, passes into a pleasanter region where grass grows, and so continues up to 20. At 20 the line turns to the left, and passes up the before-described incline to 100. This figure will help you in understanding my ridiculous notions. The asterisk (*) marks the place where I commonly seem to myself to stand and view the line. At times I take other positions, but never any position to the left of the (*), nor to the right of the line from 20 upwards. I do not associate colours with numbers, but there is a great difference in the illumination which different numbers receive. If a traveller should start at 1 and walk to 100, he would be in an intolerable glare of light until near 9 or 10. But at 11 he would go into a land of darkness and would have to feel his way. At 12 light breaks in again, a pleasant sunshine, which continues up to 19 or 20, where there is a sort of twilight. From here to 40 the illumination is feeble, but still there is considerable light. At 40 things light up, and until one reaches 56 or 57 there is broad daylight. Indeed the tract from 48 to 50 is almost as bad as that from 1 to 9. Beyond 60 there is a fair amount of light up to about 97, From this point to 100 it is rather cloudy."
In a subsequent letter he adds:--
"I enclose a picture in perspective and colour of my 'form.' I have taken great pains with this, but am far from satisfied with it. I know nothing about drawing, and consequently am unable to put upon the paper just what I see. The faults which I find with the picture are these. The rectangles stand out too distinctly, as something lying on the plane instead of being, as they ought, a part of the plane. The view is taken of necessity from an unnatural stand-point, and some way or other the region 1-12 does not look right. The landscape is altogether too distinct in its features. I rather _know that there is_ grass, and that there are trees in the distance, than _see_ them. But the grass within a few feet of the line I see distinctly. I cannot make the hill at the right slope down to the plane as it ought. It is too steep. I have had my poor success in indicating my notion of the darkness which overhangs the region of eleven. In reality it is not a cloud at all, but a darkness.
"My sister, a married lady, thirty-eight years of age, sees numerals much as I do, but very indistinctly. She cannot draw a figure which is not by far too distinct."
Most of those who associate colours with numerals do so in a vague way, impossible to convey with truth in a painting. Of the few who see them with more objectivity, many are unable to paint or are unwilling to take the trouble required to match the precise colours of their fancies. A slight error in hue or tint always dissatisfies them with their work.
Before dismissing the subject of numerals, I would call attention to a few other associations connected with them. They are often personified by children, and characters are assigned to them, it may be on account of the part they play in the multiplication table, or owing to some fanciful association with their appearance or their sound. To the minds of some persons the multiplication table appears dramatised, and any chance group of figures may afford a plot for a tale. I have collated six full and trustworthy accounts, and find a curious dissimilarity in the personifications and preferences; thus the number 3 is described as (1) disliked; (2) a treacherous sneak; (3) a good old friend; (4) delightful and amusing; (5) a female companion to 2; (6) a feeble edition of 9. In one point alone do I find any approach to unanimity, and that is in the respect paid to 12, as in the following examples:--(1) important and influential; (2) good and cautious--so good as to be almost noble; (3) a more beautiful number than 10, from the many multiples that make it up--in other words, its kindly relations to so many small numbers; (4) a great love for 12, a large-hearted motherly person because of the number of little ones that it takes, as it were, under its protection. The decimal system seemed to me treason against this motherly 12.--All this concurs with the importance assigned for other reasons to the number 12 in the Number-Form.
There is no agreement as to the sex of numbers; I myself had absurdly enough fancied that _of course_ the even numbers would be taken to be of the male sex, and was surprised to find that they were not. I mention this as an example of the curious way in which our minds may be unconsciously prejudiced by the survival of some forgotten early fancies. I cannot find on inquiring of philologists any indications of different sexes having been assigned in any language to different numbers.
Mr. Hershon has published an analysis of the Talmud, on the odd principle of indexing the various passages according to the number they may happen to contain; thus such a phrase as "there were three men who," etc., would be entered under the number 3. I cannot find any particular preferences given there to especial numbers; even 7 occurs less often than 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10. Their respective frequency being 47, 54, 53, 64, 54, 51; 12 occurs only sixteen times. Gamblers have not unfrequently the silliest ideas concerning numbers, their heads being filled with notions about lucky figures and beautiful combinations of them. There is a very amusing chapter in _Rome Contemporaine_, by E. About, in which he speaks of this in connection with the rage for lottery tickets.
