What patristic authors are extant in Old Slavonic?

An interesting volume came into my hands lately:

Regarding your question as to what patristic works have been translated into Old Slavonic, the best resource to check with is a catalogue of the Old Slavonic texts prepared by a group of Russian scholars two years ago: Katalog Pam’jatnikov drevnerusskoj pismennosti XI-XIV vv. (rukopisnyje knigi), Studiorum Slavicorum Orbis (Saint Petersburg: Bulanin, 2014). This work covers XI-XIV centuries and includes one section on Scripture and one section on patristic texts with a list of MSS for each particular writing. …

The section on patristic writers is on pages 98-280, preceeded by translations of Scripture and followed by hagiographic (mostly Byzantine) works, homilies and other things.

The work is, of course, in Russian, which makes it rather difficult for the rest of us.  But I thought that I would have a go at seeing what Google Translate could make of it.  The results were less good than I had hoped, but better than I had feared.  Here is what I could make of the list of authors:

  • Augustine
  • Agapetus
  • Abba Ammon
  • Amphilochius of Iconium
  • Anastasius of Antioch
  • Anastasius Sinaiticus – a lot of this
  • Andrew of Crete
  • Anthony
  • Athanasius of Alexandria – lots
  • Basil of Amasea
  • Basil of Ancyra – lots
  • Gennadius of Constantinople
  • Gennadius of Jerusalem
  • George of Nicomedia
  • Patriarch Germanus I of Constantinople
  • Gregory of Antioch
  • Gregory the Dialogist (Pope Gregory the Great)
  • Gregory of Nyssa
  • Gregory of Sinai
  • Gregory Thaumaturgus
  • Diadochus of Photiki (?)
  • Dionysius of Alexandria
  • Dionysius the Areopagite
  • Dorotheus of Gaza
  • Dorotheus of Tyre
  • Evagrius
  • Eusebius of Alexandria
  • Eusebius of Caesarea – looks like bits of the Quaestiones ad Marinum
  • Epiphanius
  • Ephrem the Syrian
  • John Damascene
  • John Chrysostom – an awful lot of this
  • John the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople
  • John Philoponus
  • Hippolytus of Rome
  • Irenaeus of Lyons
  • Isaac the Syrian
  • Isidore of Pelusium – more than you’d expect
  • Hesychius
  • Justin the Philosopher (i.e. Justin Martyr)
  • Cyril of Alexandria
  • Cyril of Jerusalem
  • Clement of Alexandria
  • Clement of Ohrid
  • Pope Leo I – Tome to Flavian
  • Macarius the Great
  • Maximus the Confessor
  • Nemesius
  • Nicetas of Heraclea
  • Nilus of Sinai
  • Olympiodorus
  • Palladius
  • Peter of Alexandria
  • Peter of Antioch
  • Peter of Damascus
  • Saba
  • Symeon the New Theologian
  • Sosipater
  • Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem
  • Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria
  • Timothy, Presbyter of Constantinople
  • Theodoret of Cyrrhus – a fair amount
  • Theophanes
  • Theophilus of Alexandria
  • Epictetus the Philosopher

The section ends with anonymous homilies.  I’ve left the order above as it is in the Russian, for ease of location.

Happy fishing!

HMML microfilmed manuscripts in Syriac and Christian Arabic

The Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, under Fr Columba Stewart, has been photographing manuscripts in the East for quite a few years now, and creating microfilms of them.  How necessary this work is, has been shown graphically in recent weeks by the barbaric destruction of Assyrian monuments in Iraq by Muslim thugs, apparently out of sheer savagery.

This evening I learned by accident that the microfilms are being uploaded to Archive.org, as the Center for the Preservation of Ancient Texts, complete with catalogues.  For instance, the catalogue of microfilms of manuscripts from the Coptic Patriarchate is here:

Unfortunately the collection is very badly organised, at least to a newcomer.  Thus I know that manuscripts of the 13th century Christian Arabic writer al-Makin’s History are in this collection.  And indeed a search of the PDF – the online reader is unusable for black and white – reveals a mention of al-Makin, and some mysterious references:

Jirjis aI-Makin Ibn al-‘Amid:

Excerpts from the history of Agapius of Manbij falsely ascribed to him: CMA 7-13-12.
Kitab al-ta’rikh: CMB 8-15; 12-5; 13-3.
Ta’rikh al-Muslimin: CMB 12-16.

Erm, right.  I think we want the second one, the Kitab al-Tarikh.  So what is CMB 8-15?  More to the point, how do I find the microfilm of this on Archive.org?  Here I ran into difficulty.

I learned from the catalogue that CMB means volume B of some other catalogue of the mss of the Coptic Museum.  So far so good.  It looks as if this is connected to the name of the uploaded PDF.  CMD10-8 is https://archive.org/details/CMB10-8, for instance.  So …  no luck with al-Makin, then.

But perhaps it will come.  In the mean time, look around.  There are also Slavonic texts up there.  It is a huge treasure chest – if we can find anything.

Versiones Slavicae: Greek texts extant in translation in Slavonic

A really important project is announced at Alin Suciu today.

In May 2012, Dr. Yavor Miltenov introduced on this blog a new project titled The Versiones Slavicae. A Corpus of Medieval Slavonic Translations and Their Greek Sources. You can read his post here.

The aim of VERSIONES SLAVICAE initiative is to elaborate a freely accessible Internet-based electronic corpus of medieval Slavic translations and their corresponding Byzantine sources. By adding more and more data it would hopefully expand to Clavis versionum slavorum Medii Aevi – a unique research tool with no analogue in its field (Byzantine and Slavic medieval studies).

The first task during this 2-years project is to start cataloguing the works of John Chrysostom in order to test and develop our software and metadata. Chrysostomian homilies have very rich Slavonic tradition that is only partly investigated so there is also much of research to be done. We’ll add soon other texts too – hagiographical, homiletic, hymnographical, among others. Our ambiton is to represent exhaustively and bring together all the texts with their Greek parallels identified in different articles, studies, monographs and indices.

The website of the project was launched yesterday. You can find it at http://www.versiones-slavicae.com/en/

It’s really hard for ordinary chaps to get any idea of what exists in this language.  This is a very welcome initiative!

A Clavis for Old Slavic, and a site for Slavic Chrysostom material

Alin Suciu is rapidly becoming one of the most important patristic bloggers.  His blog regularly announces finds of new material for Coptic.   But today’s post — a guest post by Yavor Miltenov — relates to Old Slavonic / Old Slavic.  It’s very exciting indeed!

As a result of the work of generations of philologists, the researchers in the field of Byzantine studies have at hand numerous index-catalogues dealing with classification of texts. The most recent and significant of them are, of course, Clavis patrum Graecorum, Bibliotheca hagiographica Graeca, Clavis apocryphorum Veteri Testamenti, Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, and many others – a centuries-old tradition, that serves as a base for these exceptional reference books. Any study on (or even related to) certain medieval literary monuments must as a rule consult them, as they cover an enormous material, facilitate identifications of certain works, offer standardization, unification and classification, contain the primary bibliography, and represent not only the basics of our knowledge about one particular text, but also give an opportunity to study groups of texts and corpora. Recently, the intensive research has even brought the process to further development – an online Clavis Clavium will be built upon the base of previous indexes[1].

Now this last snippet is itself very interesting!  The reference states:

[1] As announced by Caroline Macé and Gert Partoens from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven at a recent meeting in Sofia.

That is something that I would like to know more about!  But the article continues:

It is a well-known fact, that almost all medieval Slavic literary monuments (9th–16th c.) are translations from Byzantine works: whole miscellanies, single texts, excerpts used in compilations. In this sense, their adequate study is possible only if a comparison with the Byzantine originals is made. In Slavic medieval studies, however, there is no such instrumentum studiorum that contains a) classification of the translated texts and b) reference to their Greek originals[2]. For this main reason the Slavic tradition, unlike the Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, Coptic, is not “visible” to the researchers of the Byzantine cultural commonwealth, it is not fully reflected in the above-mentioned and other Claves[3], and, finally, remains isolated and thought more as a subject to be researched by the “national philologies”, than as a full member of the Byzantine-Slavic cultural space in the Middle Ages.

This is sound thinking.  And it is quite impossible for an interested amateur like myself to get any idea of what exists in this language group.  It’s like a different discipline, like trying to  go surfing on Mars!  And this should not be.

In 2011 the Bulgarian Science Fund announced a call for Young Scientists Program. I and four other colleagues decided to apply with a project entitled “Electronic database Operum patrum Graecorum versiones slavicae: cataloguing and study of the writings of John Chrysostom in Old Church Slavonic” with the kind institutional support of Central Library of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Surprisingly, we won a grant and the project has started in the beginning of 2012!

The aim of our initiative is to elaborate a freely accessible Internet-based electronic corpus of medieval Slavic translations and their corresponding Byzantine sources.

This is good news, and the online aspect is very good news!  This will certainly help Chrysostom scholars to engage with the Slavic versions.  But Dr Miltenov continues:

I should admit that the inspiration of our idea is the Pinakes database, worked out by the Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes on the base of a card-index, developed for two decades in the Pontifical Institute for Medieval Studies in Toronto. So we have the model, we have some sources we may use[4], we know it will take years to input sufficient material and much more time to make text identifications of our own. We have in mind also that we have almost no base to build upon: most of the descriptions of Slavic manuscripts lack identifications of texts’ Byzantine originals, we do not have Patrologiae or series of critical editions (such as Sources Chrétiennes, Corpus Christianorum, etc.), and we have no previous experience with medieval Slavic text databases that are similar to ours.

This is why, being still in the beginning, we have to think about technical solutions and scientific criteria which will last. Our Clavis has to be supplied with bibliographic and specialized data, to be user friendly, to include opportunities for expansion, permanent upgrade and publication of various types of materials (Greek and Old Church Slavonic works, manuscript catalogues, articles, books, iconographic images, etc.). In this sense it is important to prepare carefully the appropriate software and to build a model for texts description that has all the necessary metadata. We are working on these methodological issues now and I hope I’ll be able to tell you more about the development of the project soon, here on Alin’s blog.

I’m looking forward to it.  A Clavis itself would be a wonderful thing.

The main enemy of this project will be the urge to be “perfect”.  This urge, to publish nothing until it is “just so”, has caused many a promising initiative to disappear.  I hope that they will remember that the best way to eat an elephant is to do so a little at a time!

Well done, Yavor, and thank you so much Alin for hosting it!

Google translate, on the Slavonic manuscripts of the Russian State Library

I’m having some fun using Google translate to allow me to browse the online Slavonic manuscripts of the Russian State Library.  Occasionally the results are comic: “Number 140. The Psalter of St. sensible” made me smile, although it is combined with a text by Athanasius.

The manuscripts are those of the Moscow Theological Seminary, the Trinity-Sergius Lavra.  I think we should thank the RSL for putting all these images online!

The start of the collection is here, starting with 3 mss called “Gospel” and then 4 more labelled “Apostle”.  The next 3 are Psalms.  A bit further on are three copies in Slavic of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, closely followed by some copies of Basil the Great on Fasting.

Number 32 looks interesting — is that actually Severian of Gaballa on the six days of creation? “Six days Severian bishop Gavalskogo”?  That must be his sermons on Genesis.  Who knew that these existed in Slavic?

Then the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, a John Damascene, Ephraim Syrus, and the Ladder of John Climacus. 

No. 63 is also Severian.  No 75 is Cosmas Indicopleustes.  No. 100 is the Annals of George Hamartolus.  No 102 is Cosmas Indicopleustes again.  Isaac the Syrian appears as 151.  167 is The Imitation of Christ by a certain Thomas Kempiyskago.

Later on the items of interest — interesting to us here, anyway, for I suspect much of this is of the highest interest to students of Russian history — grow fewer.  I notice the occasional 18th century text, and the odd one in Greek or Latin.  No. 338 is “collected works of the Fathers and Lucian” (?) which sounds interesting.  There are Greek and Latin dictionaries. No. 351 (Gr. 188) is by Theodoret of Cyrhus, “On the fishery of God”.

It is, truly, a marvellous collection.  I am deeply grateful that they have set up the website in such a web that those of us who know no Russian can still use it, and learn more than one could possibly imagine.

The entry point, in case you want to browse, is:

http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/index.php?col=5&gotomanuscript=01

 And there is a marvellous aerial picture of the St. Sergius Lavra here at the English language site:

http://www.stsl.ru/languages/en/index.php

Manuscripts of the Old Slavonic Methodius online!

A commenter has discovered two manuscripts of the Old Slavonic Methodius online!  The manuscripts used by Michael Chub, when he edited some of the works, are apparently accessible:

Some good news. I found the scans of two Old Slavic manuscripts used by Archbishop Mikhail.

See http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts/index.php?col=5&gotomanuscript=040, the first two manuscripts (40 and 41) from the list.

Sadly one can’t download the things as PDF’s — they’d be much easier to look at in that form!

Translating the Russian preface to the works of Methodius

This evening I sat down with the text of Michael Chub’s preface to his edition of a selection of the works of Methodius.[1].  I took the output from Google Translate, and went through it, smoothing and amending.

I got a very long way!  It’s about 3,400 words, and nearly all of it fell into English quite neatly.  But not all. If you know Russian, some thoughts in the comments on the following would be useful.

My first stop was:

The literary activity of St. Methodius, as can be seen, coincides with the end of the donikeyskogo period of development of theological thought, and, to some extent, can be regarded as a peculiar result of this development.

The period in question is that before the Edict of Milan in 313; but as I wrote this, it came to me that this meant “ante-Nicene”.

So far so good; but bluff and a machine translator will only take you so far.  Now it gets hard.

Молитва св. Мефодия, известная только в славянском тексте, вне всякого сомнения, ^ принадлежит к числу наиболее ранних христианских молитв. Употребленные в ней формулировки и выражения чрезвычайно характерны для суждения о догматическом словоупотреблении доникейской эпохи. Заслуживает особого внимания то место молитвы, где говорится о победе над смертью, совершенной страданиями и умерщвлением Бесстрастного и Бессмертного. Здесь встречаются и скрещиваются слоза и мысли, знакомые уже древнейшей христианской Церкви (сравн. Игнатий Богоносец, „Послание к Поликарпу”, 3, 2; Григорий Неокесарийский, „Послание к Феопомпу”, 7, 8, ІО) и прочно вошедшие в молитвенный обиход последующих веков (сравн., напр., в „Последовании на сон грядущим” в современных молитвословах Молитва вторая). Вся молитва имеет большое значение для суждения о прочности и устойчивости церковных традиций и, в частности, о способах сохранения и передачи этих традиций.

The prayer of St. Methodius, known only from the Slavonic text, no doubt, belongs among the earliest Christian prayers. Its formulation and expression are extremely characteristic for evaluating the dogmatic discourse of the ante-Nicene era. Deserving of special attention is a passage in the prayer, which says the victory over death, suffering and killing of a perfect passionless and Immortal. Here you can meet and interbreed sloza and thought, already familiar to the ancient Christian Church (cf. Ignatius, “Epistle to Polycarp,” 3:2, Gregory of Neocaesarea, “Message to Theopompus”, 7, 8, 10) and entered the everyday life of prayer of later ages (compare, for example, in the “Succession before sleep” in the modern prayer book, Prayer Two). The whole prayer is important for judging the strength and stability of church traditions and, in particular, on how to preserve and pass on these traditions.

I’ve often wanted to interbreed sloza and thought, of course.  Whatever sloza is.    Nor did the previous sentence make sense to me either.

При чтении трактата „О прокаженин” следует помнить, что по замыслу автора это диалог.

9) When reading the treatise “On prokazhenin” should be remembered that the author’s idea is a dialogue.

Mine too, as it happens!

Ссылки на Свящ. Писание после цитат не принадлежат св. Мефодию. Они вставлены в текст перевода для удобства чтения, причем прямые цитаты снабжены ссылками в круглых ( ) скобках, а непрямые цитаты и реминисценции — в квадратных скобках [ ].

Quotation marks from Holy Scripture are not by St. Methodius. They have been inserted into the translation for readability, and direct quotations are provided with round brackets, and indirect quotations and reminiscences – in square brackets [].

I’m pretty sure I’m confused here.  Does the text really put scripture in brackets?  Or in quotes?

По связи речи следует здесь же отметить, что проф. Н. Г. Бонвеч совсем не затрагивает тему о наличии аграфов в творениях св. Мефодия.

Speech Communication should also be noted here that Prof. N. G. Bonwetsch does not affect the subject of the presence of agrapha in the works of St. Methodius.

Any ideas?

The final chunk is rather serious: it’s the list of manuscripts and libraries of the Old Slavonic text.  Not that I can’t get a general idea: but specifically it’s not great.

Основной рукописью для работы над текстом названных творений явился „Сборник” XVI века, хранящийся в Ленинграде в Государственной Публичной Библиотеке имени Салтыкова-Щедрина (Q I 265).

Текст основной рукописи сличен с текстом следующих рукописей;

  • Рукопись Библиотеки Академии Наук Союза ССР 16. 16. 2 (XVII в.).
  • Рукопись Библиотеки им. Ленина из собрания Московской духовной академии №41, ранее находившаяся в Троице-Сергиевой Лавре (нач. XVII в.).
  • Рукопись Государственного Исторического Музея из Синодального собрания №170 (XVI в.).
  • Рукопись Библиотеки им. Ленина из собрания Моск. дух. академии № 40, написанная для Арсения Суханова (XVII в.).
  • Рукопись Библиотеки им. Ленина из собрания Общества Истории и Древностей Российских № 137 (XVII в.).

Кроме указанных выше рукописей, были привлечены следующие;

  • Рукопись Госуд. Исторического Музея из Уваровского собрания № 115 (XVI в.).
  • Рукопись Госуд. Истор. Музея из собрания Чудовского монастыря № 233 (XVI — XVII в).
  • Рукопись Госуд. Истор. Музея из собрания Чудовского монастыря № 205 (XVII в.).
  • Рукопись Госуд. Истор. Музея из собрания Единоверческого монастыря № 12 (XVII в.).
  • Рукопись Госуд. Истор. Музея из собрания Барсова № 264 (подделка — довольно искусная — под XVI век, воспроизводящая, по-видимому, слово в слово текст старинной рукописи, послужившей образцом для настоящей).

OK.  This comes out as something like this:

The main manuscript for the text of these works is the Sbornik 11 of the XVI century, kept in the Leningrad State Public Library in the Saltykov-Shchedrin (QI 265) 10.

The main text was produced by collating the following manuscripts;

1) Manuscript Library of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR 16. 16. 2 (XVII century).
2) Lenin Manuscript Library, from the Collection of the Moscow Theological Academy, number 41, previously found in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (the beginning of the XVII century.).
3) The manuscript of the State Historical Museum of the Synodal Assembly number 170 (XVI century).
4) Lenin Manuscript Library, from the collection of the Spiritual Academy of Moscow number 40, written for Arsenius Sukhanov (XVII century).
5) Lenin Manuscript Library, from the meeting of the Society of History and Russian Antiquities number 137 (XVII century).

In addition to these manuscripts, the following were involved;

6) The manuscript gov’t. Historical Museum of Uvarov meeting ? 115 (XVI century).
7) The manuscript gov’t. History. The Museum from the collection of the monastery Chudovsky No 233 (XVI – XVII c).
8 ) The manuscript gov’t. History. The Museum from the collection of the monastery Chudovsky No 205 (XVII century).
9) The manuscript gov’t. History. The Museum from the collection of ? 12 Edinoverie monastery (XVII century).
10) The manuscript gov’t. History. The Museum from the collection of Autograph No 264 (a forgery – a rather ingenious one – from the XVI century, reproducing, apparently, word for word the text of an ancient manuscript that served as a model for this).

Could anyone with Russian skills help here?  We need to get a reliable list of manuscripts, if we’re going to put it online, as some poor soul may one day make his travel plans by this!

But that’s it.  Otherwise the 3,400 words is pretty much done.

  1. [1]M. Chub, Preface to the edition of the Slavic collection of the works of St. Methodius, Bogoslovskie Trudy (=’Theological works’) 2, Moscow Patriarchate, 1961, p.145-151.

An introduction to Old Slavonic literature?

I have spent a couple of hours online attempting to locate some evidence of an introductory work to Old Slavonic literature.  This has been in vain, although guides to the language are common enough.  The only text I have found is an 1883 SPCK publication here.

Does anyone know of such a guide to what exists in Old Slavonic; like a patrology in organisation?

Old Slavonic manuscripts online

A comment on this post leads us to a wonderland of Old Slavonic patristic manuscripts, all online and in full colour.  I will repeat some of the information here.

I wonder if you know about this website: http://www.stsl.ru/manuscripts . This an online collection of manuscripts from the former library of St.Sergius Monastery near Moscow, now in the Russian National Library.

Now I know no Cyrillic.  But Google translate does!

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stsl.ru%2Fmanuscripts&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

The Russian-text images on the left are not translated, but if you hover the mouse over them, English text appears!

Then I clicked on the “Main Library” link.  This takes you straight to a catalogue.  OK, it’s a bit wonky, and you have to be a bit imaginative, but it’s perfectly usable for English-speakers, thanks to Google; and this link takes us to a list of manuscripts in the main library collection.  And if you click on the book, you get a detailed catalogue of the ms, and then a box at the bottom to ask for the folio!  This is SUPER!!!

  • No 6 is the Explanation of Revelation by the catenist Andrew of Caesarea.
  • No 7 is the Instructions of Ephrem Syrus.
  • No 8 is Gregory the Theologian.
  • No 10 is The Ladder of John Climacus.  There are loads more of this further down.
  • 124-5 are Cyril of Jerusalem
  • 126-8 are Ephrem, although 128 is not online.
  • 129-135 are Basil the Great
  • 154 is Antiochus the monk — I’m pretty sure he turned up in Harnack’s catalogue.
  • 172-5 is Isaac the Syrian, although whether anyone can stomach his mystical teachings I don’t know.  (Maybe it’s just that the English translation of his work is so bad)
  • 176-7 are John Damascene.
  • 178 is Theodore the Studite.
  • 180 is Symeon the New Theologian
  • Lives of the Saints start to appear around 680-ish
  • 687-690 are “Barlaam and Joasaph Indian and Theodore edesskago”; i.e. Theodore of Edessa.
  • 728 is a chronography!  Yes, it’s a world history.  The catalogue is worth a read here.

There are loads of biblical manuscripts in here.  Of course you have to wade through synodicons, and all the stuff that makes up the bulk of ecclesiastical libraries.  But … this is simply splendid!

My next stop was the search facility.  As expected, entering “eusebius” made no sense to the Cyrillic engine.  So I went back to Google translate, entered “Eusebius” into it and got out “Евсевий” in Russian.  I tried this; but it didn’t work.  Then I tried “Gregory”, got “Григорий” and tried that.  That didn’t work either.  Hum.  Lack of a search engine we can use is a problem.

Another collection is here.  These are not as well catalogued, but the images are top-notch.  Dionysius the Areopagite, the “Creation Methodius of Patara”… hmm!.  #75 is a Slavonic ms of Cosmas Indicopleustes!  #100 is the Annals of George Hamartolus; 102 is Cosmas again; 146 is Chrysostom.  I got to ca. 239, but have to stop there.

The mss are late, but so what?  They’re accessible!!!

But all the same, this is really wonderful!  The images are gorgeous, undefiled, and quite fit for any scholarly study imaginable (other than examining the stitching of the book!)  Frankly this is how it should be done!  Who, I wonder, did this?  I wish I knew the names of those involved, for they deserve a big cheer!

Fathers in Old Slavonic – 2

A number of ante-Nicene writers exist in an translation in Old Slavonic.

  • Portions of the Shepherd of Hermas, from the Similitudes.
  • The Letter of Barnabas.
  • Ignatius of Antioch, Letters.  I don’t have any details of which ones, tho.
  • The martyrdom of Polycarp
  • The quotation of Papias in the work of Apollinaris on Judas.
  • Barlaam and Joasaf also exists in the list, although it isn’t ante-Nicene!
  • Justin Martyr
  • Irenaeus

I think all of these are extracts, tho.

  • Hipploytus, on the anti-Christ, the end of the world, and the Commentary on Daniel.  Also on the Song of Songs; on Revelation 20; on Proverbs 30; on the 12 apostles and 70 apostles.
  • Origen, On the psalms.
  • (ps).Origen, Dialogue of Adamantius.
  • Dionysius of Alexandria.  There is quite a section of materials by him.
  • Methodius.  Likewise there is a long list of manuscripts containing material.
  • Eusebius.  There’s some sort of explanation about the Psalms.  The Letter to Carpianus, and the canon tables.

Unfortunately now I look at it, I’m finding Harnack’s text almost impossible to understand!