RiP: Myles Burnyeat (1939-2019)

Michael Morris informed me that Myles Burnyeat has died (see also Leiterreports). Burnyeat was a visiting scholar at The University of Chicago* in 2001 (or so) and gave a most memorable seminar on the Republic. (He also gave some eventful public lectures.) I was struck by his ability to make the Republic seem completely relevant to our age (we spent quite some time on advertising and the welfare state )--and have been marked forever by this. During the seminar, there  was amusement (recall) that this great anti-Straussian+ could seem so close to Bloom (then dead only a few years) in many of his interpretations.

During his stay in Hyde Park he made himself available for lengthy discussions with graduate students (at Jimmy's), snorting his tobacco snuff while engaged in sustained argument and sharing stories about other scholars/philosophers. He could also be very kind: I told him I was sad I had never met Isaiah Berlin before he died. He looked at me for a moment and said slowly, you would have liked listening to him.

At Chicago he treated our own (recall) Ian Mueller with great deference. But he had a tendency to treat Ian primarily as an expert on Greek mathematics (and so, simultaneously, not quite important on a lot of other stuff). I mention it not because I think there was any personal animosity or a sense of ill will (or to start a polemic of my own). But because it was also emblematic for a wider limitation of that generation of analytic, 'ancient' philosophers to have overly firm, and in part merely fashionable, views about what mattered. Stephen Menn has made the point in more sophisticated fashion (see here).

He was, among his generation of analytic ancient scholars, unusual for his deep interest in the evolution of views about and canon-formation of ancient philosophy. I remember once an exchange with him about the impact of Plato's Laws (a text I was then obsessed with) on early modern. To burden shift, but also from genuine curiosity, he asked me for a list of references. This was pre-google era, so it took me a while to compile it. When I handed it to him -- without making a copy for myself, I now regret! -- he was genuinely pleased. I then learned about his immense knowledge of Plato reception, and we spent quite some time discussing the impact of Plato on Berkeley's Siris (the subject of a famous paper of his).   

Others can judge better the lasting influence of his scholarship. Burnyeat was a great scholar, a polemicist, and à personality.  He was also a terrific stylist; I always enjoy checking out his papers when i am researching a topic he has written on.

I close with one of my favorite paragraphs:

Plato’s ability to move between two worlds, giving each its due, is evident on every page of his writing. James Mill, like Cicero, remains firmly down here on earth. Plotinus is constantly eager to get away to a better place. Plato, inspiration for all three, illuminates both poles of the universe into which he draws his readers. That is why he is altogether larger, more imaginative, richer in ideas, more amusing and more inspiring (even to those who are not philosophically minded), more fruitful to think with, more challenging, more outrageous—in short, more philosophical—than any of the diverse followings that came after him. Plato remains a powerful presence because he opens our mind to thoughts it was not aware it needed.

 

+I don't think that's his best essay; recall my response.

*I think Chicago tried to hire him.

Comments

[Mohan Matthen]

Myles was a friend. He was quite a remarkable individual. He had the ability, that you allude to Eric, to take from you what you were capable of giving. That sounds as if he was selfish. But actually, it was the opposite. He tried to find out what you were good at and gave you a chance to tell him about it. I learned a lot about by talking about sense-data with him, to give you an example. That's one reason I am surprised you think that he exemplified "a wider limitation of that generation of analytic, 'ancient' philosophers to have overly firm, and in part mere fashionable, views about what mattered." Actually, I think he took ancient philosophy into channels that it hadn't occupied, at least not in Anglo-American philosophy departments.

[Mohan Matthen]

P.S. I too wrote about the paper on Idealism and Greek Philosophy. It was one of my earliest publications, and Myles was tremendously encouraging.

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Mohan, thank you for these reflections about your friend. (My sincere condolences.) I agree with what you say and like how you put his strengths as an interlocutor (and teacher). We also agree that he he took ancient philosophy into channels that it hadn't occupied--this is what I tried to express in my claim that he was "unusual for his deep interest in the evolution of views about and canon-formation of ancient philosophy."

[Zena]

Thanks for this Eric (and for your continued devotion to Ian, which I share!). Zena

[Aaron V Garrett]

A few weeks ago I used the first page of "Plato on Why Mathematics is Good for the Soul" in class as an example of how great writing can get you to turn the page even when the subject is one you might not otherwise think is interesting. He was really extraordinary.