Ptolemy's table of terms

1
I've noticed that Ptolemy's table of terms in Tetrabiblos 1.21 (Loeb edition translated by F.E. Robbins) is different from the one I have generally been using in CA and on this site. I noticed differences in Bonatti's version but they were explained by Rob Hand in the footnotes. Why the differences between the CA version and the one in Tetrabiblos? Are there different tables or am I just confused? (Don't answer that :) )

2
Hi Sue,

This issue was raised for discussion in issue 7 of the Traditional Astrologer Magazine (winter 1994). I've copied out the response that Robert Hand gave to the problem at that time, the conclusion being that the table from Lilly can be regarded as reliable.

"Unfortunately, the tables of Ptolemy?s terms transmitted in the middle ages were often incorrect. This may be due to their popularity ? many scribes, many errors! In fact, the terms given by Lilly differ from Ptolemy?s. as given in the definite Teubner edition. only slightly in Gemini. The slight discrepancy is in the terms of Jupiter, Venus and Saturn, all of which vary by only 1 degree. However, the Ptolemaic terms given by Ashmand and Robbins are quite seriously in error. I have no idea where they got them from. Guido Bonatti also used an erroneous form of Ptolemy?s terms. The tip-off is that Ptolemy described the criteria by which the terms should be arranged. Neither Ashmand?s nor Robbins?s nor Bonatti?s fit those criteria. The Ptolemaic terms given in Project Hindsight?s edition of Book I of the Tetrabiblos are derived from the Teubner edition and are arranged according to the criteria Ptolemy gave. Given this, there is nothing to distinguish them from Lilly?s variant. "

3
Thanks for that. I actually have issue 7 so should have known. One of those cases of not taking much notice of things unless they are of particular interest at the time. It clears up a lot of confusion.