How do you solve a problem like… Karo and Lietzmann?

I’m still too unwell to go back to work, which is a pain because I only get paid when I’m in the office.  I thought I was well enough to go in tomorrow, but a walk to a shop this frosty evening speedily taught me otherwise.  So … another day at home, in which I can probably read but not much else.  Maybe I should have ordered some novels and some cartoon books!

But I have discovered Karo and Lietzmann’s catalogue of Greek catenas.  Now how do I get it in a form in which I can actually use it?  I need something printed, in the hand.

At the moment I am trying to turn it into a book.  I downloaded the Lulu settings for Adobe and I printed the PDF to PDF, thereby changing the page size and preparing it for Lulu.  (It also made the PDF 10 times larger!)  If I can just print this Google Books PDF in book form, then that would do.  I can then slump on the sofa with a coke and a pencil and work through it.

If not, I need to power up the laser printer and just print selected bits of it.  It’s 189 pages, after all!

UPDATE: I have created a book-form of K&L, which is available here.  It’s £7.60, or about $10, if you want one.  I’ve ordered one for me, so it will be interesting to see what the print quality is like.

Catalogue of catenas

I have referred previously to G. Karo and I. Lietzmann, Catenarum Graecarum Catalogus, published in the appallingly difficult to obtain Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1, 3, 5 (1902).  In pp. 119-151, they classify catenas as types I-VII, following a scheme drawn up by E. Preuschen.  This really should be online.  Does anyone have a copy?

UPDATE: Apparently that volume of the Nachrichten is here.  Thanks to Andrew Eastbourne for the tip.

UPDATE2: I’ve now edited that PDF, removed everything except the Catalogus, and uploaded it to by itself.  It’s here.  That should make it easier to find, and more accessible.

Of course now I need to read it…

What is a catena?

An email recently reminded me that many people reading this will not know what a catena is.  I thought a post on this would be useful.

The word catena is Latin, and means chain.  It is used to refer to a book which is made up entirely of quotations from older writers, arranged to make a continuous text.  Usually it is a commentary on some book; first the main text is quoted, and then the opinions of older commentators in a chain underneath.

The catenas that we are concerned with are exegetical catenas; that is, catenas on the bible.  These tend to look like this:

<bible verse in large text>
Chrysostom. <quotation from some work or other by John Chrysostom, probably a sermon or commentary on this book, one or more sentences>. Eusebius. <quote from Eusebius of Caesarea>. Marcion. <quote from long dead heretic> Chrysostom. <another quote from C.> Theodore <quote from Theodore of Mopsuestia> <<and so on>>

<bible verse in large text>
Cyril. <quotation from Cyril of Alexandria>. O. <quotation from Origen>. <quotation where the author’s name has dropped out, so looks like Origen because it follows immediately after>

and so on.  The bible verses follow in the sequence in the bible. 

The actual arrangement of the text and the commentary can vary; the commentary can be in a very wide margin around a large column of central text of the bible, even above and below it sometimes; or a two column arrangement, text and commentary.  Catenas can surround a commentary, even.

The author name is the only division between the extracts.  The names of the authors are often abbreviated, or lost, which can cause a real problem, and in copying quickly leads to fragments being attributed to the preceding author.  The author names — technical term is lemmas — are often in red, which means if the rubricator didn’t do his bit, there are just gaps in the text.  (Anyone who has handled more than a manuscript or two knows that the red bits are added last, and often not at all).

I would post a real sample, but as far as I know none of the catenas have been translated into English.

What we have, then, is the biblical verse, and then a series of comments by older authorities, making up a text.  The quotations are often ‘adjusted’ at each end, in order to make the text flow.

These sorts of books were compiled during the 6th century onwards in the Greek church, using collections of sermons and commentaries on the bible by older writers.  Chrysostom is used a LOT!  But often writers are quoted whose works have perished; for, once the handy catena existed, what need of the full text?

Consequently the catenas are a gold-mine of material otherwise lost.

The term catena is modern.  The Greek terms for a catena were things like exegetikai eklogai, exegetical extracts.

Catenas can be primary or secondary.  Primary catenas are compiled from the works they quote.  Secondary catenas are compiled from other catenas.

Finding Armenian resources

My queries to professional Armeniologists have gone unanswered, doubtless because they are very busy.  But I am still interested to learn whether there are catenas on the gospels in Armenian.

A thought struck me last night.  Suppose that none have been published?  Where could we find catenas?

The answer, surely, is to start looking at catalogues of Armenian manuscripts.  These will surely indicate the general content of manuscripts.  If there are catenas, they will probably indicate the authors quoted.

The French National Library has PDF’s of most of its catalogues online (bless them!).  This includes a splendid catalogue of their 300-odd mss, with a nice history of the collection at the front and some good indexes.

The results were a little disappointing, tho.  So in the Index of subjects on p.1002 (p.538 of the PDF), there are lists of mss by subject.  But catena is not one of those subjects.

However there is an anonymous Commentary on the genealogy of Matthew and Luke in Ms. 303, items 4-5.  This is something Eusebius talks a lot about in the Quaestiones ad Stephanum.  Probably the material here is at least influenced by him.  Unfortunately you would need Armenian to learn much more.

A few pages on, there is a category of Questions and Responses.  Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Damascene all feature.  So, interestingly, does Philo!  There is no Eusebius listed, but who knows what someone sat in the reading room ordering up mss might find?

Looking in the author index there are fragments of the Church History and the Chronicon in various mss.  This is natural, since both exist in full in Armenian.  But no other works are listed.

All in all, this was an interesting exercise.  I learned more about the collection than I might have done.  But so far, no material for the Eusebius Quaestiones.

Gospel catenas – from Harnack

Here is a translation into English of the interesting remarks by Harnack that I posted here.  What is striking is that we still haven’t really advanced much.

VI.  J. A. Cramer has published catenas on the NT (8 vols, Oxford, 1838 ff).  But this edition in every way represents only a very modest beginning, and it in no way corresponds to the modern requirements for a critical edition of a catena.  Compared to the Catena of Nicephorus, it is unquestionably a backward step.

Wendland has yet to publish a catena on all four gospels.  See Mss Paris. 178 (11th c.), 187 (11th c.), 191 (11th c), 230 f. 41 (11th c.) — Paris Coislin. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. (11th c.), 195 f. 10 (10th c.) — Venice Marcianus 27 (10th c.)  — Bodleian Laudian 33 (11th c.) Misc gr. 1 (12th c.) (where it seems that the names of the authors excerpted are omitted in the last two catenas.  Whether the same is true in the other mss above I cannot say.  If not, these mss would be least useful for the preparation of a text of named fragments.

On Matthew, the Catena of Nicetas, in which Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Irenaeus, Origen (Marcion, Montanus) are cited, was printed by Petrus Possinus (Tolosae/Toulouse 1646) using a ms. of the Archbishop of Toulouse, Charles de Montchal, and a portion of a Vatican ms.  Another catena was edited by Balthasar Corderius (Tolosae 1647) following a Munich ms. (including Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus).  Cramer for his edition used the ms. Paris. Coislin 23 (11th c.) and published at the end of the volume variants from ms. Bodleian Auct T. 1. 4 (10th c.).

Mss: Cod. Vatic gr. 349 (1423 AD). — Jerusalem St. Saba 232 (10th c.) — Madrid O. 62, 63 (14th c.) — Paris. gr. 188 (11th c.) f. 1 (under the name of Chrysostom) 193 (15th c.), 194 (13th c.) (Mt. & Mk.), 199 (12th c.) (Chrysostom-catena like the first). 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 203 (12th c.) (Chrysostom et Petrus [?] in Comm. Mt.), 231 (12th c.) (Mt., Luke, John) — Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Mt. Mark.) (see Bodl. Misc. gr. 30 (15th c.), in which only authors after 325 AD are quoted). 

On Mark, Petrus Possinus likewise gave us a catena from a ms. of the same archbishop (see above); he also used a catena under the name of Chrysostom, which Corderius took from a Vatican ms., and finally the commentary of Victor of Antioch, previously published in Latin by Peltanus (Ingolstadt, 1580).  The commentary of Victor of Antioch was edited in Greek using Moscow mss. by Matthaei (Biktwros presb. A0ntiox… e0ch/ghsij ei0j to\ kata\ Ma/rkon eu0agge/lion, Mosquae 1775).  Cramer (Cat in NT. I, Oxon. 1840) used both a longer and shorter recension, of which the first went under the name of Cyril of Alexandria (— Chrysostom?), the other under the name of Victor.

Mss. used by Cramer are Codex Bodleian Laud. 33 (12th c.), Coislin. 23 (10th c.), Paris. gr. 178. See also: Cod. Jerusal. St. Saba 263 (13th c.) — Cod. Patmos 57 (12th c.) (after Sakkelion, Patm. bibl. p. 46 different to Possinus). — Vatic. Reg. 6 (16th c.) — Cod. Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 141, 194 (13th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 (AD 1307) (Victor), Coislin. 24 (11th c.) (Cat on Mt. & Mk). 206 1. 2. (11th c.) (Chrysostom et alior. patr. comm. in IV evv.).  On a Vienna ms. see Kollarius on Lambecius, Comment. III, p. 157sq. (Cod. XXXVIII) — theol. gr. 117?

For the writers named in this catena (including Clement of Alexandria, Str. XLV [i.e. V, p. 573 see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 675], Eusebius Demonstratio evangelica III, ad Marinum c. XIII, epitome chronicon, canon. chronic., Irenaeus, Justin, Marcionites, Origen [including citations from the VIth tom. in Joh.: see Cramer p. 266, 12 ff. — Origen on John VI, 14 p. 215, 5-14 Lomm., Cramer p. 314 — Origen VI, 24, p. 239, 6-21 Lomm.], Valentinians) see in Fabr.-Harl., l. c. 675.

A catena on Luke was published by B. Corderius Antwerp 1628 in Latin translation only after a Codex Venice Marcianus (he also mentions mss from  [Munich] and Vienne). The Greek text is still unpublished.

A commentary based on Titus of Bostra was published by Cramer, Caten. in NT. II, Oxon. 1841 following Cod. Bodl. Auct. T. 1.4 and Laud. 33.

The far more important Catena on Luke (by Nicetas of Serrae), for which we are still dependent on the Latin translation by Corderius, can be found in the following mss:

Codex Vaticanus 1611. 759 (12th c.) see Cod. Vatic. 1270. 349. 758. 1423. 547. — Casanat. G. V. 14. — Vatic. Palat 20 (13th c.) Vatic. Regin. 3 (11th c.), 6 (16th c.) — Jerusalem St. Sabae. 263 (13th c.) — Paris. 208 (14th c.), 211 (13th c.) (Joh., Luke). 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.), 232 (12th c.) — Munich 33 (16th c.), 473 (13th c.) (see 208, 10th c., f. 235). — Bodleian Misc. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. (See Paris. 193, 15th c., which contains fragments).

For a list of authors cited (including Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, [Gregory Thaumat.?], Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Justin, Methodius, Origen) see Fabricius-Harl., l. c. p. 687 sqq.

A catena on John was also published by Balthasar Corderius, Antverp. 1630 (after an ms. from  Trier). A shorter catena was edited by Cramer, Cat. in NT II, Oxon. 1841.

Mss: Cod. Madrid O. 10. O. 32. — Paris. 188 (11th c.) f. 203 (under the name of Chrysostom, like many of the following mss.), 189 (12th c.) f. 1., 200 (11th c.), 201 (11th c.), 202 (12th c.), 209 (11-12th c.), 210 (12th c.), 211 (13th c.), 212 (13th c.), 213 (14th c.), 231 (12th c.) — Munich 37 (16th c.), 208 (10th c.) f. 107., 437 (11th c.), Florence Laurentianus VI, 18. — Vatican Regin. 9 (10th c.) — Bodleian Barocci 225 (12th c.), Miscell. 182 (11th c.) f. 174b. — Berlin Phillips 1420 (16th c.)

Authors cited are given in Fabric-Harl., l. c p. 689 ff. (includes: Basi­lides, Cerinthus, Irenaeus, Marcion, Menander, Montanus, Nicolaus, Novatus, Origen, Papias, Sabellius, Saturninus).

The text tradition of Hippolytus “Commentary on Daniel”

A question has reached me about the Commentary on Daniel of Hippolytus, especially with regard to the passage in 4.23.3:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls. (tr. Tom Schmidt).

But what is the textual basis for this?  It doesn’t appear in the Ante-Nicene Fathers version of the text.

A look at the Sources Chretiennes (14; p. 64) edition tells me that the Greek text of the work is entirely recovered from quotations in catenas.  In a catena, each quotation appears underneath the relevant biblical verse, and is labelled with the name of the author from whom it has been taken.  So the sequence is fairly clear, even if all you have is extracts, provided that the original author wrote his commentary in the same sequence as the biblical text.

The process of recovering the commentary began with one of the great 17th century editors, B. Corderius, who printed the first fragment of the text in his Expositio patrum graecorum in psalmos, vol. 3, Anvers, 1646 on p.951.  In 1672 Fr. Combefis, Bibliothecae graecorum patrum auctarium novissimum, vol. 1, p. 50-55 printed two more important fragments, this time commenting on Susanna.  Since then various editors have accrued more and more fragments from the catenas, and are listed in Bonwetsch’s edition of 1897.  A list of mss. and editions appears on p.xxviii of Bonwetsch (p.43 of the Google books PDF).

The remains seem to be divided into four books.  The last addition to the stock was in 1911, when Dioboutonis printed new fragments from a 10th century manuscript from the monastery of Meteores.  The end result is a text which contains few obvious lacunas.  However there must still be material which is lost, especially in book 1.

The text cannot be said to be in good condition.  The manuscripts in which the material is preserved are often in a poor state, or illegible.  The most recent edition, that of Bonwetsch in the Griechische Christlicher Schriftsteller 1 in 1897 (online, thankfully) often indicates words added by conjecture or asterisks where there are gaps impossible to fill.

But one compensation is that an Old Slavonic translation exists of the entire work as it once existed in Greek.  This tells us, of course, that the Greek text must still have existed in the 10th century when these translations were made.  Four manuscripts of this translation exist, none complete, but which fortunately have their omissions in different places.  This means that we can read the whole work pretty much as it came from the hand of the author.  The most ancient manuscript is 12-13th century.  Fortunately Bonwetsch translated the Old Slavonic into German, and the translation was used by the SC editor to help with the Greek.

Our passage is extant in Greek, and appears on pp.306-7 of the SC edition.  But the SC editor queries whether part of the text –“Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus” — was interpolated by a later writer.

The apparatus of Bonwetsch (p.242; p.295 of the PDF) tells us that this passage was quoted by the Syriac writer  George, Bishop of the Arab tribes.  The apparatus also refers to George Syncellus, and Cyril of Scythopolis as using bits of it.  The text is given in mss. ABP and S; A= Athos, Vatopedi 260 / Paris suppl. gr. 682 (10-11th century); B=Chalcis 11 (15-16th c.); P=Paris gr. 159 p.469f.; S=the old Slavonic.

So… the text is reasonably well established, and reasonably reliable.  The Greek for our passage seems sound, with only a couple of bits in brackets.  We have a good early witness for the text, and also a translation in a 7th century Syriac writer and a 10th century translation.

A book on catenas which I can’t find

Has anyone ever heard of or seen a copy of, or mention of Wolf, de catenis patrum graecorum (1712)? It’s a dissertation, and is quoted in older literature.  But … even mentions of it online are rare.

I’ve looked in COPAC, and in the Library of Congress, the BNF… where else should I look?

From my diary

I have continued to read a cheap reprint of Harnack’s Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, Theil 1, Halfte 2.  The volume has no index, so I have amused myself by compiling one in pencil at the front, and scribbling English notes in the margins.

While doing so I came across his notes on catenas — medieval Greek commentaries compiled by linking together chains (catenas) of quotations from earlier writers.  These seemed concise and useful, so I was thinking about transcribing and translating them.  Then I found <blush> that I had already transcribed them on this blog here!  Time to translate it, I think.

But I was looking at that data, and remarking on the statement of Harnack that Possinus printed the catena on Matthew of Nicetas of Serrae in 1646 at Toulouse.  Now quite a few of the fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel problems and solutions come from Nicetas on Luke, published from a Vatican ms., and a few from Possinus; but Migne does not link the two.

So who was Possinus?  A google search turns up the meagre information that he was a 17th century French Jesuit, Pierre Poussines, latinized as Petrus Possinus.  He certainly published a Catena Graecorum Patrum in Evangelium secundum Marcum, Rome, 1672.  He worked with Balthasar Corderius on a catena, Symbolarum in Matthæum tomus alter, quo continetur catena patrum Græcorum triginta … interprete Balthasare Corderio, Boude, 1647.

According to J. W. Burgon, The last twelve verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark vindicated, p.134, the 1673 catena was found by Possinus in the library of Charles de Montchal, Archbishop of Toulouse.

In the Oxford movement text of the Catena Aurea, vol. 3, pt. 1, p.ix., we find the following statement:

Mai has published a considerable part of another Catena, in his ninth vol. Vet. Script. Its date is very near the end of the 11th century, and it is entitled, ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκλογῆς τοῦ Νικητοῦ Σεῤῥῶν. He ascribes the first Catena to the same author, and a similar title is prefixed to a MS. in the Coislin Library, (Bibl. Coisl. No. 201.) of a later date, and containing a Catena on St. Luke of sixty-two Fathers. These three Catenae, though differing in date, yet very similar in the names and number of the authors cited, must all be traced to the same source. Nor does there seem any reason why they should not be successive copies, only increased as time went on, of the original MS. of Nicetas, whose name they bear. Nicetas flourished about 1077. He was at first Deacon at Constantinople, then Bishop of Serrae in Macedonia, afterwards Archbishop of Heraclea in Thrace. He is proved by Wolf (De Catenis) to have been the author of a Catena on Job, generally assigned to Olympiodorus; and Lambecius (v. 63. iii. 81.) describes a Catena of his on the Psalms. That published by Possinus on St. Matthew, from a MS. in the Library of the Elector of Bavaria, contains extracts from thirty Fathers, with a prologue and several expositions under the name of Nicetas. It seems very probable then that Nicetas was the author of a new class of Catenae, far exceeding in size and completeness those which previously existed. For among a great number of MSS. Catenae on the Gospels in the Paris, Venice, and Vienna Libraries, which bear date of the 10th or 11th centuries, there are scarcely any which number more than twelve Fathers, none certainly which approach to the extent of those above mentioned.

But much of this again relates to the catena on Luke.  Hmm.  Why so hard to find out much about Possinus?  I did find a statement that his catena was mainly based on extracts from Chrysostom, but then most catenas are.

Perhaps we shall just have to wait until more older scholarship appears online.

While doing this search I stumbled across a reference to an Ante-Nicene Exegesis of the Gospels, ed. HD Smith, 6 vols. (London: SPCK, 1925).  This apparently includes quotes from Possinus’ catena on Matthew.  I must confess I had never heard of the book!  But it sounds very interesting.  I wonder if it is online?

A couple more letters by Isidore of Pelusium

Explanations of biblical passages form quite a portion of the letters.

1243 (IV.48) TO AMMONIUS

For fear of presumption,  a terrible ill from which one can escape with difficulty, lest we remain on earth and be deprived of the heavenly rewards, the Lord said:  “Now let us leave this place!” [John 14:31]  Indeed, having engaged His own power in the word which He spoke, He delivered his true disciples from tyrannical passions and made them pass into the celestial assembly.

The French editor, Pierre Evieux, tells is that the following letter is also preserved in the catenas on Romans found in two manuscripts, Vatican. gr. 762 (10th c.) and Vienna. Theol. gr. 166 (14th c.). 

In Romans 1:32, Paul condemns people who, not merely commit a sin, but even approve of those who do the same.  Theologios queries why it is wrong to consider those who encourage sin in others as worse than those who actually commit the sin themselves.  Isidore’s reply is interesting as showing that some were willing to suppose a corruption in the text here.


Since you’ve provided us the occasion to return to the apostolic treasures — in fact you said:  ‘It says “Not only do they do this, but also they approve of those who do this” [Rom. 1:32] and you added:  If the approval is worse than the action itself, why did Paul adopt this order [of words] here?’ — call a little upon your good sense to work out the sense of the apostolic saying which is escaping you, and listen. 

There are some people who did not understand the quotation but which, being embarassed like yourself and supposing that the apostolic expressions are corrupt, have interpreted them this manner: “Not only are there  those who do this, but also those who approve those who do this.”  According to them, the primitive text was presented thus to make it understood that the action was the more serious and approval of it less serious.  For me, without saying that the apostolic books display an error in this passage, without siding either with those who did not understand — because perhaps, even if they are wrong on this passage, on others they are right, and they have caught the direction of passages that, for my part, I did not manage to understand — I will set out what I understood and will allow the judgement of the readers to decide if I am right. 

So, in my opinion, it is because to praise the culprits is much more wong and more serious from the point of view of the punishment that this sentence is relevant:   “Not only do they do this, but also they approve of those who do this.” Because he who condemns his sin after the misdeed will be able in time to repent one day, finding the judgment of the sin a very great help in changing his attitude;  while he who speaks in praise of the evil will deprive himself of the help which repentance procures.  So because this judgement concerns a corrupt conscience and a heart tainted with an incurable disease, he who speaks in praise of the fault of the culprit is rightly judged more culpable.  Because the one will very quickly be diverted from sin, the other not at all, according to whether the judgement relates to he who commits the misdeed or he  who approves it. 

A dull post on a catena published by Combefis

One of the problems for the Eusebius project is the quantity of materials of this work preserved in catenas.  Claudio Zamagni, in his excellent thesis, listed quite a few.  I’ve tried to track these down, but one has defeated me.  It was edited by F. Combefis, and on p.200 of Z’s thesis is listed so:

S. patris nostri Asterii Amaseae episcopi aliorumque plurimum … [=Graecolat. Patrum bibliothecae novum auctarium… 1], Parisiis 1648 [779-790]

A search in COPAC reveals a number of copies of this work in UK research libraries, mostly in the north of England.  Some of the cataloguing is splendid:

Title details: S. Patris Nostri Asterij Amaseæ Episcopi, aliorumque plurium dissertissimorum Ecclesiæ Græcæ patrum ac tractatorum lectæ nouæ eruditissimæque : cum pari pietate orationes & homiliæ: in Dominicas praesertim, sanctissimaeque Dei Genitricis solennitates. / Opera ac studio R.P. Fr. Francisca Combefis …
[ S. Patris Nostri Asterij Amaseæ Episcopi, aliorumqve plvrivm dissertissimorvm Ecclesiæ Græcæ patrvm ac tractatorum lectæ nouæ eruditissimæque ]
Series: Græcolat. Patrum Bibliothecæ nouum auctarium. ; t.1 (Graeco-Latine Patrum Bibliothecae novum auctuarium ; t.1)
Published: Parisiis, : Sumptibus Antonij Bertier … , M. DC. XLVIII..
Physical desc.: [12] p., 1774 columns, [22] p. ; fol.
Notes: Title page printed in red and black, with engraved vignette. Woodcut initials. Includes index. Full contents given in Darling, James. Cyclopaedia bibliographica. London, 1845. Greek text with parallel Latin translation.
Other names: Asterius, of Amasea, Saint, ca. 350-ca. 410; Combefis, François, 1605-1679, [editor.]; Bertier, Antoine, 1610?-1678, [publisher.]
Related item: Referenced by: Brunet, II, 646; Referenced by: CLC, II, C1567
Language: Ancient Greek (to 1453) ; Latin

I wonder what the Cyclopaedia bibliographica is, that has a full description of this?

It seems that the work appeared in two volumes, and this was vol. 1.  The text is printed and numbered in columns, rather than in pages, so 779-790 is probably the columns.  I note that there is one in Birmingham Special collections, under the somewhat gnomic shelfmark: ML Spec.Coll – r f BR 62.  It might be easiest to order copies of those pages from them, since they are a  helpful lot.

But what prompted the search was a vague memory that copies existed in Oxford.  And so they do; mostly in college libraries:

Queen’s College Upper Library, 60.F.11
Balliol College Library, Special Collections, 0125 s.a.02 A
Christ Church Library, Special Collections, Allestree B.4.1
Keble College Library, Special Collections, TE F.2.2b

It would have been far too convenient had my own college been one of them!  But a further search reveals a copy in the Bodleian:

Main author: Graeco-Latini patres.
Title details: Græcolat. patrum bibliothecæ novum auctarium (operâ F. Combefis). Tomus duplex.
Published: Par. 1648
Physical desc.: (fol.)
Other names: Combefis, François, [ed.]
Bodleian Library Bookstack R 6.16, 15 Jur.

And this I hope to inspect on Thursday.  Whether the Bodleian will allow me copies remains to be seen.

But I do feel I want to examine the book.  I shall want to see whatever information he gives on the manuscripts used.  This will be scanty, at that date, but all the same I want whatever there is.  To do so I will need to hunt through the volume.  And anyway, isn’t it pleasant to do so?