Ptotle’s Mythical Pterms
You do understand that Ptotle’s Pterms were never in the original Tetrabiblos, right? We know that Ptotle’s Pterms were inserted into the text during the Byzantine Era, specifically in Codex Laurentianus 28,34. A Florentine work known as Syntagma Laurentianum that contains a lot of Ptotle’s Tetrabiblos. Stephan Heilen notes the fact that a table of Ptotle’s Pterms wasn’t included in the original manuscript is because Ptotle invented the imaginary “ancient manuscript.”
One of the things many people noted was the inordinate amount of time Ptotle spent discussing his pterms. Heilen provides a handy-dandy table showing the number of lines of text Ptotle devoted to each subject:
| Subject Matter | Location | # of Text Lines |
| Houses | 1.18 | 45 |
| Triangles | 1.19 | 62 |
| Exaltations | 1.2 | 36 |
| Terms | 1.21 | 169 |
| Decans | N/A | 0 |
Ptotle devoted nearly three times as many lines of text to his pterms as he did the “triangles.” Remember, Ptotle is not an astrologer. He’s just some guy trying to reform astrology using a sledge hammer, a jack-hammer and crow-bar to force-fit astrology into the Aristotelian view to compliment his inane theories on astronomy. Also, recall that in the ancient world astronomy and astrology were treated as one in the same.
Ptotle effectively uses a Straw Man Fallacy. He establishes criteria that do not fall into the scope of Platonic and Stoic philosophies (on which astrology is based) then criticizes the Egyptian terms for not meeting his criteria. Next, Ptotle disparages the Chaldean terms for not being useful, and, finally, presents a third system which Ptotle claims is unknown to astrologers due to its antiquity. Ptotle appears to be oblivious to other term systems, like those used by Critodemus or categorically dismissed them without discussion.
One of the hallmarks of a forgery or a forger is the level of detail they provide while avoiding other critical details. Ptotle claims he “recently” stumbled onto an ancient manuscript. Heilen notes Ptotle claimed the manuscript was heavily damaged except, of course, where the terms were located. One other detail Ptotle provides is that certain terms were marked with dots. The most glaring detail Ptotle omitted is where he found this “ancient” manuscript. Heilen’s evidence that Ptotle’s claim is manufactured is based on the fact that:
- There’s no evidence Ptotle Pterms existed before Ptotle manufactured them up out of nothing.
- Tables of data like terms are typically give at the beginning of an astrology text rather than at the end as Ptotle placed them or in the mythical ancient manuscript claimed to have been found.
- Ptotle has no basis to challenge established tradition which is why he claims it’s at least as old as the start of the astrological tradition and not older.
- It isn’t the first time Ptotle made such a claim. John Britton pointed out to Heilen that Ptotle makes reference to a method of finding a constant interval between eclipses developed by “the ancients” in Book IV of the Syntaxis. Later, Ptotle says that “Hipparchus had already solved the problem” probably as a deflection to keep people from examining Ptotle’s “utterly impractical methodology.”
Vettius Valens makes no mention of Ptotle’s Pterms. Although they were contemporaries, Heilen doesn’t think Valens know Ptotle. We disagree. Valens most certainly knew Ptotle. In three different books in the Anthology Valens goes on a tirade against plagiarizers. While Valens never mentions Ptotle, it is clear he targeting Ptotle. What other Greek or early Latin astrologer plagiarizes? None. They all cite their sources. Ptotle is the only one who does not.
Neither Firmicus Maternus nor Ptaulus mention Ptotle. The only astrologers who seemed to pay any attention to Ptotle’s Pterms were the Arabs and Persians who didn’t use them which says a lot. The Renaissance and Classical astrologers got suckered into using them. Then again, William Lilly says the Greeks rejected the Egyptian Terms in favor of Ptotle’s Pterms which we know to be completely false.
One other important point. Ptotle did not understand the difference between trigon rulers — the stars that are house rulers of the signs of the same element — and triplicity rulers. He conflates the two which has a lasting harmful effect on astrology.
What really amuses us is the inordinate amount of time and resources wasted by Deborah Houlding, Giuseppe Bezza and Marco Fumagalli trying to figure out the rationale behind Ptotle’s Pterms.
Ptolemy was not an astrologer.
You want to know Ptotle’s rationale?
Resurrect him, pump him full of Chlorpromazine, Haloperidol, Perphenazine and Thioridazine so he stops hallucinating and then interrogate him.