Modern and Traditional House Rulers

Dirius said:

An empty statement like that, without an alternative explanation, is of little value for discussion.

The explanation is that of the relation of the movement of the Sun through its point of Exaltation, which begins with the Spring Equinox, and the changes it brings after the cold harsh winter: birth of animals, plants, harvest of crops, warmer days, rains, etc., creating a period of birth and fertility for life in general.

But hey, if you are willing to share your explanation, you are more than welcome.

Click to expand...

The seasonal argument obviously only works for the northern hemisphere (1/2 of the globe) and even there only for the regions within the temperate climate zone (1/3 of every hemisphere). Which means your theory only works for 1/6 of the globe (1/3 of 1/2). That's why I said I'm pretty sure that's not the actual reason.

Take a look at this map:



And these climate charts:

a) temperate zone (northern hemisphere):





b) tropical zone (at the equator):





c) temperate zone (southern hemisphere)




You see, your theory works nicely with New York, which is located in the temperate zone on the northern hemisphere and where you have 4 distinct seasons. But your theory doesn't work in Singapore, at the equator, where they have no seasons (in the traditional sense) at all. The only difference they know there is more rain vs. less rain. And your theory doesn't work in Melbourne either, which - although in the temperate zone with 4 distinct seasons - has it all in reverse because it is located on the southern hemisphere.

david starling said:

Fairly sure it is! (different topic)--I see there are Mundane-astrologers using Traditional terminology like "combust", who are also using the 3 outermost Planets (both large and the small one).
Does Vedic number the Signs, muchacho?

Click to expand...

Numbering in what way?

muchacho said:

The seasonal argument obviously only works for the northern hemisphere (1/2 of the globe) and even there only for the regions within the temperate climate zone (1/3 of every hemisphere). Which means your theory only works for 1/6 of the globe (1/3 of 1/2). That's why I said I'm pretty sure that's not the actual reason.

Take a look at this map:

And these climate charts:
a) temperate zone (northern hemisphere):
b) tropical zone (at the equator):
c) temperate zone (southern hemisphere)

Click to expand...

A geez...

Of course the seasonal argument only works from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, which is the one in which astrology was created. In fact many of the arguments of astrology only work from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, such as the theory in many schools of astrology that north node being the "good" fortunate node, while the south node the negative one.

The argument of "well it doesn't work in the southern hemisphere" can be applied to a lot of astrological stuff, erroneously.

What I discussed is why was Aries assigned as the first sign in the order of the zodiac, which doesn't change or affect the reasons Ptolomy presented.

Furthermore, the longevity of daylight starting at Spring can be felt even in the tropical areas (days do become longer), and the influence of equinoxial/solsticial days has been sensed in those areas since antiquity. So the argument that "well it only works in temperate climates" is also baseless. Given that a lot of ancient civilizations that belong to the "tropical" area of the world, such as the Maya and Aztecs did celebrate the equinox and solstices, it is a falacy to say that only temperate climates can understand the changes of Spring.

But again you are refuting my theory based on your perspective of why it is "not" the reason it was chosen, you are welcome to present your view of why it was chosen in the first place, instead. Which you haven't yet.

The designation of Tropical Aries as the 1st Sign is due to its Element and Mode, not the climate. Asserting it's weather alone, which fits so well in some locations but not others, is like asserting that the Zodiacal constellations were "merely" "sky hooks" for TEMPORARY, seasonally-linked imagery using heliacal observation in ancient Babylon (late 3rd millennium B.C.), which were again TEMPORARILY aligned with the Seasons in Ancient-Greece using Tropical observation 2000 years later. Those Babylonians had both a Solar and a Lunar calendar of 12 months (kept in sync with the Solar by inserting extra days when necessary). Their constellational images (most of which are still in use) for the Solar months have some solid seasonal correlations for their time and location. Precession of the Equinoxes changed that, but the images remained. So the Seasons may have INSPIRED much of the Zodiacal imagery, but isn't the REASON for it. Just as the weather-conditions in some locations may have inspired beginning the Tropical-zodiac with Aries, but ISN'T the REASON for it. The qualities of 1st-sign Aries, as described by its Mode an Element, are what make it such a good 1st-sign candidate. Why does anyone have a problem with other Astrologers choosing that option? Is it the old "I don't so you shouldn't either" syndrome?

david starling said:

The designation of Tropical Aries as the 1st Sign is due to its Element and Mode, not the climate. Asserting it's weather alone, which fits so well in some locations but not others, is like asserting that the Zodiacal constellations were "merely" "sky hooks" for TEMPORARY, seasonally-linked imagery using heliacal observation in ancient Babylon (late 3rd millennium B.C.), which were again TEMPORARILY aligned with the Seasons in Ancient-Greece using Tropical observation 2000 years later. Those Babylonians had both a Solar and a Lunar calendar of 12 months (kept in sync with the Solar by inserting extra days when necessary). Their constellational images (most of which are still in use) for the Solar months have some solid seasonal correlations for their time and location. Precession of the Equinoxes changed that, but the images remained. So the Seasons may have INSPIRED much of the Zodiacal imagery, but isn't the REASON for it. Just as the weather-conditions in some locations may have inspired beginning the Tropical-zodiac with Aries, but ISN'T the REASON for it. The qualities of 1st-sign Aries, as described by its Mode an Element, are what make it such a good 1st-sign candidate. Why does anyone have a problem with other Astrologers choosing that option? Is it the old "I don't so you shouldn't either" syndrome?

Click to expand...

You are mixing weather with Seasons, which are two completly different things. The fact that the Equinox/Solstice occur in certain tropical signs, is unrelated of the different climates in particular regions.

Dirius said:

You are mixing weather with Seasons, which are two completly different things. The fact that the Equinox/Solstice occur in certain tropical signs, is unrelated of the different climates in particular regions.

Click to expand...

No, that's my point exactly: It's those CRITICAL of anyone designating Aries as the 1st Sign who are doing that. I take Sign numbers 1 thru 12 EXTREMELY seriously, beginning with Tropical-Aries.

david starling said:

No, that's my point exactly: It's those CRITICAL of anyone designating Aries as the 1st Sign who are doing that. I take Sign numbers 1 thru 12 EXTREMELY seriously, beginning with Tropical-Aries.

Click to expand...

Oh didn't realise you were quoting the previous arguments. I apologise.

david starling said:

In the Northern Hemisphere, the Ecliptical plane and the Equatorial plane intersect at the beginning of Spring and the beginning of Autumn. Day and night are of equal length, and they're called "Equinoctal points". The Vernal Equinoctal Point is used Tropically to locate 0 degrees Aries; in Right Ascension, it's used to mark the beginning of the first hourly division along the Celestial Equator. The main objection to using the VEP as a universal Spring-point, is that the situation is reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. There, the Sun enters Tropical Aries at the beginning of Fall. But [IMO], it's the qualities of the Sign Aries that mark it as the "First Sign", not the weather: Cardinal (innovative, starting anew), and Fire (creative energy). But no one is required to consider Aries as Sign#1, if that's what's bothering you, waybread. I wouldn't consider it wrong not to, even though I do see it that way myself. I have your "Whatever works (or doesn't work) for YOU in reading Charts", attitude.

Click to expand...

Huh, David? I use Aries as the first sign, like everyone else. My only point is historical: that placing the start of the zodiac at the 0 Aries point in Antiquity was an arbitrary decision, probably reinforced if not introduced by Ptolemy in his case for the tropical zodiac.

Ptolemy says as much, in his Tetrabiblos 1:10. "...although there is no natural beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle...."

Mr. Pt likes the solstitial and equinox points, but if you look at his Aristotelian climatic explanation for starting with 0 Aries, an increase of moisture in mid-March doesn't even fit his home town of Alexandria. It would fit more temperate areas in the northern hemisphere, but that's not where our astrology originated.

A good book on Babylonian astrology is Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing. She's a professor of ancient languages at UC Berkeley. On pp. 131-3, she notes that the Babylonian calendar started in their month of Aries, but that their zodiac was sidereal, so the equinox point moved a fraction of a degree per year. Their equinox continued to move backwards through early Aries, and she places two major systems as setting it at 10 and 8 degrees Aries. Since it is difficult to date the Babylonian systems precisely, it isn't clear what it would have been in Ptolemy's day, but it was close to our tropical 0 Aries.

I did a little more digging on the fixing of the vernal equinox at 0 Aries for the tropical zodiac, and came across this book, edited by another really good scholar of ancient astronomy/astrology: Alexander Jones, Ptolemy in Perspective, as a Google book. In quoting from Ptolemy's Almagest, p. 14-15 Jones notes that Ptolemy's setting the vernal equinox to 0 Aries rather than 8 degrees Aries, "is purely conventional" because he didn't use fixed stars, as did the Babylonians with their sidereal calendar.

Ptolemy's argument is apparently more complicated than making a case for the vernal equinox at 0 Aries as merely the date of equal periods of sunlight and darkness, because again; once you unhinge from a sidereal system of pegging the start of the sun in Aries, you can sort of place it anywhere you want. Once you unhinge the zodiac from fixed stars and their namesake constellations, you could sort of place the vernal equinox anywhere you want. Which is what Ptolemy did. As Jones put it, Ptolemy declared 0 degrees Aries as the start of the zodiac "by definition." Ptolemy was also concerned with celestial longitudes in establishing his tropical zodiac.

Jones cites a Greek scholar, Theon, who dated the 8 degrees Aries vernal equinox to 159 BCE, whereas it was supposed to be at 0 Aries by 428 CE. Mathematically this rate of precession doesn't work out, enhancing the argument that Ptolemy's 0 Aries point was arbitrary.

Unfortunately only book 1 of the Almagest is available on-line in English translation, but Jones gives a good (if complexly academic) discussion of the origins of the tropical zodiac. What is clear from book I of the Almagest is that Ptolemy starts out with a virtual dedication to Aristotle, setting up at least the possibility of Springtime in Antiquity as needing to fit Aristotle's model of warmth and temperature, regardless of climatic facts on the ground.

Obviously I'm never going to convince Dirius, but that's his prerogative.

This is a modern climate graph for Egypt.
http://www.helwan.climatemps.com/graph.php

You can see how precipitation actually diminishes in spring (green bars,) vanishes entirely in summer, and then picks up again later in Autumn. This is typical of Mediterranean-type climates around the globe, and adjacent hot desert climates. Ptolemy would have been well aware of this, as a resident of Alexandria, Egypt.

As a geographer Ptolemy also was aware of climate in other parts of the known world, some of which did fit his Aristotelian model mentioned in Tetrabiblos. It's just not a compelling rationale for starting the zodiac calendar in Aries. A better one is that, just as he adopted much of his astrology from Babylon, he also adopted their calendar.

The Babylonians had previously determined the start of their zodiacal year to be in early Aries, although they differed on the degree of Aries.

The Babylonian calendar did use zodiac sign names as the names of their months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_calendar

(Waybread, I guess you don't want to say where you first learned about whole-signs, but that's o.k.) The information about the constellation now known as "Aries" being recorded in Babylonia in the late 3rd Millennium b.c., pictured as a Ram and being used heliacally to mark the beginning of Spring there (and then) is from a book by Clifford Anderson, "The Fertile Crescent". He relates that the first month of their seasonal calendar was typically (there were several city-states, not all in total agreement) known as the "Month of Sacrifice". The second month was marked heliacally by the constellation pictured as an Ox (now "Taurus"), and typically named the "Month of Directing the Oxen". Then there was the Overflowing Basin for the Month of Rain in mid-Winter. The Seasons linked up with these constellations again 2000 years later, with the advent of Tropicalism. Ptolemy related the concept of Elements and Modes (may not have invented them, as I first thought), which I believe is what marks Aries as the first Sign, not the climate in any given location.

Waybread, again, you are mixing Climate and weather, with the Seasons and daylight periods, two unrelated subjects.

Ptolomy, in tetrabiblos merely mentions the general moisture properties of Spring, from which Aries happens to be the start. You are basing that to furnish the idea that he got it wrong somehow, because his particular description doesn't seem to fit the weather of his home town area.

Ptolomy lived during the roman Empire, an knowledge of weather patterns around the mediterranean region are well known. Obviously if you focus in a particular dessertic area, weather conditions are going to "not fit" the normal perception of the seasons, yet some common concepts like day length are still equal for every part of the world (same hemisphere)

waybread said:

A better one is that, just as he adopted much of his astrology from Babylon, he also adopted their calendar.

Click to expand...

Yes waybread, its possible, but that wouldn't make it arbitrary. When Ptolomy wrote as to the why Aries is a better fit for being the first in the order of the Zodiac, he is describing the properties of Springtime that begin with Aries as the first sign in the spring period. Clearly the intention to add a logical sense as to the reason behind this choice defintly creates a constructive argument as to why he percieved it was the best choice. I said that in one of my first posts:

Dirius said:

The order of the signs does predate Ptolomy, so its pretty much imposible to know the exact reason why. Just as Ptolomy, we can only speculate based on the reasoning more ancient astrologers might have used.

Click to expand...

This might have been missed by my multiple edits though.

Dirius, trust me. I am not confusing climate and weather, let alone daylight periods. You don't know my educational background, so I'll just leave it at that.

Weather means our short-term day-to-day events. Climate deals with long-term averages. Today many climatologists work with 30-year running averages, because they tend to even out short-term weather fluctuations.

Here is some information on the Mediterranean climate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate

http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~kuballc/portfolio/406 Version 2.pdf

Dirius, I don't think you really grasped what I wrote-- several times. Ptolemy was well aware of the differing climates of the known world. He wrote a major book on world geography, after all. He also knew about northern regions where March 21 is still wintery, so far as weather and climate are concerned. Obviously he could distinguish between spring-like weather and climate vs. length of daylight as a geocentric solar phenomenon.

Taken the world known to Ptolemy as a whole, there were no "general properties to spring that pertained throughout" so far as moisture is concerned, although mean temperatures would be rising throughout the spring period.

When Ptolemy wrote(1:10), "spring exceeds in moisture on account of its diffusion after the cold has passed and warmth is setting in..." this would be true for locations right next to a body of water, which would increase ambient humidity. But if you've lived in a Mediterranean climate (as I did for a year,) that you don't have to get far from the coast or shore to lose that humidity effect.

He continues, "autumn more in dryness because of the sucking up of moisture during the hot season just past," would be correct for early autumn, but by late autumn it is not dry at all, as the autumn rainy season commences.

Then we get into something even goofier, but very Aristotelian, about how young animals are "moister" because they are "tender and delicate." He then says the east winds are drying, which doesn't fit at all, because in the tropical western horoscope Aries is the eastern sign. He notes that the west wind is the moist wind, but west in the horoscope corresponds to Libra. Possibly he reversed the horoscope from what we do today, with Libra in the east and Aries in the west, but then someone would have to make a case for that.

Subsequently Ptolemy says that Aries is a masculine sign, and that (1:17) is belongs to Mars "which is dry in nature and...[was] assigned two signs...Scorpio and Aries, having a similar nature and agreeable to Mars' destructive and inharmonious quality, in quartile aspect to the luminaries," so go figure.

Moreover, you can't just blow off the fact that the Babylonians invented astrology and their monthly soli-lunar calendar was based on zodiac signs. Astrology subsequently diffused into the Roman empire. Centuries prior to Ptolemy the Babylonians placed the vernal equinox in early Aries, in their sidereal system.

Anyway, believe what you wish. As I do.

david starling said:

(Waybread, I guess you don't want to say where you first learned about whole-signs, but that's o.k.) The information about the constellation now known as "Aries" being recorded in Babylonia in the late 3rd Millennium b.c., pictured as a Ram and being used heliacally to mark the beginning of Spring there (and then) is from a book by Clifford Anderson, "The Fertile Crescent". He relates that the first month of their seasonal calendar was typically (there were several city-states, not all in total agreement) known as the "Month of Sacrifice". The second month was marked heliacally by the constellation pictured as an Ox (now "Taurus"), and typically named the "Month of Directing the Oxen". Then there was the Overflowing Basin for the Month of Rain in mid-Winter. The Seasons linked up with these constellations again 2000 years later, with the advent of Tropicalism. Ptolemy related the concept of Elements and Modes (may not have invented them, as I first thought), which I believe is what marks Aries as the first Sign, not the climate in any given location.

Click to expand...

David, the Babylonian vernal equinox was manifestly not dependent upon climate. However, their name for the sign/constellation/month of Aries, "the hired man," apparently related to the time of hiring extra farm workers for the winter-barley harvest and lambing season. Their sidereal calendar system was based upon fixed stars. See, for example, Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing, and Gavin White, Babylonian Star-Lore.

White has some interesting descriptions of how shepherds and sheep became more important than bull symbolism in Mesopotamia at around 1600 BCE.

I actually do not recall where I first learned about whole signs. No doubt it was from its resurgence among traditional western astrologers, but an interesting "hybrid" astrologer is Demetra George. She became noted as a modern astrologer for her extensive work with asteroids. Her introductory astrology book Astrology and the Authentic Self (2008) uses whole signs and principles from traditional western astrology, as well as asteroids.

waybread said:

Dirius, trust me. I am not confusing climate and weather, let alone daylight periods. You don't know my educational background, so I'll just leave it at that.

Weather means our short-term day-to-day events. Climate deals with long-term averages. Today many climatologists work with 30-year running averages, because they tend to even out short-term weather fluctuations.

Click to expand...

I didn't say you confuse them, I'm saying you are mixing them, to try to make a point, despite them being unrelated subjects.

And I said you mix the subject of weather/climate with the properties of seasons, not with each other.

Please don't get all defensive, if there was a miss-interpretation in the words I used please re-check what I said, because I didn't attack your educational background, so if you don't mind, I will politely ask you to re-read my previous post.

waybread said:

Taken the world known to Ptolemy as a whole, there were no "general properties to spring that pertained throughout" so far as moisture is concerned, although mean temperatures would be rising throughout the spring period...

Click to expand...

Ok so I see, this is the problem you have with Ptolomy's argument, that according to your view, spring in northern egypt being more of a dry season would make Ptolomy's assesment of the theory incompatible.

But then this is your assumption that ancient societies had no idea of the interpretations of Spring. I find it absurd given that at the time of Ptolomy's writting the mediterranean flow of information and knowledge was pretty high due to the roman empire conquests.

waybread said:

Then we get into something even goofier, but very Aristotelian, about how young animals are "moister" because they are "tender and delicate." He then says the east winds are drying, which doesn't fit at all, because in the tropical western horoscope Aries is the eastern sign. He notes that the west wind is the moist wind, but west in the horoscope corresponds to Libra. Possibly he reversed the horoscope from what we do today, with Libra in the east and Aries in the west, but then someone would have to make a case for that..

Subsequently Ptolemy says that Aries is a masculine sign, and that (1:17) is belongs to Mars "which is dry in nature and...[was] assigned two signs...Scorpio and Aries, having a similar nature and agreeable to Mars' destructive and inharmonious quality, in quartile aspect to the luminaries," so go figure.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna cut out the paragraphs in this quote, because I have no idea what point you were trying to make, rather than just show what the book says, to no end.

waybread said:

Moreover, you can't just blow off the fact that the Babylonians invented astrology and their monthly soli-lunar calendar was based on zodiac signs. Astrology subsequently diffused into the Roman empire. Centuries prior to Ptolemy the Babylonians placed the vernal equinox in early Aries, in their sidereal system.

Anyway, believe what you wish. As I do.

Click to expand...

I'm not blowing it off at all, I mentioned over and over that yes the babylonian astrology predates Ptolomy, and I did agree with you on that part.

What I'm refuting in your very very long posts is that you are trying to discuss a supposed miss-guided view on Ptolomy for marking Aries as the first sign in the order of the signs, because apparently his perception of weather conditions for the seasons he is trying to describe are erroneous, based on the actual location of his writting. If Ptolomy had been writting in athens, the subject of weather conditions wouldn't even have been presented.

Ptolomy chose to order the signs the way he did, based on the perception of the Seasons in which Aries is located, which seem to fit the Aristotelic view on the cycle of life, birth and rebirth. It is true that it is highly possible that this concept originates from Babylonian astrology and they way they ordered their calendar, but certainly Ptolomy is speculating on their decision to order the signs in that way, which accordingly, wouldn't be random at all.

Waybread, Clifford Anderson had no ax to grind regarding Astrology. He did his homework, using scholarly sources, so I'm going with "Month of Sacrifice" for the heliacal constellation of the Ram presiding over the first month of Spring in ancient-Babylonia (late 3rd Millennium b.c.). He does state that the month-names did vary somewhat among the various city-states, but the religious rites of Spring may well have dominated over economic for most of them. The constellation of the Ox, corresponding to the "Month of Directing the Oxen", does appear to be about agricultural activity and therefore climate-related.
Thanks for the whole-sign info. I'm grateful to Traditional-astrology for bringing it back into the fold!

Dirius said:

A geez...

Of course the seasonal argument only works from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, which is the one in which astrology was created. In fact many of the arguments of astrology only work from the perspective of the northern hemisphere, such as the theory in many schools of astrology that north node being the "good" fortunate node, while the south node the negative one.

The argument of "well it doesn't work in the southern hemisphere" can be applied to a lot of astrological stuff, erroneously.

What I discussed is why was Aries assigned as the first sign in the order of the zodiac, which doesn't change or affect the reasons Ptolomy presented.

Furthermore, the longevity of daylight starting at Spring can be felt even in the tropical areas (days do become longer), and the influence of equinoxial/solsticial days has been sensed in those areas since antiquity. So the argument that "well it only works in temperate climates" is also baseless. Given that a lot of ancient civilizations that belong to the "tropical" area of the world, such as the Maya and Aztecs did celebrate the equinox and solstices, it is a falacy to say that only temperate climates can understand the changes of Spring.

But again you are refuting my theory based on your perspective of why it is "not" the reason it was chosen, you are welcome to present your view of why it was chosen in the first place, instead. Which you haven't yet.

Click to expand...

The daylight argument is as bogus as the seasonal argument.

Take a look at these charts:

a) temperate zone (northern hemisphere):




b) tropical zone (at the equator):




c) temperate zone (southern hemisphere):




So again, your theory only works for the northern hemisphere and not for the southern hemisphere where everything is in reverse. And although it would work for a larger area than the seasonal theory, it still doesn't work at the equator where the sun rises at around 6 am and sets at around 6 pm all year long which means roughly 12 hours of daylight all year long.

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/zodiac.htm

I was just reading this article the other day and what is striking to me when it comes to this particular question is this paragraph of the article.

"Some authors have linked the twelve tribes of Israel with the twelve signs of the zodiac. It is arguable that the large emphasis placed on Moses and the Israelites 'escape' from captivity is because it was at this very time (as it was later at the time of Christ), that the astrologers of the time were aware of a change in the precessionary clock (From the age of Taurus to the age of Aries) an event which would have been proclaimed with prophesies and predictions.

When Moses was said to have descended from mount Sinai with the ten commandments, some of his people or followers were found by him to be worshipping a golden bull calf. He instructed these false idol-worshippers to be killed. This is said to represent Moses "killing" the bull and ending the Age of Taurus, thus ushering in the Age of Aries."

I do wander if this philosophy could be the pre cursor to the very reasoning of Aries designation within context. Looking past subjective reasoning due to the actual experience of what is often taken for granted.

Muchacho, are you aware of the terms Cardinal and Fire that Tropical-astrologers apply to their Sign Aries? Those designations for Aries are my reasoning for starting the numbering at this Sign.

david starling said:

Muchacho, are you aware of the terms Cardinal and Fire that Tropical-astrologers apply to their Sign Aries? Those designations for Aries are my reasoning for starting the numbering at this Sign.

Click to expand...

Sure. They've got that in vedic astrology, too. They call them Kendra houses and the fiery houses are the (Dharma) Trikona houses. The Kendra houses are the most powerful houses and the Trikona houses are the most auspicious houses. Since the 1st house is both a Kendra as well as a Trikona house it is said to be the most important and most auspicious of all the houses.

muchacho said:

The daylight argument is as bogus as the seasonal argument.

Take a look at these charts:

a) temperate zone (northern hemisphere):

b) tropical zone (at the equator):

c) temperate zone (southern hemisphere):

So again, your theory only works for the northern hemisphere and not for the southern hemisphere where everything is in reverse. And although it would work for a larger area than the seasonal theory, it still doesn't work at the equator where the sun rises at around 6 am and sets at around 6 pm all year long which means roughly 12 hours of daylight all year long.

Click to expand...

Muchacho if you can't understand what I wrote before, I'm not gonna repeat the argument again and again.

However I'm still expecting your version of the story, which you still haven't presented.