Customer Reviews


26 Reviews
5 star:
 (22)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:
 (1)
2 star:
 (1)
1 star:
 (1)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


26 of 26 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Limited or absolute government?
Being a free Kindle edition there is no introduction and no notes - but you do get the full text. The only difference from the original is that there are fewer capitals and italics. Hobbes used them for emphasis very much more than a modern writer would, and their pruning in this edition makes the text easier to read.

Modern political philosophy begins with...
Published on 15 Mar 2011 by Derek Jones

versus
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Warning: Not the Leviathan you may expect
I've just received this. The synopsis says:

'Part of the "Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy," this edition of Hobbes's Leviathan is framed by a pedagogical structure designed to make this important work of philosophy more accessible and meaningful for undergraduates.'

I'd assumed that meant there'd be a lot of explanatory notes and...
Published on 21 May 2008 by A Reader


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

26 of 26 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Limited or absolute government?, 15 Mar 2011
By 
Derek Jones - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Leviathan (Kindle Edition)
Being a free Kindle edition there is no introduction and no notes - but you do get the full text. The only difference from the original is that there are fewer capitals and italics. Hobbes used them for emphasis very much more than a modern writer would, and their pruning in this edition makes the text easier to read.

Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not think much about the origins of government. Hobbes provides reasons as to how and why men come together to form government. He starts with the assumption that that the organised state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right" of nature and "laws" of nature. Hobbes uses these terms in a very individual way. The "right of nature" is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". The "laws of nature" dictate that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These "laws" are found by reason, and are utilitarian rather than moral. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason suggests advantages stem from co-operation, but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person can impose his will on others, and so the most one can hope for is to protect oneself from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Men are therefore driven to create government via a pact with others to give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government, he believed, is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the religious and political divisions preceding the English Civil War. Hobbes wishes the sovereign to have the power of censorship, including the ability to prevent discussion of religion because he believed that such discussion leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal.

Is there an ultimate right of rebellion against the absolute ruler? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural right to self-preservation to a sovereign in order to to better achieve it. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that safety then society is dissolved. Can any action by the sovereign be challenged? Yes, if a man is conscripted into military service (an obvious threat to life) in circumstances where the survival of the state is not threatened. If the survival of the state is threatened then so are the lives of its citizens, and in these circumstances the sovereign can impose conscription. Hobbes adds that even in this case a citizen should have the right to replace himself with a volunteer if one is available.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. However, it is an important work that makes a good study companion to Locke's "Second Treatise", which argues for limited government.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


55 of 58 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Levelling the play field...., 23 April 2005
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) was born in England, a country that endured great political turmoil during his life. Having lived through that, Hobbes' main aim was to inquire into the basis of order. The question he asked himself was "What kind of political authority will prevent the return of chaos?". And the answer to that question is in this book, "Leviathan" (1651).
The Levianthan is the personification of total power, an authority without limits, created by men who realise that absolute power given to a powerfull ruler (or to an assembly) is their only way out of the dangers of the state of nature. The name that the author chose for his monarch is quite telling: the Leviathan is a sea monster that appears in the Bible and symbolizes power. This kind of monarch seems like an extreme solution for the problem of anarchy, but it is the only one that Hobbes found. Without the Leviathan, life is 'solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.'
Of course, this book includes many more things than those I have already mentioned. For instance, it explains quite well Hobbes opinion regarding human nature (man is naturally a wolf to men), the state of nature (perpetual war of all against all), the origin of political institutions and the relationship between reason and force (pacts without swords are merely words), among other things.
On the whole, I think this book is a classic of Political Philosophy, and I recommend it as such. Despite that, I think a word of caution is in order, so you will be prepared for what you will find when you tackle "Leviathan". Truth to be told, sometimes Hobbes' prose is too dry, and in some chapters you will need to plod through some rather arid pages. Moreover, this book isn't written in modern English, what makes it more difficult to understand. Those are the reasons why I give this book four stars instead of five...
Notwithstanding that, I believe that "Leviathan" is well-worth the effort of reading it, simply because it has some interesting concepts that you should be aware of, even if you don't agree with them. The only way to discuss in a level play field with someone who has totally different ideas is to understand his arguments thoroughly, even if his position seems thoroughly strange to you. I invite you to do that with Hobbes, reading "Leviathan".
Belen Alcat
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


28 of 31 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A classic of its kind., 6 May 2007
By 
Michael J. Brett "Michael Brett" (London, England) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
Why is this book important?

Hobbes stands at the end of the intellectual life of the Middle Ages which means that for centuries philosophy, religion and science had been one unified structure under the stewardship of the Church, in a World that stood at the centre of the universe beneath a God in his heaven,who provided and blessed kings and governments.

Suddenly, all these ideas and structures and certainties were in question, or blown apart with gunpowder: Hobbes wrote this during the English Civil War which resulted in the execution of a king by his people, something that would have been unthinkable beforehand.

Hobbes is a modern man, a pioneer, in the sense that he is trying to find what are the bases of knowlege and truth, and power and statecraft-and religion, and-ultimately-what it is to be human, and what sort of institutions would best represent human beings. This book is supposed to be about everything, in one volume! Which shows great self-confidence if nothing else.

It is not an easy read. If you are not familiar with Seventeenth Century English, you may find it hard going. I would recommend you buying the Oxford Very Short Introduction to Hobbes, or something similar, and reading it first, so as to acquire the leading ideas. This might help. It might help at first to dip in, rather than plough through in some kind of tear-stained marathon!

There is something in this book to offend everyone really, notably the chapter on the Pope, referring to him as King of the Fairies.

There is an interesting short biography of Hobbes in Aubrey's 'Brief Lives' which describes him singing every day to keep fit, and travelling with a special walking stick with an ink well fitted in the top, so that he could make notes if an idea struck him when he was out walking. Aubrey knew Hobbes personally.

The idea that power can rest upon distortions of the truth seems to have contemporary resonance, weapons of mass destruction etc.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Warning: Not the Leviathan you may expect, 21 May 2008
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
I've just received this. The synopsis says:

'Part of the "Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy," this edition of Hobbes's Leviathan is framed by a pedagogical structure designed to make this important work of philosophy more accessible and meaningful for undergraduates.'

I'd assumed that meant there'd be a lot of explanatory notes and maybe a commentary. In fact, there are almost no notes at all and there's no commentary. There's a 28 page introduction, but that's it.

In addition, this isn't the whole book. This edition offers just the first two of Leviathan's four parts, because the editor claims these are the parts most commonly studied today, while 'the last two sections ... deal with issues that were much more specific to Hobbes' particular historical context'. (Introduction, page vii)

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the book is the fact that 'this particular edition is a quasi-translation of Hobbes' language into a somewhat more contemporary form.' (Introduction, page viii) That is, the editor has messed around with Hobbes' English. He says he has changed 'almost every sentence in some way - sometimes just in minor ways, but sometimes quite substantially.' (Introduction, page ix) As far as I can see, these changes are silent - that is, they aren't indicated or acknowledged at any point in the text beyond a few examples he gives in his introduction.

I suppose this book may be useful to somebody, but, for me, a book about Leviathan would be preferable to this unreliable-looking attempted rewrite.

I also wish that Pearson Longman had mentioned the fact that this is an abridged and doctored version on the back, but they restrict themselves to saying it is 'framed by a strong pedagogical structure.' - a massive overstatement, in my view. (They do say the series 'offers an ... inexpensive translation or edition of a seminal work in philosophy',- but you don't normally expect to see a translation of a text originally written in English. The blurb on the back is certainly less than candid, I'd say.)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Modern Philosopher, 6 Oct 2012
By 
Dr Barry Clayton (United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   
There are numerous books on Thomas Hobbes but this one by Noel Malcolm is masterly and comprehensive. It is based on an analysis of Hobbes surviving letters and papers.
The author also includes the shorter Latin version of his great work:'Leviathan' which Hobbes published in 1668 some 17 years after the English version was published.

Hobbes was born in 1588. His father was a cleric and an alcoholic. He wrote in his autobiography that:'fear and I were born twins together'. Fear is ever present in Leviathan. Hobbes
grapples in the book with the problem of life without political authority and life with it. Malcolm reminds us that when Hobbes wrote Leviathan Europe was riddled with political and religious strife. There were no tolerant, liberal, democracies with freedom of political expression and religious worship. Absolute monarchs were in charge all over Europe.

Hobbes description of life in the state of nature as 'solitary, poor, nasty,brutish and short' is well known.We would do well to remember that this is still true for some 30% of the world's population today.

As Malcolm points out Hobbes was hated by many in England. He was blamed for the Great Fire of 1666 and the plague of 1667. He was regarded by many as an atheist because he insisted, as a scientific materialist, that God was a physical God.

In Leviathan his central thesis is that life in the state of nature is unspeakably bad and in order to avoid the collapse of civil society into the state of nature we must submit ourselves to an all powerful absolute ruler or a sovereign assembly. Understandably this was greeted with anger and shock at the time. Less understandably was Lord Dacre's more recent analysis of Leviathan as leading to 'despotism'. But then Lord Dacre made other errors about writings that were far worse.

Today war, violence, revolution, and political instability are commonplace throughout the world. Hobbes was in fear of all of these. That is why he stresses the role of force in human affairs, recognising that it can be used for good and ill.

Leviathan is a brilliant philosophical tract that has never dated. Hobbes was a formidable thinker. When he died in 1679 aged 91 he had very few friends in his country of birth. Thanks to Noel Malcolm's magnificent work-all 2,355 pages of it-we should now be able to recognise more clearly that Hobbes suggested cure for the many ills of mankind bears close study.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The case for absolute government, 17 Feb 2011
By 
Derek Jones - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not think much about the origins of government, but Hobbes seeks reasons to justify the creation of government and obedience to government.

Hobbes supposes that the organized state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right of nature" and "laws of nature". Hobbes uses these terms in a highly individual way. The "right of nature" is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". In addition there are a number of "laws of nature". The first dictates that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and the second is that each person should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These (and other laws that follow from them) are found by reason and are utilitarian. Morality does not enter into it. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their "rights of nature" in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason that suggests advantages of co-operation, but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person or group can impose his will on others, and all can hope only to protect themselves from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Hence men are driven to create government via a pact with all others to give up their "right of nature" to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the divisive years before the English Civil War in which he lived. Among the ten rights Hobbes awards the sovereign the sixth is the power of censorship of opinions harmful to the state. This includes religion because Hobbes believes that discussion of religion leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal. Had Hobbes lived a century later religion would have played little or no part in his thinking because he was not himself a religious man, and he was concerned with religion only because because it played a major role in politics in his lifetime.

Are there circumstances in which people are justified in breaking the law, and is there an ultimate right of rebellion? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural rights to self-preservation to a sovereign to better achieve them. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that that preservation then society is dissolved. On obedience to specific laws Hobbes declares that the sovereign does not have the right of conscription (an obvious threat to life) unless the survival of the state is threatened, for that also threatens the lives of all citizens. Even in this case one has the right to put a volunteer in one's place, if one is available,

"Leviathan" is not likely to appeal to general readers. It is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare. It is read in full only by academics and the most enthusiastic (or masochistic?) of university students and others pursuing an interest in political philosophy. Those who prefer a version with modernized spelling should consider the edition edited by Gaskin.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


12 of 14 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A classic of political philosophy, 10 Mar 2009
Though the roots of social contractarianism are in Plato's Crito (360 BC) and Hugo Grotius's De jure belli ac pacis (1625) ('On the Law of War and Peace'), it is in Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651) that they come together to form a cohesive and radical political theory. Leviathan is the first attempt to present politics as a science: Hobbes had been impressed with the self-evidential arguments of Euclid's geometry treatise Elements and wished to use similar didactic logic to develop his early writings on materialism and human nature to their full political conclusions. Thus in his Latin edition De Cive (1642) ('On the Citizen') he attempted to establish the foundations of political legitimacy and make sense of the political turmoil that would soon explode into the English Civil War. By the time the war had begun and ended De Cive had been translated into English and published as Leviathan.

Following from Euclid's principles, Hobbes starts from the simplest foundations of his philosophy. Leviathan begins with a discussion on materialism and how humans experience reality through 'bodies in motion' before gradually coming to discuss how men interact with one another in the now-infamous Hobbesian 'state of nature'. The state of nature is the bellum omnium contra omnes - "the war of all against all" - as men are fundamentally self-interested and wish to accumulate power and possessions even at the expense of other men. It is anarchy and, compelled by fear for their own lives and possessions, men form a social contract to protect themselves from one another. By this contract men give up their natural liberty to take and do what they want to an absolute sovereign who enforces peace. This sovereign may be a king, queen, aristocracy or parliament: for Hobbes the important thing is not that the sovereign is elected or representative but that they preserve peace by whatever means necessary. (This neat trick endeared Hobbes to both Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell during the years of the English Republic and King Charles II upon the return to monarchy).

The sovereign would be the Leviathan, named after the biblical sea monster, and would have absolute authority to enforce the peace of the social contract. Their authority is to create, establish, and enforce laws and they may censor the press, make war and peace with other nations and reward and punish citizens to secure the peace. Significantly, the sovereign cannot be held accountable for their actions as the contract means that men are complicit in everything the sovereign does and so share responsibility for the sovereign's actions. Moreover to be able to judge the sovereign you must be equal to it, and to have more than one sovereign would be a contradiction as each would undermine the authority of the other and both would become redundant.

Thus an absolute sovereign could only lose power if they failed to uphold their end of the contract by threatening the lives of contractors. This extensive power and lack of accountability was terrifying to many of Hobbes's contemporaries who attempted to rewrite the theory to include a right to rebellion against arbitrary government. Notably, John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) was written soon afterwards with these fears in mind.

Notoriously, Hobbes's political framework excluded religion. We suspect that he was an atheist though, probably out of expedience, he dedicates a whole section of Leviathan to Christianity and demonstrating why materialism and not theology should play the lead role in legitimising government and creating political obligations. He does this with a tidy side-step around the entire issue by declaring God to be sovereign of another realm and, until we reach that realm, men must remain sovereign on earth. Despite this effort the book was banned and burned, and Hobbes spent much of his remaining years defending himself against accusations of subversion and heresy.

It is important to note that Leviathan should not be read as a historical account of how sovereigns came to power, which is usually through conquest, usurpation or long-standing lineage. Instead, Leviathan is heuristic: a thought experiment into the consequences of removing existing sovereigns and a consideration of how we would re-establish governments with legitimacy. In this sense it is quite a conservative text. It attempts to discourage the removal of sovereigns and provides no real mechanism to do so as, by the time the Leviathan has become so despotic as to threaten your life, there is very little you can do to save yourself.

Hobbes was the first of the 'big three' social contract thinkers. He was followed by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who both tried to place much stricter limits on governments and make them more accountable to contractors. Nonetheless Hobbes's legacy lives on. His famous description of the state of nature being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" is a familiar phrase in the political lexicon, while Richard Tuck and Quentin Skinner continue the debate as to whether or not Hobbes's Leviathan is guaranteed to become an authoritarian despot or could be a benevolent autocrat. The book is significant on several counts: it dismisses the Divine Right of kings which had been the basis of monarchies for centuries; it was the first attempt to treat politics as a science which is dependent on logic and reason rather than rhetoric; and it was the wellspring of a whole tradition of political thought and counter-thought. Not only this, but Hobbes can be seen everywhere. The ruler that overextends himself to tyranny and loses sovereignty is seen in countless revolutions through history, while his state of nature is evident in lawless ghettoes around the world today.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Very Archaic But..., 8 Nov 2013
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) (Paperback)
Presented stunningly, as is the case with all Oxford Classics versions. This is probably the best copy of the Leviathan you can find (Dr M. Tyldesley, Man Met Uni lecturer), which is ironic considering it was burnt on the grounds of Oxford University some time after Hobbes' death and while it is written in archaic text due to the time it was written, it is still of efficient quality to understand. A must have for any politics student and political thinker, or anybody looking into the aftermath of the English Civil War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars For those who prefer Hobbes with a modernized text, 17 Feb 2011
By 
Derek Jones - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) (Paperback)
For those who dislike archaic spelling, this edition with modernized text and spelling is the one for them. The opening sentence suffices to show the difference. The following is the original text:
"Concerning the Thoughts of man, I will consider them first Singly, and afterwards in Trayne, or dependence upon one another." (With Singly and Trayne in italics)
The modernized text in this edition is:
"Concerning the thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in train, or dependence upon one another." (No italics)

There is a decent introduction by Gaskin, a bibliography, an index and explanatory notes, and this edition is very competitively priced.

Modern political philosophy begins with Hobbes. Before Hobbes, writers for centuries had accepted the divine right of kings or did not consider the origins of government, but Hobbes provides reasons as to why men come together to form government and ought to obey it. He starts with the assumption that the organised state is a choice. The alternative is the "state of nature", where there is both a "right" of nature and "laws" of nature. Hobbes uses these terms in a very individual way. The "right" of nature is "the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own Life". The "laws" of nature dictate that each person should seek to live with others in peace, and should only retain the right to as much liberty as he is willing to permit others. These "laws" are found by reason, and are utilitarian rather than moral. Hobbes is simply saying that if men think about their situation, reason tells them that giving up their natural rights in exchange for others doing likewise is the best means of self-preservation, even though it is contrary to human nature.

On human nature Hobbes is cynical. Reason suggests the advantages of co-operation, but this is outweighed by instinct. Men are fundamentally competitive and selfish. They are also roughly equal in ability so no one person can impose his will on others, and hence the most one can hope for is to protect oneself from others. Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Men are therefore driven to create government via a pact with others to give up their natural rights to a sovereign authority, which may be either an individual or an oligarchy (Hobbes prefers the former). Hobbes uses the concept of a "social contract". It is not an historical event but a logical device to describe the ongoing basis of consent to government. Hobbes' view of human nature is such that he allocates absolute power to the sovereign. Limited government, he believed, is unworkable for men are too prone to division and selfishness, and "a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." Hobbes was influenced by the passionate divisions preceding the English Civil War. Hobbes wishes the sovereign to have the power of censorship, including the ability to prevent discussion of religion because he believed that such discussion leads to conflict. Anybody seeking to preach a new religion should be treated as a criminal. Had Hobbes been writing a century later he is unlikely to have mentioned religion. He was not himself a religious man, and his concern with religion stemmed from its importance in the conflicts in his own lifetime.

Is there an ultimate right of rebellion against the absolute ruler? The answer is to be found in the nature of the social contract. Men give up their natural right to self-preservation to a sovereign in order to to better achieve it. If a situation arises where the sovereign cannot ensure that safety then society is dissolved. Can any action by the sovereign be challenged? Yes, if a man is conscripted into military service (an obvious threat to life) in circumstances where the survival of the state is not threatened. If the survival of the state is threatened then so are the lives of its citizens, and in these circumstances the sovereign can impose conscription. Hobbes adds that even in this case a citizen should have the right to replace himself with a volunteer if one is available.

"Leviathan" is not an easy book, not helped by the fact that the English is that of a man born just 24 years after Shakespeare, though the modernized English makes it easier than the original.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Good Book, 30 Dec 2013
By 
Andrew Rowe "PangoliaDogg15" (BARNSLEY, UK) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) (Paperback)
You have to be into Philosophical Political Theories to Enjoy This Book. If you are then I'd BUY IT! :D

~andrew
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics)
Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics) by Thomas Hobbes (Paperback - 11 Sep 2008)
6.29
In stock
Add to basket Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews