"Nineteenth hundred and sive" instead of "Nineteenth hundred and seven"

It's an error.

From Mari-Lou A's suggestion I went ahead and looked at a different "edition" of the book.

The typo exists in the University of California copy (IA: vidayescritosde00unamgoog) but not in the Harvard College copy (IA: vidayescritosde00retagoog). In addition, "nineteenth hundred" is now referred to as "nineteen hundred" here (from BoldBen's comment):

I can't deduce if they are different printings, copies, or editions, since from a quick glance the text is the same, but that already goes beyond the scope of the question.

Sive is included in the OED (link may be paywalled) but in the context given its use is nonsense.

sive, n.

= chive n.¹ 1.

1707 J. Mortimer Whole Art Husbandry (1721) II. 171 Sives are a diminutive kind of Leek.

OED is a historical dictionary and sive has never meant seven.