Osthanes wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:As you know, but for the benefit of some others here, the Arabs greatly expanded that list during the middle ages.

In fact, it's already an expanded list, for most of the lots that labeled "Paulus Commentary" are possibly drawn from the Arabs.
You know, there is a vast list of lots in Olympiodorus but it appears only in one manuscript, Laurentianus 28, 34. This codex, which was copied around 1000, has a wide selection of texts, including parts of genuine works or epitomae by Hephaestio, Rhetorius and Theophilus of Edessa. As there are unique parallel passages with another manuscript, Vindobonensis philosophicus graecus 115, they must have had a common ancestor that was copied towards the middle of the 10th century. Now, while Vindobonensis contains the whole text of Olympiodorus, neither it nor the fragmentary codices of their branch (like Laurentianus, which has only Chapter 22) nor even the manuscript family edited by the school of John Abramius in the late 14th century has this list of lots. That's why when Emilie de Boer prepared the critical edition of Olympiodorus (which appeared under the name Heliodorus, a faulty correction by a user of Vindobonensis which was later picked up by John Abramius and his friends) she rightfully decided to separate this list from the other parts of the work. Unfortunately, it was only printed by a smaller typeface, which doesn't really help us to see the difference. It should have had to be put in a separate appendix - perhaps that's why Pingree used to want to make another critical edition of Olympiodorus, which restores this text in the original form it was transmitted.
There are two possibilities: either Laurentianus represents an "improved" version where some new lots devised by the Arabs are included, or all other manuscripts are faulty while it's the Laurentianus which conserves the original text. I think the first possibility is more likely since the fact that Laurentianus preserved just one chapter from Olympiodorus shows its scribe may have been uninterested in the other parts of the work (which is not the case with the remaining authors mentioned above), albeit astrological lots were among his primary concerns. Then this list, at least partially, might have been drawn from an Arabic author (such as Ab? Ma?shar) whose works were started to be translated in the early 11th century. Even if it's not the case, we'd better be cautious with the list appearing in Laurentianus when dealing with genuine Hellenistic stuff.

Osthanes wrote: In fact, it's already an expanded list, for most of the lots that labeled "Paulus Commentary" are possibly drawn from the Arabs.
You know, there is a vast list of lots in Olympiodorus but it appears only in one manuscript, Laurentianus 28, 34. This codex, which was copied around 1000, has a wide selection of texts, including parts of genuine works or epitomae by Hephaestio, Rhetorius and Theophilus of Edessa. As there are unique parallel passages with another manuscript, Vindobonensis philosophicus graecus 115, they must have had a common ancestor that was copied towards the middle of the 10th century. Now, while Vindobonensis contains the whole text of Olympiodorus, neither it nor the fragmentary codices of their branch (like Laurentianus, which has only Chapter 22) nor even the manuscript family edited by the school of John Abramius in the late 14th century has this list of lots. That's why when Emilie de Boer prepared the critical edition of Olympiodorus (which appeared under the name Heliodorus, a faulty correction by a user of Vindobonensis which was later picked up by John Abramius and his friends) she rightfully decided to separate this list from the other parts of the work. Unfortunately, it was only printed by a smaller typeface, which doesn't really help us to see the difference. It should have had to be put in a separate appendix - perhaps that's why Pingree used to want to make another critical edition of Olympiodorus, which restores this text in the original form it was transmitted.
There are two possibilities: either Laurentianus represents an "improved" version where some new lots devised by the Arabs are included, or all other manuscripts are faulty while it's the Laurentianus which conserves the original text. I think the first possibility is more likely since the fact that Laurentianus preserved just one chapter from Olympiodorus shows its scribe may have been uninterested in the other parts of the work (which is not the case with the remaining authors mentioned above), albeit astrological lots were among his primary concerns. Then this list, at least partially, might have been drawn from an Arabic author (such as Ab? Ma?shar) whose works were started to be translated in the early 11th century. Even if it's not the case, we'd better be cautious with the list appearing in Laurentianus when dealing with genuine Hellenistic stuff.

Osthanes wrote:
That's why when Emilie de Boer prepared the critical edition of Olympiodorus (which appeared under the name Heliodorus, a faulty correction by a user of Vindobonensis which was later picked up by John Abramius and his friends) she rightfully decided to separate this list from the other parts of the work. Unfortunately, it was only printed by a smaller typeface, which doesn't really help us to see the difference. It should have had to be put in a separate appendix - perhaps that's why Pingree used to want to make another critical edition of Olympiodorus, which restores this text in the original form it was transmitted.

Chris Brennan wrote:Wait, so this only applies to the last section in chapter 22 though, right? That is the only one that is in the small typeface in the Greek. That still leaves a pretty extensive lot list in the previous sections leading up to that point.

Osthanes wrote:
You know, there is a vast list of lots in Olympiodorus but it appears only in one manuscript, Laurentianus 28, 34.

Martin Gansten wrote:Thanks; that's very helpful. No horses! Did the Arabs invent that one, I wonder, or the Indians? Both cultures held horses in high regard...