6

The following line occurs in an early Christian commentary on Genesis:

Quid est enim aliud hodieque gens ipsa, nisi quaedam scrinaria Christianorum, bajulans legem et prophetas ad testimonium assertionis Ecclesiae, ut nos honoremus per sacramentum, quod nuntiat illa per litteram?

The word scrinaria puzzles me. I have not found it in any Latin dictionary, but I suspect it is related to either scrinium (=a desk or chest) or scriniarius (=keeper of the scrinium).

Moshe Wise
  • 169
  • 3
  • 1
    Update of interest: Augustine makes a similar remark in his polemic against Faustus of Mileve but spells the word slightly differently: "Quid est enim aliud hodieque gens ipsa nisi quaedam scriniaria Christianorum" https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Contra_Faustum_Manichaeum/XII – Moshe Wise Nov 04 '22 at 02:23
  • For the Contra Faustum 'scriniaria Christianorum', the Christian Literature Company translation renders 'a desk for the Christians' https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I/Volume_IV/Manichaean_Controversy/Reply_to_Faustus_the_Manichaean/Chapter_12 . – Moshe Wise Nov 04 '22 at 02:42
  • In an earlier version of this question I erroneously attributed the 'scrinaria' quotation to Augustine of Hippo. My apologies. – Moshe Wise Nov 04 '22 at 03:14
  • Regarding the edit, the quote you're asking about is not from Augustine of Hippo's Contra Faustum, book 12? It looks like the sentences are exactly the same, so I'd assume the later of the two is copied from the earlier – Asteroides Nov 04 '22 at 03:49
  • 1
    @Asteroides My question is about an anonymous commentary on Genesis which borrows Augustine's image but changes Augustine's 'scriniaria' to 'scrinaria.' I confused the anonymous author with his source. – Moshe Wise Nov 04 '22 at 03:54
  • 1
    I think the difference between "scriniaria" and "scrinaria" is just a textual variant ... I wouldn't be surprised if different manuscripts of the same text might differ on this point. It's hard to see these as different words rather than different spellings of the same word – Asteroides Nov 04 '22 at 03:55

3 Answers3

8

I agree with Sebastian Koppehel that scrinaria in the quoted passage is a feminine singular noun derived from scrinium and the suffix -arius, -aria, -arium; this means scrinaria = scriniaria.

The omission of i after the n has no explanation in terms of the standard Latin rules of word-formation, and does not seem to be significant with respect to the meaning of the word. The spelling scrinaria might be due to accidental omission of the letter i when writing the word, or an irregular alteration in the form of the word.

-arius, -aria, -arium: a suffix that derives nouns with the form of adjectives

This suffix is a bit funny. It has the form (or morphology) of an adjective ending, but many words ending in -arius, -aria, -arium are used more frequently as substantive nouns than as attributive modifiers of other words. The masculine forms in -arius (genitive singular -arii) usually are used as the names of occupations or professions, and are highly productive in this function: thus, ferrarius = "blacksmith", gallinarius = "keeper of poultry", etc.

The gender of a form ending in -arius, -aria, -arium can sometimes be explained by interpreting it as an adjective in agreement with an "implicit" head noun: thus, aurarius used as a noun "goldsmith" could be interpreted as standing for something like "(artifex) aurarius" or "(faber) aurarius". But it isn't always clear what the implicit accompanying noun would be.

This can make the interpretation of forms a little tricky.

Scrin(i)aria probably means "Female keeper of scrinia/keeper of the scrinium"

The suggestion in Sebastian Koppehel's answer that scrinaria is feminine in agreement with gens seems plausible to me, and is in agreement with the translation "a keeper of the records" cited in Tyler Durden's answer. This is also the explanation given by Paula Fredriksen in "Anti-Judaism and Early Christianity" (Marginalia, December 9, 2013, review of David Nirenberg’s Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition), where the word scriniaria is glossed as "[female] librarian". Fredriksen also points out there that "desks" is a mistranslation of the Latin.

It seems Fredriksen has also rendered scriniaria as "bookslave" (in Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism, 2010), according to Figuring Racism in Medieval Christianity, by Lindsay Kaplan, 2019 (page 33). That translation seems to be intended to convey the overall meaning of the specific passage where the word occurs (Kaplan, page 187, provides a quote where Fredriksen (2010, page 320) argues that Augustine here is portraying the Jews as "servile book caretakers"). I don't think "bookslave" is as accurate a translation of scrin(i)aria when considered in isolation: words ending in -arius/-aria could refer to slaves, but they did not systematically denote slaves as opposed to other types of craftsmen or workers.

The meaning of scrinium "chest" (plural scrinia)

It seems a bit tricky to give a precise definition of the word scrinium. The basic literal sense seems to be chest; this can have the sense of letter-box or box of records. According to The Diplomas of King Aethlred 'the Unready' 978-1016, by Simon Keynes (1980):

The word scriniarius is ambiguous, denoting either 'archivist' or 'custodian of books' from the primary meaning of scrinium ('chest, for storage of books') or 'keeper or custodian of relics' from its secondary meaning ('reliquary' or 'shrine'). It was apparently the second meaning of scriniarius that was intended by the Abingdon glossarist, with an extension to cover the guardianship of precious things in general.

(page 147)

In the context of the passage quoted in your question, the "archivist" or "keeper of books/documents" sense surely fits, but perhaps it would also fit to view the word as having some connotation of "keeper of treasure/precious things".

Feminine singular nouns in -aria can sometimes have an impersonal or abstract sense; possibly it could be read as "collection/repository of scrinia"

I think an alternative possibility is that scrin(i)aria could refer to a place or location (used metaphorically in this case). Some nouns ending in -aria have that kind of meaning, such as auraria "gold-mine" or libraria "collection of books". In that case, scrin(i)aria would have a sense more like "collection/archive of scrinia". But this seems less plausible to me than the interpretation given by Paula Fredriksen and Sebastian Koppehel.

Some nouns ending in -aria have multiple possible meanings; e.g. see the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources's definition of cameraria (available via Logeion).

Asteroides
  • 28,832
  • 1
  • 80
  • 144
  • I definitely think there is merit here in your third idea here, which is that the word is essentially invented and meant to mean a receptacle like an auraria. In that case no typo is present and we can just envision a new word "scrinaria" meaning a "a container where records are kept". Of course, in this instance we have to accept that a new word is being coined. However, if we are accepting this as a new word, I think the meaning should be a "container for records" not "a collection of records". – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 22:24
  • 1
    @TylerDurden: There is a typo in either case: the "i" after the "n" in the base word scrinium would not be expected to be lost whether the derivative refers to a person or an abstract collection of things – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 22:27
  • Right, no matter what there is a typo, unless we assume a new word like "aulularia" means a pot of gold, then we have a "scrinaria" which is a chest of records. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 22:31
  • 1
    @TylerDurden: aulalaria = aula + -ula + -aria. There is no i before the -aria in that case because there is no i there in the base word. But "scrinium + -aria" should yield "scriniaria", regardless of whether "-aria" means "-eress" or "-ary"; we would only expect "scrinaria" as an outcome if the base were *"scrinum", but it isn't. – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 22:33
  • Right I agree, if we take it to be a container, then there is no need for an I, so no typo. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 22:34
  • 1
    @TylerDurden: No, I disagree: there is no rule that words for containers delete "i" in a base. Compare "miniaria" from "minium". – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 22:36
  • 2
    I think baiulans would be a difficulty for the "collection of records" idea -- that verb seems to be used of people or animals rather than objects or places. – TKR Nov 03 '22 at 23:03
  • 2
    In Fredriksen's book 'Augustine & the Jews', the word 'sciniaria' is rendered 'a guardian of the books' (https://books.google.ca/books?id=EQXDlzVSigQC&lpg=PP1&hl=iw&pg=PA276#v=onepage&q&f=false) – Moshe Wise Nov 04 '22 at 04:11
7

It seems obvious to me that it is supposed to be the feminine form of scriniarius (which can also be parsed as a first/second declension adjective, “pertaining to the scrinium” or something to that effect). Thus it also means “keeper of the scrinium.”

And why use a feminine form? Because gens is feminine. I'm not sure there is a rule that you could not possibly say ea gens est quidam scriniarius Christianorum etc., but there is certainly ample precedent for using the feminine form where applicable, e.g. Cicero: Historia vero [⋯] magistra vitae, nuntia vetustatis (de Oratore 2, 36), [lex perpetua et aeterna], quae quasi dux vitae et magistra officiorum (de Natura Deorum 1, 40; note: no feminine form of dux exists, so it gets used as is), and this very impressive period: Vitae philosophia dux, o virtutis indagatrix expultrixque vitiorum! [⋯] tu inventrix legum, tu magistra morum et disciplinae fuisti. (Tusculanae Disputationes 5, 5)

Sebastian Koppehel
  • 34,011
  • 2
  • 58
  • 110
  • Where are you getting "shrine"? I don't see any such sense in L&S, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=scrinium&la=la#lexicon – TKR Nov 03 '22 at 20:57
  • 1
    I mistakenly wrote that the original source had the spelling scriniaria, in fact even the printed edition of Migne's Patrologia Latina says scrinaria. I don't know why, my best guess is it is a spelling mistake. – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 21:03
  • @TKR I wrote “shrine” on the basis that (a) it is clearly the English descendant of scrinium, and (b) it technically has the same meaning, although this is admittedly probably not what the modern reader thinks of first. – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 21:11
  • @SebastianKoppehel you mentioned a spelling mistake. If there is a spelling mistake what is the correct spelling? – Moshe Wise Nov 03 '22 at 21:15
  • 1
    I'm hesitant to upvote this answer only because of the "shrine" gloss -- I think few English speakers are familiar with the simple "box" sense (at least I wasn't), and the Latin word doesn't appear to have meant "shrine" in the more obvious sense, so it seems misleading. – TKR Nov 03 '22 at 21:29
  • 1
    @TKR I suppose you are right; I have edited the answer to use the Latin word as-is, as in the question. – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 21:37
  • 2
    @MosheWise The correct spelling would have to be scriniaria, as you cannot really derive scrinaria from scrinium. – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 21:38
  • @TKR Relics of saints were often contained in scrinia, so the word scrinium came to mean reliquary, and then shrine. Kind of like capella, a short cape, came to mean chapel. Anyway, scrinium and capella are how you say "shrine" and "chapel" in modern Ecclesiastical Latin. – Figulus Nov 04 '22 at 01:23
-1

It is a metaphorical term meaning recordkeepers in this context.

There are three possibilities for the derivation of this word:

(1) It is an invented word meaning a chest of records. So, in other words, in the same way that an aulularia is a pot of gold, a scrinaria is a chest of records.

(2) It is the plural of scrinarium which is an error for scrinium (a letter case), meaning metaphorically the Jews are the "letter cases" for the Christians

(3) It is an (otherwise unattested) feminine singular of scriniarius (the keeper of letter cases).

In the last two possibilities, the text contains an error of some kind, because it should have been scrinia, not scrinaria, or alternatively it should have been scriniaria. In other words, either the author is writing scrinarium / scrinaria instead of the correct scrinium / scrinia, or the author is mistakenly writing scrinaria for scriniaria. Scriniarius cannot be intended because the plural of scriniarius is scriniarii.

A scrinium is a case to hold letters. For example, here is a quote from Sallust:

Flaccum praetorem scrinium cum litteris, quas a legatis acceperat, eodem adferre iubet.

(He ordered the praetor Flaccus to bring to the same place the letter case together with the letters which he had taken from the envoys.)

As I originally read it, the author is characterizing the Jews as the "letter cases" of the Christians, meaning that they keep the records of the Christians and record their history. It is a metaphor. Of course, one can also imagine that the intent was to write scriniarii, which would be the plural of scriniarius, the keeper of the letter cases. However, this is unlikely because of the neuter plural ending, which clearly indicates the intention to refer to an object, not a person. The first possibility listed, the coined word scrinaria (a letter chest) is a very viable possibility because in that case there is no typo.

In any event, the ultimate meaning is clear: the author meant recordkeepers.


I will quote Louis Gaussen (1790-1863) comments on this passage in his book "Canon of the Holy Scriptures":

But no matter still the oracles of God are confided to you and we may say of you at this day what Augustin wrote a thousand years ago what is the nation of the Jews even in our day but as it were a keeper of the records for Christians carrying everywhere the law and the prophets as a witness of all the Church affirms (Et quid est aliud hodieque gens ipsa Judaeorum nisi quædam scrinaria Christianorum bajulans Legem et Prophetas ad testimonium assertionis ecclesiae.)

(As long as we are talking this word be aware there is also the term scrinaria palatii which were special officials reporting I think to the Roman superintendant of the treasury, but that is a completely different use of the term that does not apply here.)

Tyler Durden
  • 6,790
  • 11
  • 31
  • 4
    The plural of scrinium is scrinia. – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 20:50
  • @SebastianKoppehel Yes, I know. I am not responsible for St. Augustine's mistakes. I will quote from Reyher+Junker p. 2052: "Scriniarius, vulgo, qui scrinia conficit, ein Schreiner." I presume this means that common speakers of Latin frequently confused the two terms and wrote scrinaria when they should have written scrinia. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 20:59
  • @SebastianKoppehel Notice how in the text, it apparently says "scrinaria", not "scriniaria", that is double the reason to suspect it is an error along the lines specified in Reyher and Juncker. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:06
  • 1
    I can hardly fault you for that line of reasoning, as my competing answer also has to assume an unusual/wrong word form, but I will note that Andreas Reyher apparently wrote scriniarius – Sebastian Koppehel Nov 03 '22 at 21:09
  • @SebastianKoppehel Well, either way, the nature of the error is clear. Also, I have Gaussen to back me up. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:10
  • 2
    The meaning of the Reyher-Juncker quote is that scriniarius is the common word for someone who makes scrinia, not that the two words are confused. Here clearly the first is intended, since the Jews are not being likened to letter-cases but to the keepers of letter-cases, as you say. It's a feminine rather than a neuter plural, as shown by bajulans which agrees with it. – TKR Nov 03 '22 at 21:27
  • @TKR I see, ok. How does bajulans agree with a feminine exclusively? I thought bajulans was the singular for all genders. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:28
  • @SebastianKoppehel Oh, a deskmaker, I see. Scrinarius is someone who makes desks, my mistake. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:32
  • @SebastianKoppehel However, my main point is still outstanding: if the author intended to use the occupational word, scriniarius, then why didn't he write scriniarii, which is obvious? I guess in your answer you suggest it is a noun being treated like an adjective to be in agreement with gens, but it seems to me far more likely it is intended to be a neuter plural. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:35
  • 5
    This answer seems to have some useful information, but "It is the plural of scrinium" just seems to be incorrect. "qui scrinia conficit" is a definition/gloss of what "scriniarius" means; it isn't saying that "scriniaria = scrinia". The derivational suffix -arius agrees well with the translation of the term as "keeper of the records" – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 21:36
  • @Asteroides Right, that is clear, but scrinaria cannot be the plural of scriniarius because that is scriniarii. It seems to me the author is declining it as scrinarium (singular), scrinaria (plural) where scrinarium is an error for scrinium. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:37
  • 2
    As Sebastian said in his answer, "scrinaria" makes sense as a feminine singular form – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 21:39
  • You're right that bajulans is singular for all genders, but it can't agree with a neuter plural so we're left with -a being the feminine singular ending. Though admittedly it might be taken as going with gens instead of scrinaria, so this doesn't quite resolve the issue. – TKR Nov 03 '22 at 21:45
  • 2
    The translation makes it clearer, as it uses the same grammatical number: "the nation (gens) of the Jews (Judaeorum) even in our day but as it were a keeper of the records (scrinaria) for Christians (Christianorum). "scrinaria" = "a keeper of the records" (feminine singular), agreeing with "bajulans" = "carrying" (feminine singular) – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 21:45
  • @Asteroides So, is the idea that scriniarius is being treated as an adjective? Or are you suggesting that St. Augustine is inventing a new noun, "scriniaria"? If he is inventing a new occupational noun, then why did he write "scrinaria" rather than "scriniaria" with an "I" as we would expect? – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 21:49
  • 3
    It's common for masculine occupational nouns in the second declension to have first-declension feminine versions. This can be viewed either as inflection (treating the occupation name like an adjective) or derivation; either way, it is a productive process, so it doesn't take much inventiveness to create these forms as needed. (We can refer to the prior question about sagittarius). The omission of "i" is a separate issue that just seems to be a variant or misspelling – Asteroides Nov 03 '22 at 21:54
  • @Asteroides Well, I will leave the question open for now and I edited the my answer to include the possibility that it is a feminine singular, but as you say this depends on assuming a typo in the text. I read some other published commentaries on the passage, but those authors seem to have uncertainty about the intended meaning just like we do. – Tyler Durden Nov 03 '22 at 22:19