SIR ISAIAH BERLIN “THE CONVERSATIONALIST“: On his death and centenary year.
Sir Isaiah Berlin died on november the 5th, 1997, aged 88. Few days later, ”The Economist” published then a peculiar obituary article ( http://www.economist.com/node/352783 ) that presents the philosopher and his work as an ”Oxford phenomenon”. Surprisingly, in a large extend, the article presents Berlin on these terms: “What was it about Sir Isaiah that made him the superstar of academic showbiz? Perhaps not solely his books, probably the most lasting of which are collections of his lectures and essays. He preferred the spoken word. The memories of his friends are mainly of his talk....“. And a few sentences ahead the idea is repeated and amplified. “A colleague, Maurice Bowra, once remarked that although “like Our Lord and Socrates, he does not publish much, he thinks and says a good deal”. He was a useful dinner guest, entertaining the company with stories of this century’s immortals, Einstein, Picasso, Freud, and so on, and no one doubted that he had met them.“ “As in real showbiz, his reputation spread in ever widening circles from an admiring centre. He had 23 honorary doctorates from eminent universities, possibly a record, and many academic awards. As well as being knighted, he received a rarer honour, the Order of Merit, which is limited to 24 people. A writer on western philosophy noted that a cousin of Sir Isaiah was the leader of a Jewish sect, and proclaimed by thousands of his followers to be the Messiah. Sir Isaiah did not match that but, in Oxford terms, he may have come close“
We always though that this was a quite inappropriate way of introducing the person, the thinker, the philosopher (and even the “personnage“) to the large audience of such a serious magazine with this kind of triviality and idleness.
Almost twelve years later, on the centennial year of the philosopher´s birth, Henry Harder, Berlin´s literary executor, published the second set of letters written by Berlin and, in this ocasion, ”The Economist” writes, once again, in the same direction:
“When the late Isaiah Berlin was knighted, a friend joked that the honour was for his services to conversation. The distinguished theorist of liberalism was indeed a brilliant talker and feline gossip.“
“Berlin did not write on oath. He ladles praise on correspondents only to dismiss them in letters to others as gorgons or third-raters. During the Suez crisis in 1956 he writes to the wife of the prime minister, Sir Anthony Eden, that her husband has shown “great moral splendour”. The next letter, to Berlin’s stepson at Harvard, calls the British action “childish folly”. His capsule judgments are sometimes apt, sometimes sneering. He calls Sir Peter Strawson, an eminent contemporary philosopher, provincial. “
Even if this second article is a bit less frivolous than the first one, we still don´t understand what else than enviousness and resentment can be behind this sad way of presenting a significant philosopher. Perhaps there is no doubt about Berlin´s egotism but a reader, may finish to suspect that, at the end, all this is nothing but the fruit of a poor editorial narcissism.
All of this seems more alike Murdoch´s tabloid press than the kind of approach we expect from ”The Economist”.