From Husserl to Artaud 1963–1964 129
have borne concrete results if the publisher had shown any enthu-
siasm at all, instead of informing them that he could not possibly
‘envisage [.. .] the publication of a book on Aloysius Bertrand’,
since his list was full for years to come.^6 But perhaps this rather
unusual plan was really an attempt to rekindle a great friendship
that was starting to fade?
Though it passed unremarked by the media and the non-specialist
public, the appearance of The Origin of Geometry was noticed and
hailed in philosophical circles. The great epistemologist Georges
Canguilhem, whom Derrida sincerely admired and whom he some-
times referred to as his ‘philosophical superego’, was the fi rst to
congratulate him:
It has been a long time – many months – since I have read a book
right to the end, at a single sitting, dropping everything else to
do so. This is the measure of the quality of your work, since I
read your Introduction to The Origin of Geometry without a
break, and with unprecedented intellectual satisfaction. [.. .]
Initially, I smiled when I saw how long the Introduction was
compared to the text itself. But I’m not smiling now – instead,
I’m glad the Introduction is so long, since in the fi nal analysis
it’s all necessary. There’s not a single word of padding. [.. .] I
wasn’t the fi rst to place my confi dence in you – that was Jean
Hyppolite. My confi dence simply took its cue from his, but it is
now fully justifi ed.^7In presenting his compliments to Derrida, Canguilhem hoped that
his work ‘would be as productive as this success promises’. This was
not mere lip service: he was the main person responsible for ensuring
that the Introduction to The Origin of Geometry was awarded the
prestigious Jean-Cavaillès prize.
A few weeks later, Michel Foucault, whose reputation had been
made with the publication of his History of Madness in 1961, also
expressed his enthusiasm to his ‘dear friend’:
Before thanking you for your Introduction to The Origin of
Geometry, I wisely waited until I had read it, – and re-read it.
Now I have done so. And all that remains for me to tell you,
rather dumbly, is that I’m fi lled with admiration. A few more
words: I knew what a perfect connoisseur of Husserl you are;
as I read you, I had the impression that you were bringing out
quite diff erent possibilities of philosophizing which phenom-
enology constantly promised but also perhaps sterilized; and
that these possibilities were in your grasp, were coming into
your grasp. Probably the fi rst act of philosophy for us – and for