|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
incanus_73
Registered User
Sep 23 2013, 3:23am
Post #1 of 26
(2263 views)
Shortcut
|
watching the hobbit: AUJ , (because today its bilbo an frodo´s birthday), i realize that eldron its not using his ring of power, why its that? (i know that he or the other two are not used in the war ring, but in the events of the hobbit there was no Sauron)
|
|
Attachments:
|
Vilya.jpg
(10.6 KB)
|
|
|
Elizabeth
Gondolin
Sep 23 2013, 7:58am
Post #2 of 26
(1746 views)
Shortcut
|
The Elven rings were not used for war or domination, but to preserve their realms. Rivendell looks to be in pretty good shape, to me.
|
|
|
Old Pilgrim
Ossiriand
Sep 23 2013, 8:52am
Post #3 of 26
(1713 views)
Shortcut
|
but I am eager to know if we will hear anything about Thror's Ring which was one of the Seven rings given to dwarves. It doesn't play so important role in the book but we know that it was taken from Thrain by Sauron while he was imprissoned in Dol Guldur. It would be interesting to hear something about it while Gandalf is investigating Dol Guldur.
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Dor-Lomin
Sep 23 2013, 11:24am
Post #4 of 26
(1643 views)
Shortcut
|
I expect Gandalf will guess who the Necromancer is...by his great interest in rings
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 23 2013, 12:51pm
Post #5 of 26
(1629 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do you mean he's not wearing it in any shots?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He's certainly not wearing it here...
http://i6.photobucket.com/...2/ElrondHobbit_1.jpg
...only the new ring from the Noble Collection:
http://www.noblecollection.com/...=NN1225&catid=91
But, of course, the three Elven rings were invisible to the eye unless the beholder was wearing a ring of power, thus only Frodo could see Nenya on Galadriel's finger in Lothlorien.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Gondolin
Sep 23 2013, 1:01pm
Post #6 of 26
(1588 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Indeed. And it is seen on Thror in Erebor in AUJ. Also, Saruman mentions The Seven
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in footage from the films that may be either a deleted scene, an extended scene, or a scene yet to be seen in one of the upcoming movies. but I am eager to know if we will hear anything about Thror's Ring which was one of the Seven rings given to dwarves. It doesn't play so important role in the book but we know that it was taken from Thrain by Sauron while he was imprissoned in Dol Guldur. It would be interesting to hear something about it while Gandalf is investigating Dol Guldur.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
DanielLB
Elvenhome
Sep 23 2013, 1:06pm
Post #7 of 26
(1577 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not sure it works like that in the films ...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Both Gandalf and Elrond are wearing their respective rings at the Grey Havens.
Though, I suppose you could say there's no need to hide them now that Sauron is destroyed. Or "loosing their power" means they loose their invisibility? It's a shame Sam was never in the Mirror of Galadriel scene ... then it might make the answer a little clearer (in the film universe).
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 23 2013, 1:37pm
Post #8 of 26
(1565 views)
Shortcut
|
it was mentioned that both Gandalf and Elrond were wearing their rings openly after the Fall of Sauron, so the movies did honour that.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 23 2013, 3:51pm
Post #9 of 26
(1518 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can see invisibility being an interpretation...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But, of course, the three Elven rings were invisible to the eye unless the beholder was wearing a ring of power, thus only Frodo could see Nenya on Galadriel's finger in Lothlorien.
... but not the only one. And technically I can't see invisibility, despite my subject line
As I interpret things the Three did not confer invisibility [JRRT, Letters], including to themselves [me, this post]. I think the wearers chose to wear the Three 'openly' after the destruction of the One yes, as we see at the Havens.
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 25 2013, 1:50pm
Post #10 of 26
(1391 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sam saw something: single star seemingly
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... thus only Frodo could see Nenya on Galadriel's finger in Lothlorien.
As I am bored at the moment, I must ramble on here 
Tolkien notes that the Three do not confer invisibility, and implies [at least] that invisibility is one of those powers more directly derived from Annatar/Sauron/Aulendil/whoeverhewas.
'The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. 'change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching 'magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron (...) such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible.'
The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility.' JRRT Letters
It seems odd to me that the Three, which are ultimate in potency but which Sauron had no hand in, were themselves invisible if they did not confer invisibility. Plus if you are Celebrimbor, you don't necessarily need to make these rings invisible, at least when you make them, as at this point Annatar seems a nice enough guy and would possibly make a good brother in law.
And what Jewel-smith wants to hide the Jewelry 
But okay I admit it: Sam doesn't seem to 'see' a ring. But he doesn't see nothing.
Strained or not, here's another take
Although Earendil was said to be bright enough that Galadriel cast a dim shadow, it was still dark, and Frodo sees the ring when the starlight glanced off Nenya. When Galadriel first lifted up her arms: 'Frodo gazed at the Ring with awe; for suddenly it seemed to him that he understood.' We don't know at this point that the Ring was necessarily invisible. Frodo doesn't suddenly see the Ring I think, but suddenly understands. I think this connects to Galadriel's question later.
The second time Galadriel lifts her hand the Ring issued a great light that illuminated her alone. Frodo does ask why he cannot: '... see all the others and know the thoughts of those that wear them' but even this isn't exactly 'simple sight' but perception as well. As Ringbearer his 'sight has grown keener' -- not his physical visual powers I think, but his ability to see that which is hidden from the perception of others.
But of course comes the issue of Sam: yet note Galadriel's question compared to what had been noted about Frodo suddenly understanding: 'And did you not see and recognize the ring upon my finger? Did you see my ring?' she asked, turning to Sam.'
Granted Galadriel doesn't say 'and recognize' to Sam as well, but I find it notable that 'and recognize' was added to a draft at some point, where the earlier text simply had 'see' for Frodo's question as well. Sam doesn't actually mention any ring of course, admittedly suggesting invisibility, but he did see something -- and to my mind something connected to what was actually going on too -- he saw 'a star through your [Galadriel's] fingers'.
Again that's something. But perhaps Sam would not 'see' the truth even if he had noticed an actual ring: he wasn't the Bearer of the One, and as a Hobbit in general is 'Halfwise' and simple (Sam already had said he didn't want 'to see no more magic' even). This would be quite like Tolkien in my opinion: a good way to illustrate perception would be to have Sam see something he thought was something else, and simply not understand what all this talk was about.
I'm not saying this is a clearly correct interpretation (especially if there is other text to consider on this point), but if Tolkien wants to keep invisibility in general out of the picture with respect to the Three, perhaps he would have explained this scene as being more about perception than simply visual recognition of a ring.
Maybe I would make a poor detective here, but upon meeting people and talking with them (for a while even), I wouldn't necessarily be sure, an hour later or whatever, whether or not they were wearing any rings, unless it's made notable for some reason. It seems odd that Sam didn't actually see any Ring, and odd too that he should say he wondered what they were talking about, as Galadriel simply states she is wearing Nenya! Even if Sam hadn't noticed an actual ring, Galadriel's meaning should be plain enough.
Still, I note what occurs after Sam's vision. Sam was notably upset by what he saw in the mirror, and we don't know how attentive he was being after his experience -- and we can 'see' in his answer to Galadriel that his mind is (at least arguably) still on home after Frodo's vision and conversation -- wishing Galadriel would take the One and stop 'them digging up the gaffer' and so on.
Boiled down it's a combination of light, Sam being distracted by his vision and perhaps not even caring to understand (at least at the moment) what Frodo perceived.
It's just a possible interpretation I think, but not 'bullet proof' admittedly.
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 25 2013, 6:56pm
Post #11 of 26
(1345 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I did not mean to imply that the three Elven rings had the power...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
to confer invisibility, or indeed were able to become invisible themselves....rather that it was a precaution taken by the wearer. But I admit I was going by memory, and hadn't checked the text. Initially, in the Second Age, the Rings had to be kept hidden from Sauron but once the Ruling Ring was lost then of course the need for concealment was removed. It was only Gandalf who kept his ownership of Narya secret, I believe, though it was known naturally to Galadriel and Elrond ring be at least, and also Saruman who had perceived the gift from Cirdan and it was said to be the primary cause of his jealousy of Gandalf, following close on the words of Manwe that Gandalf should also be sent to M-e ",last, but not as the least"
As to Sam, Nenya was described as possessing a radiance that matches that of the stars; I think that Sam simply saw the brilliance of the gem - he may, as you have said, been addle enough not to realize it was a jewel reflecting rather than a star, but my guess is that the Professor was trying to show that Sam only saw a sparkling ring whilst Frodo knew Nenya for what it truly was...
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Sep 25 2013, 7:12pm
Post #12 of 26
(1340 views)
Shortcut
|
|
According to Gandalf, the 3 rings do have the power to confer invisibility
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At least to mortals:
‘In Eregion long ago many Elven-rings were made, magic rings as you call them, and they were, of course, of various kinds: some more potent and some less. The lesser rings were only essays in the craft before it was full-grown, and to the Elven-smiths they were but trifles – yet still to my mind dangerous for mortals. But the Great Rings, the Rings of Power, they were perilous.
‘A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues, until at last every minute is a weariness. And if he often uses the Ring to make himself invisible, he fades: he becomes in the end invisible permanently, and walks in the twilight under the eye of the dark power that rules the Rings.
Needless to say, the 3 were among the Great Rings, the Rings of Power. Thus, a mortal who wore one made himself invisible.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 25 2013, 8:34pm
Post #13 of 26
(1315 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Perhaps your reply should have been to Elthir,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
who has gone to great lengths to make a case against their conferring invisibility...
My impression, as I have stated, as borne out by the text in The Mirror of Galadriel" was that only Frodo as a fellow ring-bearer could perceive Nenya being worn - but one could say he hadn't noticed it until Galadriel drew his attention to it. So...was the ring invisible because Galadriel willed it, or because it was a property of the ring?
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Sep 25 2013, 8:58pm
Post #14 of 26
(1311 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No, I was replying to your statement
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"I did not mean to imply that the three Elven rings had the power to confer invisibility ... ."
As for Elthir's somewhat out of context quotation from the Letters that the Three did not confer invisibility, (from Letter 131, though that is not specified), if you take the statement in context, what it really says is "the Three did not confer invisibility on mortals ... until Sauron created the One." Of course, none of the Three would ever have been touched by a mortal, so it is a moot point.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 25 2013, 9:52pm
Post #15 of 26
(1306 views)
Shortcut
|
And I stand by my original comment ...I don't know why Elthir chose to bring up this point, because the question of the wearer becoming invisible had not come into the discussion, and as you say, it is only relevant to mortals. The question I was discussing was whether the Elven rings were hidden from mortal sight through an inherent property or through the will/power of the wearer.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
(This post was edited by Eleniel on Sep 25 2013, 9:54pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 25 2013, 10:12pm
Post #16 of 26
(1298 views)
Shortcut
|
|
good citation from Fellowship Voronwe
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll respond to it later but first...
As for Elthir's somewhat out of context quotation from the Letters that the Three did not confer invisibility, (from Letter 131, though that is not specified), if you take the statement in context, what it really says is "the Three did not confer invisibility on mortals ... until Sauron created the One." Of course, none of the Three would ever have been touched by a mortal, so it is a moot point.
Hmm, although I didn't provide the letter number [apologies] I don't think I presented the information as skewed because of lack of context.
If I did I didn't mean to.
Thus, can you explain a bit more please: what context leads to your statement here?
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Sep 25 2013, 10:24pm
Post #17 of 26
(1301 views)
Shortcut
|
can you explain a bit more please: what context leads to your statement here?
The statement about the Three, "they did not confer invisibility" taken by itself would seem to confirm that, well, the Three did not confer invisibility. But if you take that in the full context of the discussion in the letter, in which it is stated that other properties of the Rings of Power, including "rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible" are attributable to Sauron, and that "Sauron made One Ring, the Ruling Ring that contained the powers of all the others, and controlled them" and most of all in conjunction with what is stated in the actual book published by Tolkien in which it is stated explicitly that all of the Great Rings render mortals invisible, the only possible conclusion (at least to me) is that what he really meant to say in that statement was that the Three did not confer invisibility ... until Sauron created the One and took control over the Rings of Power, at which point they would have rendered mortals invisible.
At least that is how I see it.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Eleniel
Dor-Lomin
Sep 26 2013, 12:31pm
Post #19 of 26
(1274 views)
Shortcut
|
Sorry, just realized the second Elrond link got corrupted - needs to lose the "y" off the end!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/...en/6/69/Elrond11.jpg
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 26 2013, 1:33pm
Post #20 of 26
(1275 views)
Shortcut
|
The statement about the Three, "they did not confer invisibility" taken by itself would seem to confirm that, well, the Three did not confer invisibility. But if you take that in the full context of the discussion in the letter, in which it is stated that other properties of the Rings of Power, including "rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible" are attributable to Sauron, and that "Sauron made One Ring, the Ruling Ring that contained the powers of all the others, and controlled them"...
Well I do take into consideration the full context of these things. As you say here, the implication is that the invisibility connected to the Rings of Power is derived from Sauron. This information comes before the explanation about the Three, but if I were to inject what I know from other sources, Sauron was not involved in the making of the Three, his hand never touched them -- this agrees well with invisibility power not connected to the Three.
So Tolkien here departs from his larger description of the mythic history to explain about Ring Power in general, then he goes on [new paragrah] to describe the Three, and to also continue his 'history lesson' for Milton Waldman...
'The Elves of Eregion made Three supremely beautiful and powerful rings, almost solely of their own imagination, and directed to the preservation of beauty: they did not confer invisibility. But secretly in the subterranean Fire, in his own Black Land, Sauron made the One Ring, the Ruling Ring that contained the powers of all the others, and controlled them, so that its wearer could see the thoughts of all those that used the lesser rings, could govern all that they did, and in the end could utterly enslave them. The moment he assumed the One, they were aware of it...'
I don't see how this much leads to your statement that "the Three did not confer invisibility on mortals ... until Sauron created the One." I see nothing here that qualifies or alters this rather direct description of the Three [which was not qualified with 'originally confer' or 'on mortals' for example], because Sauron crafted the One. Sauron crafts the One: it contains the powers of the others [not changes the power of the Three], and controlled them. Sauron assumes the One, the Elves become aware of it... onward with the history.
... and most of all in conjunction with what is stated in the actual book published by Tolkien in which it is stated explicitly that all of the Great Rings render mortals invisible, the only possible conclusion (at least to me) is that what he really meant to say in that statement was that the Three did not confer invisibility ... until Sauron created the One and took control over the Rings of Power, at which point they would have rendered mortals invisible.
I think you mean 'entirely in conjunction'
But my poor jokes aside, 'most of all in conjunction' is looking at other context Voronwe, but you implied [in my opinion], whether intended or not, that I had left something out of letter 131 which possibly skewed the intended meaning. Obviously you are entitled to your interpretation of what you think Tolkien 'really meant to say' in this letter, based largely in conjunction with something else, but that something else is not the context of letter 131.
More in my response to the Fellowship quote
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 26 2013, 1:39pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 26 2013, 2:00pm
Post #21 of 26
(1266 views)
Shortcut
|
And I stand by my original comment ...I don't know why Elthir chose to bring up this point, because the question of the wearer becoming invisible had not come into the discussion, and as you say, it is only relevant to mortals. The question I was discussing was whether the Elven rings were hidden from mortal sight through an inherent property or through the will/power of the wearer.
I responded originally because you posted: 'But, of course, the three Elven rings were invisible to the eye unless the beholder was wearing a ring of power, thus only Frodo could see Nenya on Galadriel's finger in Lothlorien.'
And I don't agree that [necessarily anyway] only Frodo could see Nenya, and I explained why. I added that the Three do not 'confer' invisibility upon themselves, which is a silly way to say that [I think] they are not necessarily invisible to the eye in general.
And if we are talking about an inherent property, as you say here, then whether or not the Three grant any power to the wearer to make something invisible, or confer invisibility in any way, seems related enough.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 26 2013, 2:02pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 26 2013, 4:25pm
Post #22 of 26
(1278 views)
Shortcut
|
According to Gandalf, the 3 rings do have the power to confer invisibility (... quote from Fellowship...)
As I said, good quote, but this to me is kind of like the 'problem' of Aragorn stating that the Dark Lord does not permit the name Sauron to be spoken, then it is spoken later in the book. Mistake? But a digression from Aragorn at this point -- that Sauron does not permit his name to be spelled or spoken except in certain scenarios -- is not helpful here. Even 'spoken' is hardly on topic considering he is dealing with a rune, but a general truth that supports Aragorn's point.
His point being that the S-rune does not stand for 'Sauron' -- that is the important matter at hand: these are Saruman's orcs.
One doesn't always need to digress about exceptions when a character in a tale is speaking and is generally correct. Of course there is something to be said about an author imparting information to the reader too, but still...
... Gandalf knows that Frodo's ring does make him invisible -- the salient point for the Hobbit to realize. That the Three don't confer invisibility is, for now, not really the point of this paragraph, it's about using the Ring to turn invisible, and fading. Internally Gandalf knows that Frodo doesn't have one of the Three, and externally the reader has yet [with respect to your citation] to read the 'Ring Poem' even [a couple pages after, if I remember correctly, Gandalf starts to refer to the Three, Seven, and Nine].
That all said, good citation still. And I agree, the Three are to be considered among the Great Rings, so one can argue that they too should confer invisibility to mortals. That is the implication by putting two and two together, and you can say something like what I said to you about letter 131: that there is nothing here that qualifies 'except the Three' along with a natural enough conclusion concerning the Great Rings.
As I'm implying, it's not that great a problem for me to see Gandalf's statement as generally true, and thus accept the idea [as I see it] in the letter, but on the other, other hand [three hands or something], your explanation is author-published compared to a letter.
It might be that Tolkien later decided that invisibility should be a Sauron-connected power, while Celebrimbor sought to make Three of special potency in preservation power, leaving invisibility out.
Leave out the 'Sauron ingredient' in baking and cakes always taste sweeter. Whatever that means
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 26 2013, 4:33pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Sep 26 2013, 5:20pm
Post #23 of 26
(1246 views)
Shortcut
|
|
'Poor jokes' can sometimes just come across as rudeness
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just something to consider when engaging in discussions like this.
In any event, the content of the work that an author is discussing in a letter or other outside statement IS the main context of the statement. I don't understand how that can even be in question.
As for your other post, I'm afraid that also doesn't make any sense to me. There is nothing in The Lord of the Rings that in any way contradicts Gandalf's unambiguous statement that the Great Rings render mortals invisible. So the comparison to Aragorn stating that Sauron doesn't allow his real name to be used doesn't have any relevance. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't even follow what it is that you are saying, so I can't really comment on the rest of your post.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Elthir
Hithlum
Sep 26 2013, 5:48pm
Post #24 of 26
(1238 views)
Shortcut
|
Just something to consider when engaging in discussions like this.
I did consider it -- that's why I added that it was just a 'poor joke' and a 'smiley' so you would know [I hoped] that I didn't mean to be rude.
In any event, the content of the work that an author is discussing in a letter or other outside statement IS the main context of the statement. I don't understand how that can even be in question.
Voronwe, you implied I had left out important context with respect to letter 131, then you admitted that you were injecting other statements to interpret what you think Tolkien 'really meant to say' in letter 131.
As if you agree he didn't say it in the letter! Or at least say it well or clearly.
You see the distinction I assume, compared to what you just posted here. All you had to say earlier was that you interpret letter 131 in light of the quote from Fellowship, not imply that I had given an out of context [and thus misleading] citation from letter 131 itself.
As for your other post, I'm afraid that also doesn't make any sense to me. There is nothing in The Lord of the Rings that in any way contradicts Gandalf's unambiguous statement that the Great Rings render mortals invisible. So the comparison to Aragorn stating that Sauron doesn't allow his real name to be used doesn't have any relevance. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't even follow what it is that you are saying, so I can't really comment on the rest of your post.
It's rather easy: Gandalf is correct that the Great Rings confer invisibility, generally speaking, because many of them do -- and he likewise knows that the Three not conferring invisibility [if we accept the direct statement in letter 131 as true] has little to no relevance to Frodo about invisibility and fading.
When you speak do you always consider every possible 'exception' to what you are saying, and make sure to include it, even if the point is driven home in any case?
I'm guessing Aragorn, had he really had time to think about it, could have imagined that Sauron might permit his ambassador to speak the name 'Sauron', but his point was true enough.
Thus the Aragorn comparison. It seemed somewhat in the same general arena, I thought
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 26 2013, 5:57pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Sep 26 2013, 6:18pm
Post #25 of 26
(1223 views)
Shortcut
|
Voronwe, you implied I had left out important context with respect to letter 131
No, I didn't. I said that you were taking the statement out of context, and then I explained what the context was.
I'm afraid that the way you look at things is too foreign to the way that I do for us to have a productive discussion, so I will leave it that.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
|
|
1
