214 Derrida 1963–1983
the notion of mythos, he tried to cast a shadow of political suspicion
over Derrida, suggesting a link between his work and the ‘retrograde
revolution’ that brought Hitler to power.
Derrida abstained from any reaction. But the following week, a
double response appeared in L’Humanité. One came from Claude
Prévost, a member of the editorial board of La Nouvelle Critique.
The other was written by Sollers:
Alluding to the theory of writing that we consider to be scientifi -
cally founded by the pathbreaking book by Jacques Derrida, Of
Grammatology (1967), M. Faye, who in any case comments on
no more than a fragmentary aspect of the work, which he misin-
terprets, states peremptorily that it constitutes a continuation of
Nazi ideology. This suggestion is extremely grave. Not only does
Derrida criticize Heidegger at several points, but to insinuate that
this work might have the least point in common with Nazism is
an act of defamation. Targeting simultaneously Derrida through
Tel Quel and Tel Quel through Derrida, M. Faye claims (always
by insinuation) that we have ‘identifi ed speech with the bourgeoi-
sie and writing with the proletariat’; that we support the view that
‘history has not stopped going backwards in the West’, etc. But
statements such as these can absolutely not be found anywhere
either in Derrida or in Tel Quel.^21Rather curiously, Faye wrote to Derrida that the remarks
attributed to him about the latter
constitute a gross lie. Those who have put this lie into circu-
lation bear the responsibility for it. As for myself, let me say
clearly, and publicly, that your name has never been mixed up
with any of that, in this tone. Let me also express the esteem
and admiration that I have had for your work, as you well
know, for several years.He also said he would like to have with Derrida ‘that friendly con-
versation’ that they had been planning to have for several months.
However, Faye asked Derrida, ‘provisionally’ and ‘to avoid any
further wilful misinterpretation’, not to make this letter public.^22
On 10 October, he published in L’Humanité a statement to ‘clear
matters up’: in it, he insisted that he had nothing but esteem and
admiration for Derrida and his philosophy.
This did not stop the polemic from dragging on in Tel Quel
and Change; indeed, the atmosphere deteriorated even more. In
La Gazette de Lausanne, Faye, who had been working for several
months on the philosophical roots of Nazism, attacked Derrida
explicitly, claiming that in his work there was ‘a sort of blindspot