I never met Isaiah Berlin. I might have done so when I was a graduate student at Oxford in the 1980s, but meeting Berlin never occurred to me then as either possible or especially desirable. At that time I regarded him as a rather distant critical target belonging to an earlier generation of political theorists whose work had been largely superseded. Later, when Berlin's thought became a central interest for me, I was no longer living in Britain and he seemed remote geographically. Eventually it was too late. In 1997 I finally wrote to see if I could get an interview, only to receive a reply from Berlin's secretary that Isaiah Berlin had died soon after I sent my letter. Unkind colleagues suggested that the prospect of seeing me had been too much for him. At any rate, a personal meeting was not to be.

Never having spoken to Berlin face to face is something I greatly regret. Everyone who knew him reports what a remarkable person he was, and especially what a mesmerising conversationalist. One of the favourite party pieces of many of his former students and colleagues is an impersonation of the characteristic Berlinian monologue, which is like a Joycean stream of consciousness with history of ideas content delivered by someone who has to race off to catch a bus. These performances are often very funny and always affectionate.

But not having been subjected to the famous charm may have its compensations. Critics of those who defend Berlin's ideas, or of those who are inspired by them, sometimes complain that the name of the great man is invoked as if it were an argument in itself: ‘Berlin agrees, therefore it must be so.’ I think that this kind of criticism is often exaggerated, but also that there's sometimes an element of truth in it. The reason, I suspect, has something to do with the extraordinary personal loyalty that Berlin seems to have inspired in so many of his students and friends. Berlin does appear to have cast a spell on people, making it hard for them to take him to task even when they want to. Those who have not been under the personal spell may be better placed to be independent critics.