Sean Burke The Death and Return of the Author : Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida.

96. Ibid., p. 23; p. 51.
97. Ibid., p. 51.
98. Roland Barthes, Image-Music-Text, trans. and ed. Stephen Heath (London: Fontana, 1977),
p. 147.
99. Michel Foucault, 'What is an Author?', Textual Strategies, p. 159.
100. James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, in Harry Levin, ed., The Essential
James Joyce (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1963), pp. 52–252: p. 221.
101. Michel Foucault, 'What is an Author?', Textual Strategies, op. cit., p. 144.
102. Georges Poulet, in Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato, eds, The Structuralist
Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1972), p. 145.
103. This autobiographical emphasis is to be found not only in the later work, but virtually right
across the Nietzschean corpus. In the earlier period, for example, Nietzsche went so far as to
ask: 'Whither does this whole philosophy, with all its circuitous paths, want to go? Does it do more
than translate, as it were, a strong and constant drive, a drive for . . . A those things which . . .
are most endurable precisely for me? A philosophy which is at bottom the instinct for personal
diet? An instinct which seeks my own air, my own heights, my own kind of health and weather, by
the circuitous paths of my head?' Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of
Morality, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 223.
104. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, trans.
R.J. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), p. 18.
12. See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, trans. J.M.
Cohen (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1953).
13. Jacques Derrida, 'Cogito and the History of Madness', in Jacques Derrida, Writing and
Difference, trans. Alan Bass (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 31–63: p. 35. The
impossibility of writing 'a history of silence' is one of the criticisms Derrida makes of Foucault's
history of madness. See Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the
Age of Reason, trans. Richard Howard (London: Tavistock, 1967).
14. See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Essay on the Origin of Languages, trans. J.H. Moran and
Alexander Gode (New York: Fredric Ungar, 1966).
15. See Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, trans. Maurice Cranston
(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984).
16. See Jacques Derrida. Of Grammatology, op. cit., p. 194.
17. Ibid., pp. 193–4.
18. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 'Translator's Preface', Of Grammatology, op. cit., p. lxxxv.
19. Ibid.
20. See Jacques Derrida, 'Plato's Pharmacy', Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (London:
Athlone Press, 1981), pp. 61–171.
21. See Plato, Phaedrus in The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, ed. Edith
Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Bollingen Series LXXI (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1961).
22. Jacques Derrida, Dissemination, op. cit., pp. 66–7.
23. Full references to the pretexts and contexts of Derrida's reading of Plato will be made to the
section 'The Myth of Writing' below.
24. See Plato, Phaedrus, op. cit.
25. Jacques Derrida, 'Plato's Pharmacy op, cit., p. 67.
26. Irene E. Harvey highlights the problem of Rousseau's exemplarity in an article entitled
'Doubling the Space of Existence: Exemplarity in Derrida—the Case of Rousseau' in John Sallis,
ed., Deconstruction and Philosophy: The Texts of Jacques Derrida (Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 60–70. She argues that 'Rousseau is a mere example on
the one hand, a superfluous addition and in principle could have been replaced or substituted by
anyone else in such a demonstration, yet on the other hand is a particularly good example—a
crucial and critical choice, a unique individual, non-substitutable, and offering an essential
addition in order to fill a void'. (62) Harvey does not, however, argue a paucity of logocentric texts
from this, nor does she connect the question of exemplarity to the question of the author,
contending rather that the notion of exemplarity itself should be deconstructed.