Karl Jaspers has undertaken an interesting study in the little book. He looks at the teachings of four men who have had the most far-reaching impact on our world. He claims that the greatness of their influence is measured in centuries as well as globally. The four great men he chose for this book are, as the title suggests, Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Jesus. He entertained the thought of including Mohammed but chose not to. He explains that Mohammed "might be comparable in historical importance but not in individual depth (p. 87)." One other interesting insight comes from Jaspers on the same page. We have no writings from any of the four themselves - what we do have comes from their disciples after they died.

So much for the interesting, now for the question of trustworthiness.

Jaspers examined the biblical accounts of Jesus through the lens of higher criticism. In other words, Jaspers did not deal with the biblical text itself when he studied Jesus, he dealt with the text after sifting through what others thought was truly the teaching of Jesus. The reason this poses a problem is important to all readers, not merely to Christians. If he did not take the teachings of Jesus (as recorded by his disciples) at face value, did he take the teachings of Socrates, Buddha and Confucius (as recorded by their disciples) at face value? Is the reader really getting Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Jesus, or is the reader getting Karl Jaspers? Knowing the aspects of Jesus' teachings that have been ignored in this study, and their importance to understanding Jesus' view of himself and the world around him, makes me wonder what we may have lost, in this study, from the other three great men included here.

This book is a very interesting idea. But, is it trustworthy scholarship? Not in my humble opinion. However, those who do not wish to sift through the original writings will inevitably want to read Jasper's abridgement of those writings. This may be to the readers' benefit, or to their detriment.

Jaspers has this rare ability to write both insightfully and very, very clearly on complex issues. Given the outstanding subject matter, this book had to be great !

For those who like Jasper's style I recommend also his account of Nietzsche's philosophy and life. It is a pure pleasure to read whether you agree with Nietzsche or not.

Aside from being an intelligently written book, I gave this book 5 stars because it made a big impression on me. Jaspers explanation of Confucius made the strength of Confucious's teaching clear. Now I'm very interested in Confucious and am reading more books about him. In that respect, this slim volume changed my life: It brought Confucious to life. What's more, by explaining Confucius's feelings about Taoism, this slim book did more to explain classic Taoism than the 2 books on the Tao I've already read.

Be aware that this book is due to the editing of Hannah Arendt. This means that Jaspers did not put this book out and say "Ta Da, the 4 Greatest!" No, Jaspers wrote a 2 volume book on the great philosophers due to his post War interest in increasing tolerance among men (per the Encyclopedia Britanica). This book does not appear to have any noticable Existentialist influence.

Finally, if you are a fundamentalist Christian, be warned that it is clear from his writing that Jaspers does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, nor does he believe the Bible is free of error. He is not disrespectful of Jesus nor of Christianity, but do not think that because Jesus is in this book that the book is strongly pro-Jesus.

Professor Lavine, who teaches (or taught) philosophy at George Washington University, invades the late night airwaves once a week on Maryland Public Television's "College of the Air" programming during the regular school year. This is the book on which her television course is based. "From Socrates to Sartre" is a brief, yet thought-provoking analysis of six major Western philosophers: Socrates, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, and Sartre. Interspersed between the discussions of these six thinkers are brief chapters about transformational periods in Western philosophy and their major figures (e.g., Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Leibniz, Husserl, etc.). Though I regret that some of these other major philosophers are given rather cursory treatment, at least they are mentioned. Had the author given every major philosopher full treatment, she would have written a much less welcoming book for the neophyte student.

That leaves us with Professor Lavine's detailed and candid exploration of the six philosophers she has aptly chosen. Her writing style is straightforward and crafted with just the right mix of serious complexity and common-sense explanation. Some parts of the chapters get overloaded with raised questions, but that is what philosophy is all about. Rather than guide the reader through what ought to be thought, she leaves many of these questions open, prompting the sort of self-examination that is the crucial basis of any introductory philosophical survey. I would recommend this book, really only second to Will Durant's THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY (and, I guess, Thomas Nagel's WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?, too), to any reader curious about exploring the history of the Western philosophical tradition.

To the layman (like myself) looking for an introduction to some (but not all) of the defining philosophic movements of Western Civilization, this book is both exciting and informative.

While the author's style may be a little dense for some people, it is well organized, cohesive and thought-provoking. Ms. Lavine doesn't shy away from presenting each philosopher's contribution in the context of their own time and location, and intersperses a small amount of relevant biographical information for all of them. This makes it much easier for someone who doesn't have much background to relate to and incorporate the ideas that are presented.

Though there are only six philosphers covered in-depth (Socrates, Descartes, Hume, Hagel, Marx and Sartre), other philosophers and their contributions are referenced here and there where it relates to the text. Lots of good names to drop ;-) Each philospher is given several chapters in each section, making it nice and easy to reference.

Although I found some parts to be out-dated (the section on Marx makes one or two mild references to Soviet Russia), tedious and/or uninspiring, they were few and far between. The best compliment I can give is that I am now very excited about learning more on the subject of philosophy in general and I have an excellent frame of reference to get started.

This is a nice little book that examines metaphysics (the philosophy of reality) by a cursory examination of six philosophers. This is not an all-encompassing book on world philosophy (no attention is paid to non-western thought) nor is it an in depth examination of any one school of thought or a particular philospher. This book is an introduction to a segment of philosophy and should be evaluated on that basis.

Thelma Lavine does a nice job of putting the various philosphers (Plato, Descartes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Sartre) in their historic context; of concisely outlining their major contributions to the advancement of philosophic thought; and then summarizing the critics of each.

What I like about the book is the ability to read it in segments. I started with Descartes then went back to Plato skipped ahead to Sartre and then back to Hume ignoring Marx altogether (not that Marx is unimportant, but I felt that I was already pretty well versed in Marxist thought.) Thanks to this book I am now interested in a more in depth exploration of existentialism and am anxious to delve into the source materials. I feel that I now have a context to read Nausea or the Stranger and hopefully, I will get more out of them with this background.

I had written a lengthy review of this work but, since it has never appeared on this site, I will attempt to reprise it in a more condensed version. Charles Kahn is a highly respected scholar of ancient philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, this book does him no credit and actually calls into question his very ability to read Plato. Put as broadly as possible, Kahn sees the platonic corpus as an attempt by Plato to gradually educate his readers in his doctrines. The progress he traces is from the "earliest" works (eg. the Apology) to the Republic, which he regards as the fullest revelation of Plato's teachings. To that end he proceeds to ransack every dialogue within this period for indications of a "developmental" approach by Plato. Differences between dialogues are papered over or fobbed off on the vague assertion that Plato wasn't engaged in a coherent discussion of the topic-in-question at this point in his writings because he didn't believe that his readership could understand it. Essentially Kahn has inverted the usual "developmental" approach to Plato (ala Gregory Vlastos) by assuming that Plato's writings evolved while his philosophy did not. While this assumption is preferable it does not aid Kahn in his interpretation.

This book is a classic example of a scholar letting his critical apparatus (and prejudices) get in the way of the necessary task of sustained, careful exegesis. Kahn has absolutely no "feel" for the "literary" elements of the dialogues and he cannot give any reasons for the fact that Socrates's discussions are different when he is speaking with different interlocutors. Kahn ignores very important details for the sake of his pet thesis and it is invariably those details which disprove Kahn's readings. Why does Diotima lecture Socrates about eros in the "Symposium" but it is Socrates who does the lecturing in the "Phaedrus?" Kahn is incapable of asking or answering this question. Plato was a writer of considerable comedic talents but Kahn pays little or no attention to this. He is also enamored of making embarassing statements about Plato being a "mystic" and a "metaphysician" who is not interested in the everyday world. As Kahn never defines what a "mystic" would be it is very difficult to know whether he is referring to Madame Blavatsky or Plotinus. In addition, Plato's consistent engagement with politics and its relationship to philosophy disproves such assertions. Furthermore, Kahn's dismissal of Xenophon as "unphilosophical" raises the question of whether the ivy-league professor is being careless or just incompetent. Recent work on Xenophon has revealed a thinker of subtle complexity who was well regarded by men such as Cicero, Machiavelli, and Sir Philip Sidney. Kahn's inability to understand Xenophon is one in a series of grave flaws which capsize this work. Put as baldly as possible, this is a bad book--perhaps the worst I have read in several years--which should never have been published. The hypothesis is absurd and the analysis very shoddy. What other readers seem to interpret as "boldness" is really just zealous belief in a questionable interpretation (ie. monomania). Plato is far too subtle a thinker and writer for Kahn to grasp so the professor decided to construct an effigy of Plato which he then sets alight, believing that it is the real thing. Avoid this work at all costs and, instead, spend your money on Sayre's "Plato's Literary Garden" or Sallis's "Being and Logos" where you will be treated to a wonderfully complex discussion about the ancient sage and his writings.

... I'm not finished with Kahn's book, but I find the central thesis fascinating. I had not considered it before. Almost everyone seems to believe that Plato's philosophy developed over time. It seems possible to construct a time line of dialogues with the "early" ones representing Socrates more than the later ones.

Who before Kahn has ever suggested an "ingressive" approach, where Plato's philosphy is fully-formed, but only revealed in pieces? Perhaps others, I do not know. But I think the model Kahn suggests opens up a whole line of thinking about Plato. So Plato didn't discuss "recollection" in the Meno without having the fully fledged idea of Forms in mind. I've always had the impression that scholars were saying that Plato's doctrine of "recollection" was the most advanced position he had at that time, as if "Forms" hadn't occured to him yet.

Anyway, I like where Kahn is going. He may not be expressing the "common opinion," but he is correct to tie the literary qualities in with the philosophy. ... I could be wrong.

This is one of the best books on Plato that I have read. Kahn's thesis--that Plato's early and middle dialogues present a unified philosophical vision that is gradually revealed from dialogue to dialogue (what Kahn calls the "ingressive method")--is a new twist on the unitarian thesis that the Platonic corpus gives no evidence for the sort of philosophical development that has been spotted by interpreters such as Grote, Campbell, Vlastos, Owen, and many others (probably most others, in fact). But even if one is a developmentalist at heart, one can benefit greatly from reading this book. The approach is both philosophical and scholarly, of use both to the philosopher and to the classicist. Even when it is difficult to agree with Kahn (for example, he holds that the Gorgias is an earlier work than the Protagoras, in spite of what appears to be a more complex moral psychology and a more sensitive treatment of the hedonist thesis in the former), grappling with his arguments can be both a challenge and a thrill. Rarely does disagreement serve to educate so well.

It is disappointing, though fully understandable, that this book does not treat the late dialogues. There are hints here and there that Kahn thinks he could extend his thesis further, but his treatment of the Pheadrus in the last chapter is more promisory than productive.

A book of this sort is a good idea. Unfortunately, the author is not only not a philosopher, but apparently spent so much effort on trying to be humerous, that there wasn't much left for accuracy. In this supposed introduction to the great thinkers we find such gems as Ayn Rand advocating "egotism" rather than "egoism" (a distinction Rand was at pains to make in The Virtue of Selfishness), the term "dogma" defined as a belief enforced in an "authoritarian manner," (perhaps a popular connotation of the word is everyday speech, but not its proper definition as a theological term), and, stunningly, feminist writer Mary Godwin Wolstencraft being credited with authoring the novel Frankenstein (no mean feat since she died a decade before it was written in 1813. The actual author is , of course, Mary Wolstencraft Shelly who was a live teenager in 1813).
The list goes on. This is a sloppy book, inaccurate, poorly edited, and of no use as an introduction to the subject. Don't bother.

I found this book very rewarding. The subject of philosophy can be very complex at times, but this author has a knack for simplifying it. The book was an entertaining read from cover to cover, and not the more typical didactic approach one usually encounters in discussions of the philosophers throughout history. I thought tackling modern philosophical material, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), was a master stroke. You don't usually see such original material in these kinds of series books, but this title gives you a heaping helping of just that. I really enjoyed this book.

Most philosophy books are hard to understand. "The Everything Philosophy Book" is different. It's accessible for the ordinary reader. I wanted to get a working knowledge of the history of philosophical thought, and this book furnished it--and then some! The author doesn't take himself too seriously and covers a lot of ground you won't find in other books on similar subject matter--like the philosophy of AA. I didn't expect to find an Everything Book so well written and informative!!!

The author manages to hide an interesting story in a dull book. It reads like a scientific paper. No doubt the author knows his material, but he can't tell an interesting story. The history of Athens during the time of Socrates and Pericles has all the ingredients of a spell binding saga, but the professor's detached style conveys almost none of the excitement. Danald Kagan's book, "Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy" is much more interesting.

Declared as an attempt by the author to understand the work of Thucydides, this history of the world of democratic Athens in the generation after Pericles is a low key yet gripping account of the maelstrom into which this great seminal era of political evolution passed. The great detail of the account matches both the magnificence and yet the somber context of the reality behind the usual glorified summary accounts of the world's first brief experience of true direct democracy, whose actual facts are at certain points almost an alarming eye-opener, from the immediate collision of class struggle in almost canonical form to the duress of empire, and the outcome of civil war. The work of Aristophanes, and its direct echoes of this period, especially stands out better understood in this blow by blow, as does the ambiguous division of history just here, with respect to its democratic ideals and its first dissenter, Socrates. The work brings home a claim to the solution of the mystery of Thycidides composition, that the rise of note-taking in this era vindicates the relative accuracy of the speeches long thought to be imaginative recreations. It is a strange account, rendered eerie in the author's meticulous drumbeat march through the labyrinth of recovered details.

Mark Munn has written a superb study of late fifth-century Athens focusing especially on the protracted struggle between the democrats and the oligarchs, and the effect which Thucydides' HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR had on those men involved in that struggle. What is new and unique here is the importance Munn assigns to the role of history and memory in Athenian society. He shows how the Athenians' view of their past colored and shaped their political struggles. The Athenians were probably more sensitive to religious and political scandal in their own time than we are in ours. Munn writes in a very engaging style-especially in his account of the controversy surrounding Alcibiades. At last we have an answer to the question: When did Thucydides write his HISTORY, and why he left it unfinished. The SCHOOL OF HISTORY is a must read for anyone interested in Athens, Thucydides, or Alcibiades!

This book is not one that I would recommend for free reading, unless you have a strange affinity for ancient presocratic philosophy. However, as a reference book, or a book for learning philosophy, the book ranks among the best. I was introduced to this book in my Philosophy course at UCLA, and this book was an excellent learning tool. The author sets out translated fragments from ancient philosophers and writers, like Parmenides, Aristotle, and Plato. Then, McKirahan does an excellent job of analyzing and explaining the fragments. The book is set up well; it is interesting and makes an EXCELLENT reference book.

(1)Excellent organization of important fragments and texts of the Pre Socratic Philosophy. Very useful indeed.(2)Keep as source book for tight analytical study of arguments. Well segmented and sub-headed. (3)Major convenient ref. book. The only one to have, I guess, in pocketbook. Well documented and quoted. No or little Greek. (Translated when necessary) (4)But author needs to write with more maturity,fluidity ( Really terse prose spoil the mood). Naturally, this can be rectified by reading large doses of Gibbon's Dec. & Fall. (with a good wine vector.) (5)The author must realize that he now has the intelligence to cast a shadow of his own.(6) A delicious book, well worth the expense. However, I recommend supplimenting his book with a photo copy of the schematic and simplified diagram in W.T Jones's History of Phil. Buy it. Not for absolute beginners.But this is to a philosophers advantage.

-Opinions are like noses. Everyone has got one. I use this book often, & useful when reading The Republic ( Books 4 & 5 )

This is a very good book. I give it 4 stars because it is not told in such an engaging manner (so it gets 5-stars for content and 3-stars for style). But it does give you a complete version of the early Socrates, and it shows how Plato's attitudes influenced the presentation of Socrates in various dialogues.

The book covers several areas of Socrates' approach, breaking it into six chapters. Each chapter covers a separate aspect of Socrates' thought: his method, his epistemology, his psychology, his ethics, his politics and his religion. The argument is directed to showing that much of Socrates' approach is based on his religious views, so that one can't separate the Socratic argument and method from Socrates' conception of piety and god. The two make the argument that Socrates is essentially a religious thinker, that his religious attitude was central to Socrates' method.

This interpretation is reasonable as far as it goes. My interest, however, is epistemology. Here I find the approach conventional, lacking in some important points. I can't really fault the authors because all Platonists I have read so far remain silent on this subject. Brickhouse and Smith have a section discussing "The Procedural Priority of the Definition," and it is a good in so far as it points out the importance to Socrates of defining terms. However, the discussion never gets to the "meta-theory" of the notion of definition; it never discusses what Socrates' actual notion of definition entails or whether it is or ever was suitable to describe real activities.

I find Socrates' apparent notion of definition, one that tries to define terms using models of geometric or arithmetic measures or of physical attributes of things, to be a deficient formula of definition. Wittgenstein showed that some definitions simply don't work that way. This formal notion of definition doesn't apply well to words like "garden" (are there absolute physical properties all gardens reduce to), "weed" (are there general properties of weed other than as a plant not wanted by the gardener in his garden), or "piety," "goodness," or "virtue."

It should be remembered that Socrates never arrived at satisfactory definitions for these or many other value concepts that interested him. And the modern heirs of Socratic formalism, the positivists, have thrown out the notion of value as it relates to philosophical description. This indicates one of two possibilities: either Socrates' notions about values were inconsequential because the very idea of value lacks a basis in real (formal) description, or his notion of formal description was deficient because it could not satisfactorily encompass the real values that he wanted to discuss.

Brickhouse and Smith go directly to the relevant issues in today's Socratic studies. Following the arguments of Vlastos, Kraut and others, this collection of six essays is both well-thought and insightful. Their documentation or counter arguments and commentaries is very thorough, and lends itself well to deeper investigation. A great book for scholors as well as for those reading Plato for the first time.

It is rather difficult to review Plato's Symposium from a modern viewpoint. The attempts by Agathon's guests, including Socrates, to define love are largely based on the love of boys rather than women. While that is a difficult concept for me to ponder, I recognize that such a social custom prevailed to some degree in ancient Athens and will attempt to offer an unbiased view of the text. Basically, partygoers celebrating Agathon's first victory in a drama contest decide to do something besides drink themselves into a stupor because they are still paying for such activity the night before. Socrates joins the group on this second night, and it is decided that each man in turn will offer his praises to love. Each of six men offer their interesting, diverse thoughts on the matter, ranging from the conventional to the Socratic ideal. Phaedrus says that the greatest good a boy can have is a gentle lover and that the greatest good a lover can have is a boy to love. He stresses self-sacrifice and virtue as the kind of love the gods love most. Pausanias describes two kinds of love: vulgar love is best explained as love for a woman in the interest of sexual satisfaction; noble love is that concerned with bettering the soul of the object of love (necessarily a young boy). The doctor Eryximachus explains love in terms of harmony, and he goes so far as to credit the vague notion of love with accomplishing all kinds of things in a diverse set of subjects. Aristophanes begins by relating a myth about man's origins. When man was created, individuals were actually attached back to back; the gods later split each human entity in half, and love consists of each person's search for his "missing half" who can be of either sex; even when two mates find one another, their love is imperfect because they cannot become literally attached as they were originally. Agathon says that Love is the youngest of the gods, that he offers the means by which all disputes between the gods and between men are settled, and emphasizes the beauty of love (represented quite well by himself, he seems to say).

Socrates, as can be expected, shifts the discussion of love to a higher plane. Claiming to know the art of love if nothing else, Socrates tells how he gained his knowledge from a fictional character called Diotima. He says that love represents the desire to give "birth in beauty," that love is neither a god or a mortal but is instead the messenger between god and man. To love is to want to acquire and possess the good forever and thus attain immortality. Socrates goes on to give a very important speech about one of Plato's perfect Forms--namely, the Form of Beauty. The advanced lover will learn to seek Beauty in its abstract form and will take no more notice of physical beauty; the perfect lover is a philosopher who can create virtue in its true form rather than produce mere images of virtue. This short summary in no way does justice to Socrates' speech, but it gives the general idea. After Socrates speaks, a drunken Alcibiades (Socrates' own beloved) crashes the party and commences to give a speech about Socrates, the effect of which is to identify Socrates as a lover who deceives others into loving him. As both lover and beloved, Socrates is seemingly held up by Plato as the true embodiment of love. To truly love is to be a philosopher.

I myself don't hold this text in as high regard as many intellectuals, but there can be no doubt of this dialogue's influence on Western thought over the centuries. The book succeeds in the presentation of advanced philosophical ideas and as literature. The discussion of the Form of Beauty is particularly useful in terms of understanding Platonic thought. It would seem that this dinner party and the speeches we read are very likely fictitious and represent Plato's thoughts much more closely than Socrates' own views, but it is impossible to tell to what extent this is true. The Symposium is inarguably one of Plato's most influential, most important texts and is required reading for anyone seriously interested in philosophy as it has existed and continues to exist in Western society.

I bought this textbook for my Classical Philosophy class (which was taught by William Placher - check his books out, they're awesome), and the Symposium really got me thinking about what love really is. What's cool about the work is that while each of the speeches make some great points, in the end they never really decide on a final answer, so it's still your call.

I liked the Symposium so much, that I decided to buy it as a gift for my friend. It was then that I realized how superior the Woodruff version is - other versions I found in bookstores featured commentary that was sometimes more than twice as long as the actual work! In this version, on the other hand, the introduction is short but informative - therefore you're not paying extra to hear some other guy give his two cents on Plato's work, when Plato's words themselves are really all you're interested in.

Stone's book is a well-laid out, prosecution view of the trial of Socrates. Certainly, Stone brings up some very interesting points about whether Socrates "got what he deserved," but some of his evidence is far from compelling. For instance, even those who study Plato for a living have a hard time agreeing on what the "historical" aspects of Socrates are, and which are just Plato's own idealized "fictional" Socrates. In my opinion, Stone uses Plato to support his points when it is convenient for his argument, and draws on other sources when it is not.

I encourage people to read this book, if only to hear the prosecution's possible case against Socrates. Those who love philosophy, especially Plato's works, will find Stone's case interesting, if not necessarily convincing

I think a person would have to dig into many primary and secondary sources to validate or refute I.F. Stone's interpretation of the trial of Socrates. Stone argues that among other things, Socrates was anti-democratic and that he deliberately martyred himself. Stone justifies the Athenian condemnation of Socrates on the basis that Socrates undermined Athens' democratic foundation.

Even if we were to scrutinize this argument with research material, we may never learn more about the trial than what Plato--a biased source--tells us. It is also difficult to judge percisely how democratic Athens really was. One historian has convincingly argued that Athens was democratic in name, but like the U.S., it persued the interests of its elite more than the spirit of its ideology. So was Socrates attacking Athenian democracy or a hypocritical exploitation of democracy by the Athenian elite? It doesn't really matter whether or not Stone provides the right answer because he asks the right question,and that is what makes his book interesting.

Stone also argues that Socrates was a dead beat who refused to work and who placed a heavy burden of responsibility on his wife while he hung out with the boys and dispensed philosophy. I can almost picture a Monty Python skit, but it is an interesting personal examination of an otherwise idealized figure.

I recommend that people read this book for its interesting new interepretation of a hallowed Western thinker. Don't be so quick to condemn it--being right is not always the most important thing.

One of the editorial reviews of this book (on the book's back cover) claims that this should be placed beside Plato's dialogues. That, I'm afraid, is an exagerration. However, Stone's book is an excellent work to read before one reads Plato. Although it is specifically a commentary on two of Plato's dialogues (Apology & Crito), Stone furnishes his readers with an exceptionally in-depth background on the histoy of the period which will help any student of philosophy immensly in reading both Plato and Aristotle. Even though some of Stone's ideas are incorrect (such as his underestimating just how damaging some of Aristophanes' plays were to Socrates) the book is still a high calibre commentary & has some good insights. Recommended for those who have read Plato & those who plan on reading Plato in the future.

The respected Greek-American journalist and biographer Nicholas Gage has written an exhaustive chronicle of perhaps the most sensational episode in Maria Callas' sensational life--her stormy and ultimately tragic involvement with Aristotle Onassis, the Greek shipping magnate.

The tale of Callas' life and art, of course, has been told and retold in many volumes of varying worth, but biographically Mr. Gage's carefully researched and verified effort cannot fail to impress. Due to his dual subjects, his chronology largely limits itself to the last two decades of Callas' life (she became seriously involved with Onassis in 1959), but within this time frame he has come up with some startling new revelations, including the astonishing assertion (supported by convincing evidence) that Callas gave birth to a son by Onassis in 1960. The baby died the same day it was born, and this tragic event affected the entire rest of their relationship. There is a reverent, almost mystical tone in Gage's writing about the pair, a feeling that their romance was fated to happen and should have turned out much more happily than it did. This is backed up by the opinions of numerous people close to the couple that Onassis' impulsive pursuit of and marriage to Jacqueline Kennedy was the greatest mistake of his life.

Undoubtedly Onassis and Callas come vividly to life in these pages as people, warts and all. About Callas the musician Gage is less convincing. Although he speaks denigratingly about the false stories of the diva that have been uncritically perpetuated by biographers copying from each other, Gage himself does the same on occasion. For example, he repeats the standard tale of the January 1958 Rome Opera "walkout," that Callas was voiceless and struggling against hecklers from the very start of the performance. In fact, as Michael Scott has pointed out, a broadcast tape is readily available of the performance which belies both these contentions. Overall, too, Callas, even with her voice in decline, remained much more interested in singing after she met Onassis than the rather indolent portrait that emerges from these pages would indicate. Post-1960 there were several complete opera recordings, and numerous collections of arias released on disc, and these are just the commercial studio efforts.

Still, Callas the artist has been well-served in much other writing, notably that of John Ardoin. Gage's book corrects many more errors than it perpetuates. It is obligatory reading for any fan and, for that matter, anyone who wishes to know more about this eternally glamorous and fascinating pair.

This book is a convincing portrait of 20th century jet-set society as lived in Greece and Monte Carlo and aboard Aristotle Onassis's yacht Christina. This society comes off as duller than one would imagine, yet thanks to the author's power, I couldn't put the book (which was given me as a Christmas gift) down.

Aristotle Onassis is rendered as a figure out of Greek literature. He's as wily, competetive, manipulative as Odysseus--almost always a winner. But in the end he's undone by his own hubris, fulfilling his classic tragic destiny. The parts telling of his childhood in Smyrna are riveting, and terrifying. The story of Turkish massacres of Greeks and Armernians shed light on the ethnic hatred toward all Muslims still felt by many Orthodox Greeks.

Onassis is neither a likeable nor an admirable hero, yet Gage does a convincing job of letting us see him in all his Greekness, and somehow we accept that he charmed almost everyone he met. Especially the great prima donna, Maria Callas.

Gage doesn't do as well with Callas as with Onassis. I think you wouldn't understand her greatness from reading this book, yet she was very great indeed. To hear Calla sing is to understand all opera is capable of, yet her voice gave out earlier than is the case with most singers for reasons no one understands. Onassis is sometimes blamed for her problems with high notes, but Gage points out that the problems were there before she met Onassis. He doesn't present her as a particularly intelligent, complex or interesting woman, just one undone by her grand passion for Aristotle Onassis. I suspect, given her incredible understanding of tragic heroines in song, there was a lot more to her than this book shows.

Worshippers of the late Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis (and there are many) are definitely not going to like the portrait painted here!

I consider this particular book to be a must for every Callas fan. Although it does not focus much on detailed aspects of her carer it reveals more of the person she was behind her operatic characters.You also get to know much better the man for whom she gave up everything without hesitation,Aristotle Onassis.It is an amazing account of events from the moment these two amazing people met ,to the daily account of life aboard the Christina during the cruise.Throughout the book you cannot help feeling that these two human beings were meant to be together , that they were made for each other.Being such a Callas fan ,like I am I welcomed this book not only because it gave me a completely new insight on her life , but also because of the tremendous hard work and impartiality the author put on this amazing account.It is an amazing piece of work and I have to say that I found myself admiring Callas much more than I did before ,and also admiring Onassis and having a little bit more consideration for hem. Congratulations to Mr.Nicholas Gage for the wonderfull book ,I am so glad you felt there was a true need to do it.