Comparing concept of god in hobbes and aristotle

Aristotle

The leadership of the Leviathan, or, the ‘mortal god’, is actually a central motif in Thomas Hobbes’ assumptive masterpiece, The Leviathan. Practically, the word Leviathan comes from the Hebrew phrase livyathan, which etymologically means “to wind flow, turn, twist”[1]. In biblical tradition, it identifies the “dragon, serpent, huge sea animal”[2] in the book of Job. Leviathan, a textual content written inside the 17th 100 years CE, suggests a conceptual political structure designed to achieve an ideal authority that best suits human nature. Through his famous notion from the hypothetical individual State of Nature, Hobbes rationally constructs that the best government guidelines like a fatidico god. Various other political theorists, such as Aristotle (4th hundred years BCE) and Machiavelli (15th and sixteenth century CE), have developed their particular conceptions of human nature and the ideal politics realm ideal for it. Particularly, the views of Aristotle in Governmental policies, and Machiavelli in The Prince and The Discourses compare and contrast with Hobbes’ proposed political job. Although there a few commonalities inside their understandings of human nature and political power, Machiavelli and Aristotle’s proposed authorities largely conflict with Hobbes’ conceptual Leviathan, because of the differing desired goals each theorist means to obtain through their very own respective sovereigns. This comparative analysis will certainly explore the views of Hobbes, Machiavelli and Aristotle on the human nature, the power of the regulating sovereign, the utilization of religion in politics, plus the overall goals that each philosopher means to achieve.

In order to hypothetically create the hegemonic leadership of 1 sovereign with unmatched electricity, Hobbes initially discusses human nature in the Leviathan. The purpose of an all-powerful power is achieve “peace and common defence” (Leviathan, component 2, ch. 17), in support of through learning the desires and aggressions of man is the establishment of peace possible. An aspect of human nature that is certainly essential to Hobbes in developing a Leviathan is equality ” human beings are, more or less, equally susceptible and evenly dangerous ” as he points out, “Nature hath made men so equal in the performance of body and mind as that, though presently there be found a single man at times manifestly better in body or of quicker head than another¦ the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by key machination or perhaps by confederacy with others that are in the same hazard with himself” (Leviathan, portion 1, ch. 13). As a result, humans will be roughly equivalent in their potential danger to one another, rendering features such as grow older, gender, and race irrelevant in Hobbes’ State of Nature.

Later in the Leviathan, Hobbes argues that because of this equality, all guys in the hypothetical State of Nature need to unvaryingly fill in to the conditions of serenity with each other, when he concludes, “If nature as a result have made guys equal, that equality is usually to be acknowledged: or perhaps if nature have made men unequal, yet because guys that believe themselves equal will not enter conditions of peace, yet upon equal terms, this sort of equality has to be admitted ¦ every gentleman acknowledge one more for his equal by nature” (Leviathan, part 1, ch. 15). Only through entering in peaceful conditions equally may a community quit the persistent State of Nature and move towards establishment of any Leviathan. Consequently , through this kind of reasoning, Hobbes believes the equality of man in nature is critical in establishing the full sovereign coin.

Aristotle, however , does not believe that mankind is equivalent by nature. Initially, it is important to know that Aristotle views individuals as political creatures meant for city life, but we have a difference in status in the Aristotelian conceiving of contemporary society. Instead of deducing his argument through the weaknesses of person on the communal scale just like Hobbes’ State of Mother nature, Aristotle in Politics creates a system of authority within the most basic societal unit: the family unit. The household is known as a fundamental component of the stapas, as Aristotle explains, “we must consider the managing of the household, for every city is composed of household” (Politics, Book 1, Component B, 1253b1). Without insuring the proper managing of arouse, rouse, stimulate and inanimate property, a man’s active participation inside the political a lot more not possible, as a man’s home must 1st be in comparative order. Here, Aristotle creates the hierarchy of the finish household, which in turn “consists of slaves and freemen” (Politics, Book one particular, Part N, 1253b1), each of which obviously incline to slavery or perhaps mastery. National politics argues that nature picks one or the other in slavery, “It is natural intention also to set up a physical big difference between the bodies of freemen and those of the slaves, providing the latter durability for the menial tasks of life, but making the former vertical in carriage and¦ useful for the various functions of social life” (Politics, Book you, Part W, 1254b27). Consequently, Aristotle feels that character pushes slaves to pursue physical responsibilities in repair of the home’s property, and freeborn masters are obviously inclined to have a political lifestyle and manage their affairs affectively.

Moreover, this individual views freeborn males while superior to freeborn females, as he states, “the relation of male to female is naturally that of the superior to the inferior, of the ruling to the ruled. This general principle must likewise hold great of all human beings generally” (Politics, Book 1, Part M, 1254b13). His reasoning behind the inferiority of females is their particular alleged natural lack of priority and prudence, making females unable to enter the political your life, despite all their mental teachers of deliberation (Politics, Book 1, Portion B, 1260a12). In this process, however , Aristotle erects a girl freeborn master in the household to secret over kids and slaves when the freeborn male is definitely not present. Therefore , it can be correct to say that Aristotle views humans in a structure that nature intends and inclines the human race towards, and disagrees with Hobbes’ basic equality coming from all humanity.

Interestingly, Hobbes responds in disagreement to Aristotle’s separating of freeborn men and slaves. This individual writes, “Aristotle in the initial book of his Politics, for a first step toward his doctrine, maketh guys by nature, a few worthy to command¦ other folks to serve¦ as learn and servant were not launched by approval of males, but by difference of wit, that is not only against reason, although also against experience. Intended for there are few so unreasonable that had not rather control themselves than be governed by others” (Leviathan, part 1, section 15). In this article, Hobbes points out that nevertheless Aristotle states that freeborn men and slaves are very different by nature, the concept slaves would submit to masters by way of a own agreement is “foolish” and unrealistic. The Leviathan contends that humans happen to be self-interested, and thus, would naturally fight to serve themselves rather than give in to other guys.

Machiavelli’s views on being human somewhat agree with Hobbes’, nevertheless they still have one of a kind differences. Machiavelli, too, argues in the Prince that humans are self-interested creatures, by simply stating “For one can generally say this kind of about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, carried away for gain¦ when it [danger] comes closer to to you, that they turn away. inches (The Royal prince, ch. seventeen, pp. 131) Here, he explains that although it is great for a Knight in shining armor to be adored and dreaded by his subjects, men are finally selfish and self-interested, and will go against the Prince if he is decreasing in numbers. However , Machiavelli views man civilizations as one that is constantly in a pattern, where societies ultimately alter and progress throughout time, both favorably or adversely (The Discourses, ch. 2, pp. 179) ” therefore, human contemporary society is capable of progressing or perhaps degrading while the cycle continues, and is not once and for all frozen, neither completely open-ended.

A crucial keystone, additionally, in Machiavellian theory may be the role of Fortune (sometimes translated while ‘Fortuna’) in one’s politics life. Bundle of money is a theoretical goddess Machiavelli introduces inside the Prince who may have the ability trigger the go up and land of commanders by her will. The lady favours fresh, aggressive risk-takers in the personal realm, because the Knight in shining armor explains “she more often permits herself to be taken over simply by men who also are impetuous than by simply those who produce cold advances, and then, as being a woman, she actually is always the friend of young men, because are less careful, more aggressive” (The Royal prince, chapter twenty-five, pp. 162). Accordingly, Good fortune gives capacity to those who fascination her through hasty, strong courage. Her power above men is definitely inordinate, while she “is the arbiter of one half of our actions” (The Prince, chapter twenty-five, pp. 159), but her actions are not wholly randomly, as she allows men to defeat her in to submission and command her with spirit if your woman allows that (The Knight in shining armor, chapter twenty-five, pp. 162). An extensive example Machiavelli gives to demonstrate the potency of Fortune can be found in the life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, who was led to become a conqueror and accomplish glory in a great armed forces project. By chance (or Fortune), Castruccio’s life was saved repeatedly and his success grew, right up until Fortune chose to cause him to fail at the end of his life. “But Fortune, inhospitable to his glory, required his lifestyle away from him instead of giving it to him ” this interrupted all those plans that Castruccio experienced intended to carry out for a long time, ideas that only death could have averted him by carrying out” (The Existence of Castruccio Castracani, pp. 539). Immediately, Castruccio was killed with a cold cool off and substantial fever at the height of his military success, rendering his programs only to lament. This factor, therefore , displays that Fortune plays a significant role in Machiavelli’s human nature and the climb and land of market leaders, an element that is certainly non-existent in the works of Hobbes.

By creating a standard pertaining to human nature plus the general equal rights of guy, Hobbes can launch his Leviathan: a single sovereign that rules such as a mortal our god. Because of the relentlessness of the Condition of Character, Hobbes points out, the only way for any community to get rid of the conflict of all against all is by mutual agreement ” through disarming guns and erecting natural laws ” to not damage one another. They do this out of “foresight that belongs to them preservation” (The Leviathan, component 2, ch. 17), because without prevalent accord, the State of Nature would simply continue never endingly. Thus, those surrender a selection of their liberties into a sovereign to insure mutual peace to get the greater great, as Hobbes explains “The only approach to set up such one common power, while may be able to guard them in the invasion of foreigners, as well as the injuries of one another¦ to confer all of their power and strength upon one gentleman, or after one assembly of males, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will” (The Leviathan, part 2, ch. 17). This excerpt is definitely significant, as it demonstrates how men should be give all their liberties to a single sovereign, if possible one guy, to protect a residential area from by itself and others. Like so , Hobbes’ mortal god is created, while equitably precarious men evenly confer power to establish the Leviathan obviously, for the purpose of creating order. The manufactured strength of this sovereign is unchallenged, as Hobbes continues, “one person, of whose acts a great multitude¦ to the end he may utilize strength and means of them as he shall think expedient for their peacefulness and common defence” (The Leviathan, part 2, ch. 17). Consequently , the sovereign focuses the potency of all to a singular authority responsible for maintaining peace.

The concept of a sovereign jointly man, or possibly a body of men, is definitely not peculiar to Aristotle in his Politics. In his renowned typology, Aristotle identifies a constitutional polis can be ruled by either three valid authorities, or perhaps the corrupted variations these 3 respectively. “The civic human body in every metropolis is the sovereign, and the sovereign must actually be both, or Couple of, or Various ¦ [if they] guideline with a view for the common interest, the composition under that they can do so need to necessarily become right constitutions” (Politics, Book 3, Component 7, 1279a25). Here, this individual argues that the polis could be governed possibly by a person, a group of individuals, or the many ” either way, if the full sovereign coin governs with the intention to the community, then a city’s cosmetic is innately good. In this respect, Aristotle will abide by The Leviathan’s mortal goodness, as the Hobbesian power rules by the consent of those unfortunate for the sake of peace, a quality that is certainly in the community’s best self-interest for safety and durability. A Leviathan, then, is usually not a tyrant, but rather, he could be a king. Aristotle goes on to say that though a singular monarchy, which The Leviathan inclines to but will not necessitate, is definitely an ideal type of governance, it is not the most suitable kind of government in a densely booming city, “it is possible for one man, or possibly a few, being of outstanding excellence, but when it comes to individuals, we can barely expect finely-detailed in all the kinds of excellence. inches (Politics, Publication 3, Part 7, 1279a25) In context, Aristotle purports that it is hard for one or few guys to be spectacular in all features in the midst of a big group of men. Aristotle also argues a singular monarchy is a primitive power not really found in contemporary politics, when he says, “Kingships do not take place nowadays and any federal government of that type which emerges today is known as a personal government or tyranny. ” (Politics, Book your five, Part 10, 1312b38). Therefore , he sights kingship as being a governmental contact form best fit intended for smaller or perhaps pre-modern communities, while Hobbes’ State of Nature will not specify a size for that community, nor time period, and therefore, a singular sovereign is recommended for all neighborhoods in Hobbesian theory.

Aristotle really does present his own types of epitome regulators for the polis defined in his National politics. The best sort of government, he says, is a great aristocracy, “among forms of government by a few people (but more than one) it truly is called Aristocracy ” the name getting given to this species both because the best are the rulers, or mainly because its thing is what is great for the city as well as members” (Politics, Book three or more, Part several, 1279a25). Hence, as Aristotle exclaims, aristocracy is best when ever ruled by those with independence, property, and merit (Politics, Book several, Part being unfaithful, 12781a2), as it is the governance of the best (aristoi). The most applicable authority, even though, according to Aristotle, is definitely polity, also called the blended regime, mainly because it the most sensible system. Polity is the secret of the midsection class of citizens, whom ideally could form the most a large polis, as Aristotle explains, “the best sort of political association is one particular where electrical power is vested in the middle class, and, subsequently, that good government is obtainable in all those cities high is a significant middle category ¦ enough to be more powerful than either of them singly¦ [it] will prevent either of the opposing extremes from turning into dominant. inches (Politics, Book 4, 1295b34) Meaning, the center class’ common sense would be the least extreme in comparison to the contentious abundant and poor, while still including a the greater part or significant minority of the polis in the ruling method. This brilliance of the central class can be preferred by Aristotle, due to his perception that the “over-wealthy” and “over-poor” are conceited and small respectively (Politics, Book four, 1294a34).

This is highly relevant to consider when you compare Aristotle to Hobbes dedicated to authoritarian rule, because Aristotle’s theory is made up of both a societal structure and a division of classes, while in Hobbes’ Condition of Mother nature, these dissections do not are present. A complete parallel, then, between the two principles of specialist is difficult. However , mainly because it has been proven above, the sovereign in Aristotle’s stapas (whether that be a ruler, aristocracy, or perhaps polity) provides complete expert when offering the common good, much just like Hobbes’ persona god. Consequently , the two theorists have points of similarity and points of distinction. Machiavelli, however, believes a single Knight in shining armor is best for a nation in need of unity and direction. He argues that political regulators can be split up into two main categories: principalities, which include the command of a sole sovereign, and republics, which in turn entails rule by residents.

The Prince can be dedicated to Royal prince Lorenzo, and therefore, the focus of the work is definitely on principalities, and how they may be to succeed (The Prince, ch. 2 pp. 79). By a period of friction among a place’s peoples, like Italy by Machiavelli’s time, or at a time of international domination, a Prince is necessary in appropriating power and establishing a principality, in accordance with the examples of Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus throughout the Knight in shining armor, who, if they happen to have been south florida, they “could not have built their institutions long respected” (The Prince, ch. six, pp. 95). Specifically, a Prince must be proficient in the use of violence, since Machiavelli talks about, “if they are really forced to plead or are able to use electricity in conducting affairs¦ In the first case, they always end up terribly and never accomplish anything, nevertheless they rely on their own assets and can employ power, in that case only seldom do that they find themselves in peril. From this comes the fact that all armed prophets were successful and the disarmed came to ruin” (The Prince, ch. 6th, pp. 94-95). Meaning, every who try to seize power through entirely peaceful means and plea have failed, and therefore, a Prince need to use violence when it is required.

Regarding Hobbes, Machiavelli’s Prince offers supreme expert (like a mortal god) once this individual seizes that, but we have a difference in how the full sovereign coin attains this power. It is not necessarily at the relaxing consent from the people, yet instead, through coercion and good Fortune. Nevertheless , principality pertaining to Machiavelli can be described as means for the eventual establishment of a republic, and he expands about this idea inside the Discourses. The singular Royal prince is successful as long as he programs to fulfill the political job of creating law-abiding and law-creating citizens, and therefore, a republic: “one person alone¦ a prudent founder of a republic, one in whose intention you should govern pertaining to the common great and not in his own interest, not for his heirs but also for the reason of the fatherland, should try to achieve the authority almost all to him self, nor can a wise brain ever reproach anyone for a few extraordinary action performed to be able to found a kingdom or institute a republic. inch (The Discourses, ch. being unfaithful, pp. 200) This essential passage elucidates that even though the Prince is definitely an individual with extraordinary power, the ideal reason for his rule is to identified a republic, for the good of his nation, rather than be been successful hereditarily. Inside the same part, Hobbes cites Romulus’ getting rid of of his brother Remus, and his friend Tatius, and justifies, “It is, certainly, fitting that even though the action accuses him, the result reasons him, so when this effect is good, when it was with Romulus, it will always excuse him” (The Discourses, ch. on the lookout for, pp. 200-201). Thus, the killing away from other commanders in the principalities was required in the business of one sovereign, and later, the Roman republic. Therefore , even though the Prince and the Leviathan equally hold unparalleled authority and rule just like mortal gods, the purpose of the Prince’s power in Machiavelli is to create republican rule, while Hobbes’ Leviathan exists to ensure peace.

In creating his Leviathan, Hobbes widely addresses the difficulties revolving faith, its difficulties, and its usages, as he states that religion can be a essential pawn of a sovereign. Hobbes sees religious beliefs as some thing unique to mankind, and believes that the eminent amount of religiosity cannot be found in various other creatures (The Leviathan, part 1, ch. 7). Firstly, he is crystal clear in saying one will not, in full reality, know what the true religion is usually, as he creates “men not being aware of that these kinds of apparitions are nothing else nevertheless creatures of the fancy, want to be actual and exterior substances, and therefore call all of them ghosts¦ the opinion that such mood were incorporeal, or immaterial, could hardly ever enter into the mind of any man simply by nature” (The Leviathan, component 1, ch. 7). Hence, Hobbes explains that interaction with the spiritual realm can be contradictory, because spirits themselves (such because God) will be infinite, and so, incomprehensible to one’s understanding.

Second, the Leviathan argues that religion have been used to mobilize leadership and perpetuate loyalties. He says, “But both sorts have done this with a purpose to make those men that relied with them the more more likely to obedience, laws, peace, charity, and municipal society. So the religion of the former form is a part of human governmental policies, and teacheth part of the work which earthly kings need of their subject matter. ” (The Leviathan, portion 1, ch. 7) Which means, both “true” and “false” religions make men more submissive into a human religious authority believed to be a representative of gods, nymphs, or spirits. Finally, Hobbes argues the use of religious beliefs had been essential in the creation of Commonwealths, as he contends, “And by these, and so on other organizations, they attained in order to their end, that has been the tranquility of the Commonwealth, that the common ¦ had been the fewer apt to mutiny against their particular governors”. Consequently , through the corporations of religion, that Hobbes says Numa, the founder of Peru, and Mahomet acquired used, peacefulness had been attained, and risk of rebellion against religious sovereigns have been minimized.

Consequently, Hobbes believes that while religion offers its risks and superstitions, it can be a vital keystone inside the creation of your Leviathan with solid authority through spiritual institution. Aristotle’s view on religion is rather than an instrumental aspect to his political theory, but nonetheless, he identifies the function of religion inside the city, and also its wrong use as a personal tool. In Book 6 of his Politics, Aristotle produces a list of six vital offices necessary for a functional metropolis, and they include “the features connected with public worship, military matters, earnings and expenditure, the market-place, the city center, the harbours, and the countryside” (Politics, Publication 6, Portion 8, 1322b29). The faith of the metropolis, then, turns into one of its essential offices build for the spiritual life of the people. He repeats the relevance of establishing a spiritual body inside the polis once again in Book 7, when he writes, “The fifth (but really first) is a great establishment intended for the service of the gods, or, since it is called, public worship. inches (Politics, Book 7, Component 8, 1328b2) However , despite Hobbes, Aristotle does not need the use of religious beliefs for the sovereign human body of the polis in Governmental policies, despite the function in the city. Instead, he notoriously identifies the use of religion as a way for tyrants to maintain power, “He should show a particular zeal inside the cult with the gods. Individuals are less afraid of being cured unjustly by those of this sort, that is in the event they think that the ruler is usually god-fearing and pays a lot of regard for the gods, and perhaps they are less willing to conspire against him, if perhaps they think that the gods themselves are his friends. ” (Politics, Book 5, Component 11, 1314b35) Hence, in tyranny, Aristotle’s negative kind of singular rule, religion is utilized as a application for the sovereign to look godly, preventing insurrection against his corrupt rule. Consequently , both Aristotle and Hobbes are in agreement that religion may be used to mould communal loyalty into a sovereign, but disagree for the legitimacy of the tactic.

In Machiavelli’s Prince and Discourses, a sovereign’s make use of religion is important for the achievements of his community. Of Machiavelli’s four most suitable men, Moses was the initially mentioned, as the lawmaker in Judeo-Christian canon. This individual explains, “It was important, therefore , to Moses that he should find the folks of His home country of israel in Egypt enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians, in order that they should be disposed to follow him and break free this servitude¦ These possibilities, therefore , made these men successful, and their outstanding ingenuity manufactured that chance known to all of them, whereby all their nations had been ennobled and became prosperous” (The Prince, ch. 6, pp. 93) The biblical Moses had led the Israelite exodus from Egypt, a new system of regulations and traditions, and sown the seed products of a free of charge people, all in the identity of religion, and Machiavelli below acknowledges that. Contrary to priestly religious characters, Moses acquired utilized assault and intimidation, and successfully built a nation and religion ” such are vital characteristics for Machiavelli’s Prince. Additionally, in his Discourses, Machiavelli provides example of Em uma Pompilius, the successor to Romulus, selected by the Both roman republic. Curiously, Numa was also the founder with the Roman republic’s religion, 1 with manifest similarities to Greek mythology. The Discourses continue, “Numa found the Roman people most undisciplined, and since he wanted to bring them to municipal obedience by means of the arts of peace, this individual turned to religious beliefs as a truly necessary organization for the maintenance of a social government¦ for many centuries never was presently there more anxiety about God within that republic” (The Discourses, ch. eleven, pp. 207). Accordingly, Machiavelli praises Em uma for taming the unruly (and potentially dangerous, pp. 208) behavior of his people throughout the institution of faith, and for that reason, this individual argued that Rome was more indebted to Numa (The Discourses, ch. 14, pp. 208). Even inside the Prince, Machiavelli argues that a sovereign need to appear to be religious rather than against religion (The Prince, ch. 18, pp. 135). Consequently , Machiavelli is in agreement together with the Hobbesian point of view that the sovereign mortal our god would use religion to regulate and guide the people into order.

Finally, the differing desired goals Hobbes, Aristotle, and Machiavelli impose on the sovereigns are very important to consider, as they shed their disputes analyzed above. For Hobbes, the actual purpose of his Leviathan is the establishment of peace. Throughout the equal and common permission of all human beings in the State of Character, a Leviathan is created, because Hobbes notoriously states, “This is the generation of that superb LEVIATHAN, to be more exact, to speak more reverently, of these mortal god to which we owe, beneath the immortal The almighty, our peace and defence” (The Leviathan, part two, ch. 17). Thus, a person mortal, who may be empowered by the people, guidelines with the power of a divine god, because of their protection plus the maintenance of tranquility. As soon as the Leviathan’s interest secedes from that in the Commonwealth, he is to be replaced. On the other hand, the objective of Aristotle’s great government, whether it be the preferred nobility or the sensible polity, is usually to accentuate and maximize your potential (telos). He argues that just like an acorn has the telos to become an oak shrub, human beings, who have are normally political creatures, can live the good life as residents. “The purpose of the city is definitely the good your life, and these institutions happen to be means to that end. A city is constituted by the relationship of households and villages in a excellent and self-sufficing existence, and such an existence, on each of our definition, is made up in living a happy and truly useful life. inches (Politics, Publication 3, Portion 9, 1280b29) Therefore , the purpose of the city plus the leadership thereof is to improvement citizens and rule inside their best interest.

Lastly, the goal of Machiavelli’s Royal prince is to achieve political immortality and fame. It is the work of long term generations to bestow glory on a Knight in shining armor, and therefore, slaves must become citizens, and principalities need to become republics, as Machiavelli explains, to achieve immortality: “God does not would like to do anything, in order never to take from us our free is going to and that part of the glory which can be ours” (The Prince, ch. 26, pp. 163). Therefore, the varying goal of every political theorist creates varying views on the sovereign great purpose: Hobbes vouches for peace, Aristotle for the good life, and Machiavelli intended for glory. To conclude, it has become apparent that through their respective views on human nature, the power of the sovereign, the usage of religion, plus the goals intended for each authority, Aristotle and Machiavelli could both correspondingly agree with a few of Hobbes’ findings, and don’t agree with others. Overall, the leadership of Hobbes’ Leviathan, a man or perhaps assembly of men the guidelines like a human god, is definitely one that is unique to The Leviathan, as three political theorists write using their own intentions, interests, and their own eras. Although they almost all agree on the proposed presence of a effective sovereign, there is disagreement within the means, ends, and goals. Surely, the quest to discover the most ideal culture is the one which has been pursued for centuries in past times, and this pursuit is very very likely to continue for a lot of more years into the future.

[1] Online Etymology Dictionary, http://www. etymonline. com/index. php? term=leviathan [2] Ibid

Tweet