바르트 신학에 대한 자유주의 신학적 해석 ― 렌토르프를 중심으로

이용주 ( Lee Yong Joo ) 한국조직신학회 2018 한국조직신학논총 Vol.52 No.-

Barth-studies can be summarized in the following three tendencies: dogmatic interpretation, socialist interpretation, and liberal theological interpretation. While in Korea the dogmaticorthodox interpretation consists the main stream of Barth research and the socialist one is partly introduced, the liberal theological interpretation remains almost unspoken. This article deals with interpretation of Trutz Rendtorff’s, who is the representative of the liberal theological Barth study, called ’Munich interpretation’. In contrast to the general view that Barth is completely cut adrift from liberal theology, Rendtorff presents the thesis that Barth critically inherits the concept of autonomy, the core idea of modern liberal theology. The characteristic concepts of Karl Barth’s theology, such as totaliter aliter, christological concentration, theology as the function of church etc., are in fact the covert application of main concern of liberal theologians such as Semler and Troeltsch. In this way, Barth inherits the liberal theology critically and tries to reconstruct theology in harmony with the main spirit of liberal theology. In spite of the superficial confrontation with liberal theology, Barth’s theology is in reality in continuity with liberal theology. In this essay, Barth’s position to liberal theology is defined as ’continuity in discontinuity’. Rendtorff’s Barth interpretation shows that the study about liberal theology is more needed than ever for balanced evaluation of historical and systematical meaning of Barth’s theology. This article may offer desiderium for investigating the relationship between Karl Barth and liberal theology in contrast to the conventional orthodoxdogmatic Barth interpretation in Korea.

칼 바르트(Karl Barth) 신학에 있어서의 교회와 국가

김명용 장로회신학대학교 장로회신학대학교 2009 장신논단 Vol.0 No.35

Karl Barth's understanding about the church and the state changes rapidly in his life. In the Roemerbrief(1922) the state has no relation to the kingdom of God, because God has no earthly tool in the world. The church also is not an agent of God's worldly action. The kingdom of God exists in the heaven, not on the earth. There is no analogy of the kingdom of God on the earth. In the period of Barmer theologische Erklaerung(1934) Barth thinks that there are three modes of God's Word. Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the church are these three modes. According to Barth in this period the church is the worldly tool which God uses. But in the world outside the church there is no holy tool which God uses. The state has no positive meaning in relation to the kingdom of God. In the Christengemeinde und Buergergemeinde(1946) we can find an important development in the understanding of Karl Barth about the church and the state. According to Barth we must try to make analogies of the kingdom of God in the state. Barth begins to understand the state in the light of the kingdom of God. The Lord of the church is the Lord of the world. Jesus Christ rules not only in the church but also in the state. The light of the kingdom of God must appear in the world. It must appear in the political area. Although Barth apposed any analogy of the kingdom of God in the political area because of Adolf Hitler in the period of Barmer theologische Erklaerung, he tries in this new period to build a theology which says worldly analogies of the kingdom of God. According to Barth the capital punishment must no longer exist, because Jesus Christ died for the sinner. The light of the death of Jesus Christ must appear in the state system of punishment. The state is not an agent of God's judgement. It must be an agent of God's grace. It is a total new idea of Barth to understand the state in the light of God's grace. According to Barth the analogies of the gospel must be established in the state. Must we kill Adolf Hitler? According to Barth we must kill him. It is an exception. It is an urgent case. In the urgent situation like Adolf Hitler God orders us to kill him. It is God's command. But in the normal situation killing must be forbidden. The capital punishment also must be forbidden. According to the christian tradition like J. Calvin and M. Luther the state uses coercive power to establish justice and peace in the world. But according to Barth the use of coercive power must be limited in the urgent situation. The state exists to help the people. The light of the gospel must be shone in the state. Is there any right war in the world? Yes, only in the urgent situation like Adolf Hitler. Jesus Christ on the cross teaches us that the real path to peace is love. Power against power is not the path to peace. The spirit of Jesus Christ must rule over the world to establish peace. The coercive power is not the path to peace. According to Barth in the situation of nuclear war there is no right war because it means total destruction. It is nonsense to insist that we must defend our nation with nuclear weapons.

바르트의 신학방법론에 대한 비평적 고찰: 안셈 시프트(Anselmic Shift)를 중심으로

김용준 ( Yong Jun Kim ) 한국복음주의신학회 2012 성경과신학 Vol.62 No.-

Karl Barth is a very important theologian who distinguishes between modern theology and contemporary theology. Even contemporary theologians such as Moltmann, Jungel and Pannenberg were in the major influence of Karl Barth. Therefore, Barth takes an important place in contemporary theology. To understand contemporary theology it is essential to study Karl Barth, However, his theology is too wide to treat completely in this paper, So I will focus on the his theological Method, especially, on the Anselmic Shift. Karl Barth`s study of Anselm Fides Quaerens Intellectum takes a very important role in his Thought. In the process of the development of his thought, this book gives him very special meaning. However, there are two aspects to understand in Barth`s development of his own theology. One is that Barth shifted from ``dialectics to Analogy``; the other is that there is no great revolution. A Catholic theologian, Von Balthasar points out that Barth`s thought was changed ``from Dialectics to Analogy``. And Barth`s right side, Eberhard Jungel agrees with Von Balthasar. By contrast to this view to an Anselmic shift, Jenson affirms that Barth has no such a shift from dialectics to analogy. Bruce McCormack presents his criticism on Von Balthasar in his book Karl Barth`s Critically realistic Dialectical theology: Its Genesis and development (1909-1936). McCormack argues that although it is a commonplace in the literature on Barth`s development that through his study of Anselm, Barth was led to a new starting point in thought, it is quite wrong. In conclusion, there has been no shift from ``dialectics to analogy``. Barth`s study on the Anselm`s book focuses on his rejection of natural theology. Therefore his Anselm study is not about new starting point in his thought, but a useful tool against natural theology.

루이스 벌코프의 칼 바르트 신학에 대한 평가

이상웅 ( Sang Ung Lee ) 개혁신학회 2013 개혁논총 Vol.25 No.-

Karl Barth was one of the best-known theologians of the 20th century. Whether we are sympathetic or critical about his theology, we just cannot ignore or overlook his theology and consider it irrelative. This paper tries to examine Louis Berkhof`s (1873-1957) response to and evaluation on Barth`s theology. Berkhof was the first Reformed theologian to evaluate Barth`s theology. Berkhof was an American Reformed theologian from Netherlands, and was contemporary with Barth. Though the theological system of Berkhof took it`s shape already in the 1930s, still he paid attention to Barth`s theology which was taking its shape, and evaluated Barth`s theology from the viewpoint of the historic Reformed Theology. In this article, I discussed exhaustively how Berkhof evaluated Barth`s theology in his magnum opus, i.e. Introduction to Systematic Theology and Systematic Theology. It should be noted that Berkhof could confront only the earlier part of the theology of Barth. So, Berkhof`s criticism on Barth`s theology was limited to only a few books of Barth, such as the Epistle to the Romans, the Church Dogmatics I/1 and the books written by other scholars. Berkhof observed that Karl Barth emphasized the transcendental revelation as a reaction to the liberal theology and presented his existential views on the Holy Scripture. Berkhof was highly interested in these views but criticized them carefully. Berkhof positively recognized those assertions of Barth`s early theology that followed the Historical Reformed theological line (such as, the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ and the historical fact of His resurrection) but fairly criticized the controversial points of Barth`s theology. He criticized Barth`s views on the Holy Scripture and the doctrine of predestination and labeled them as non- Reformed. Under such situation, Berkhof stated: “Mention may also be made of the Barthian theology, though its Reformed character is of a rather dubious nature.”Though his evaluation was limited to Barth`s early theology of the 1930s, we should recognize that he criticized Karl Barth`s theology with fairness, which was based on sincere research work. It is also observed that the critical work on Barth`s theology that was initiated by Berkhof was carried on comprehensively by his followers (such as, Fred H. Klooster and A. Hoekema) and C. van Til. And we, who are living in the 21st century, can do more comprehensive and critical studies on Barth`s theology than the former generations as we have access to Barth`s all books and numerous other books written on his theology. Taking the advantage of our better situation, we need to continue the work of evaluating Barth`s theology with fairness from the viewpoint of Historic Reformed Theology.

바르트의 계시관에 대한 개혁 신학적 비판

김용준(Kim Yong Jun) 개혁신학회 2014 개혁논총 Vol.31 No.-

바르트의 계시관은 개혁 신학과 다르다. 그의 계시 개념이 전통신학으로부터 온 것이 아니라, 그의 선배들로부터 온 것이다. 이러한 관점으로 인해 바르트의 계시에 대한 세 가지 문제가 발생한다. 첫째, 일반계시의 측면에서 그는 포이에르바흐에 대한 이해로부터 근거한다. 이는 두 가지 측면으로 나타나는데, 하나는 포이에르바흐의 철학에 대해 고려하면서 그는 인간론적인 이해로의 전환에 대해 비판한다. 반면 포이에르마흐에 대해 찬성하는 것은 포이에르바흐의 기독교에 계시에 대한 비판 즉 전통 유신론에 대한 비판을 수용한다는 것이다. 이는 바르트의 사고 속에서 철저하게 자연신학을 거부하는 이유와 더불어서 왜 인간 예수에 집중해 있는지를 보여준다. 그는 인간의 가능성을 배제하고 있음에도 불구하고 여전히 인간 예수를 계시로 설정하고 있다. 둘째, 특별계시의 입장에서 바르트는 계시를 말씀하시는 하나님의 인격에서 찾는다. 이는 먼저'만남',' 행동', 그리고'인격'으로 이어지는 바르트의 계시관 이해에 근거한 것이다. 이러한 계시관은 슐라이에르마허와 리츨의 신학에 근거한 것이다. 계시를 인격이라고 말하는 것은 객관적인 계시 즉 명제적 계시를 부정하고, 오직 주관적이고 상대적인 면에서 실존적 계시의 입장만을 반영하고 있음을 보여준다. 셋째, 마지막으로 칼 바르트는 계시를 가장 중점적으로 삼위일체와 연관시킨다. 그러나 바르트의 이해는 헤겔의 이해와 맞물려 있다. 헤겔의 화해와 외화의 이해를 차용하여서 세상과 하나님을 하나로 이해하려는 시도를 바르트는 받아들인다. 그래서 인간 예수를 통해 나타나는 신적 계시에 대한 이해를 반영한다. 이는 바르트의 계시가 삼위일체론과 연관되어 있지 않고 도리어 인간 예수에 근거한 헤겔의 철학에 있다는 것을 정확하게 보여준다. 바르트의 삼위일체교리는 궁극적으로 인간 예수에 대한 이야기 일 뿐이다. 따라서 바르트의 삼위일체뿐만 아니라, 삼위일체 근거한 계시 이해 역시 문제가 된다. 결론적으로 정통신학에 계시는 하나님의 뜻을 전달하는 것이다. 그리고 계시는 두가지 즉 일반계시와 특별계시로 구성된다. 우선, 바르트에 반대해서 자연계시는 인간의 가능성을 인정하는 것이 아니라 하나님의 지으신 자연 계시에 대한 유익을 설명하려고 한 것이다. 그러나 바르트는 일반계시를 거부하였다. 둘째, 계시는 언제나 명제적임에도 불구하고 바르트는 이를 실존주의의 개념으로 변형 시켰다. 셋째, 바르트는 삼위일체에 근거한 계시를 이야기 하고 있지만 실상은 헤겔에 의존하여'인간 예수'에 근거한 일치와 화해를 이야기하고 있을 뿐이다. 그러므로 바르트의 계시는 개혁주의 신학의 개념과 다르다. Barth's concept 'Revelation' differs from Reformed theology. His concept of 'revelation' does not derive from the orthodoxy theology, but from his predecessors. Because of this aspect, three problems occur in Barth's revelation. 1) In the aspect of general revelation, He depends on the concept of Feuerbach. This dependence occurs in the two aspects. Firstly, Karl Barth criticizes Feuerbach's change toward anthropological understanding of God by concerning his philosophy. Secondly, Barth accepts that Feuerbach criticizes the traditional christian revelation, that is, traditional theism. It shows the reason why Barth totally rejects the natural theology and he focuses on human Jesus. Therefore, although he rejects the possibility of human being in revelation, Barth still holds that human Jesus only is revelation. 2) In the aspect of special revelation, Barth looks for the revelation in the phrase 'Dei loguentis persona'. It closely related with Barth's concept of revelation as 'Encounter,' 'Act,' and 'Person.' This understanding depends on the theology of F. D. E Schleiermacher and Albrecht Ritschl. To say revelation as person denies the objective revelation, that is, prepositional revelation. And it only reflects on the aspect of the philosophy of existence(existential concept) of revelation related to subjectivism and relativism 3) Finally, Karl Barth in priority relates the concept revelation to the doctrine of the Trinity. However, Barth's understanding is closely connected with that of Hegel. Karl Barth accepts an attempt to understand the unity between world and God by borrowing Hegel's reconciliation and becoming. It clearly demonstrates that Barth's revelation does not relate to the Orthodoxy or Reformed doctrine of the Trinity, but to the Hegel's philosophy on the basis of human Jesus. In conclusion, the revelation in reformed theology implies the delivery of God's will to human being. In this meaning, revelation consists of two, that is, natural revelation and special revelation. Firstly, in contrast to the theology of Karl Barth, natural revelation does not mean the possibility of human being, but the benefit through the nature created by God as semen religionis(we have to accept its shortness for salvation). But Karl Barth rejects general revelation. And secondly, in spite of propositional character of special revelation, Barth changes it into the understanding of existentialism. And thirdly, although Barth mentions the revelation based on the doctrine of the Trinity, in fact, he just says the unity and reconciliation on the basis of human Jesus according to Hegel. Therefore, Barth's concept of revelation differs from that of Reformed theology.

칼 바르트와 이삭 아우구스트 도르너의 상관관계에 대하여 중재신학자 도르너의 신학은 바르트와 신개 신교주의를 잇는 가교로 주장될 수 있는가

이상은 ( Sang Eun Lee ) 한국조직신학회 2012 한국조직신학논총 Vol.33 No.-

The theological relationship between mediating theologian I. A. Dorner, standing in the tradition of Schleiermacher, and dialectical theologian Karl Barth has been attracting the attention of the theologians who tried to argue that there is a connection between Karl Barth and Neo-Protestantism. Among such theologians, the representative ones are W. Panneberg, who tried to link Barth`s theology to G. W. F. Hegel`s speculative theology, and J. Moltmann, who attempted to develop social Trinitarian theology criticizing that Barth`s Trinitarian theology was confined in the modern theological trend which emphasized the subject. As these theologians did, when Barth is examined on the basis of modern theology which is centered on the concept of subject, it seems Barth had influence of Dorner`s Trinitarian theory because Barth`s concept of “one personal God and three mode of being” shares the concept of subject with Dorner`s, and, also, similarities are observed in their conceptual development. However, the examination of Barth`s linkage to Dorner`s theology should begin with a careful examination of the context in which Barth evaluates Dorner, along with consideration of the differences between them. Barth took note of Dorner`s trintarian doctrine because he saw in it a possibility of overcoming Neo-Protestanistic Anthropocenticism. On the other hand, Barth criticized Dorner`s theology in that it still failed to overcome the limits of the 19-century theology. When it comes to Trinitarian doctrine which is established on the basis of the concept of subject, Barth emphasized the sovereignty of God, while Dorner placed importance on the system created according to the structure of his theology. Barth`s emphasis on God`s sovereignty makes it unjustifiable to claim that there is a hidden connection between Barth and speculative theology. It must also be pointed out that examining the relation between the two theologians within subjectobject frame, which is based on subjectivity in Barth`s dogmatics, is only a partial way of understanding their relationship. When examined against the basis on which these two theologians are standing, that is, Christocentrism, it cannot be viewed proper. Thus, examination of such basis is essential in the analysis. Despite his own theologically speculative system, Dorner tried to emphasize Christ as the center. Such Christocentrism is visible in his theses on Immutability of God. Barth paid special attention to the contents of these theses, as he developed the structure of church dogmatics, from the structure of subject to the structure of Christocentrism. Hence-forth, the relation between the two is based not only on subject-object structure but also on the common ground of their Christocentric theology. Thus, it is improper, in analysis, to regard Dorner`s theology as a “missing link” between Barth and Neo-Protestantism. Instead, Barth`s relation to Dorner must be examined in the context that Barth saw a potential of overcoming the problem of Neo-Protestantism, and he carried Dorner`s Christocentric theology for his own dogmatic work.

비포 앤 애프터: 사진 이론의 약진과 롤랑 바르트

조주연 ( Jo Juyoun ) 한국미학회 2016 미학(美學) Vol.82 No.4

The invention of photography occurred in 1839, but its theorization began almost a century later when photography became a medium of serious attention by several writers in 1920s. The progress was, however, very slow, and all of a sudden the rush of photography theory came out from 1960s through 1970s. Both the photographic community and the art world in the USA and the UK began to produce professional theories of photography. This change had the same origin which was the decline of modernism in art, but the responses to it were different: Formalist theory of photography in the photographic community and Postmodernist theory of photography in the art world. Interestingly, this period coincides with the time when Roland Barthes developed his theory of photography. In the history of photography theory before him, Barthes marked an unparalleled position. His work covered all range of photographs in the press, advertisement, film stills, and portraiture, and substantially developed the semantics and the ontology of photography. The photography theory of Barthes is divided into two parts: the ontology in La Chambre claire(1980) and the semantics before that book. For convenience`s sake, this article will call the work before La Chambre claire the early period and the work published in 1980 the later. Barthes earlier focused on the signification of photography with the method of semiotics, but later concentrated on the essence of photography with that of phenomenology. Due to this difference of research interests, the relation of two periods has been considered either frequently as severance, or rarely as continuation. This article suggests, however, that the relation is just like a decalcomanie which has the exact reversal upon the unbroken continuation. Barthes divides three levels of photography: the traumatic, the denotative, and the connotative. The first two are given by the existence of a referent, and the third by the codes of culture. And then, the first two are divided according to the similarity of the referent. The denotative is the level in which that similarity could be confirmed, but the traumatic is the level in which a referent is seen in a photograph but you can`t tell what it is. The relation of the earlier and the later Barthes is above all the continuation in that the division and the concepts of the three levels of photography have consistency from beginning to end. But then, that relation is also a reversal in the fact that he put the most importance on the traumatic and the least on the connotative in the later ontology, which are the two levels with the opposite evaluation in the earlier semantics. The earlier Barthes focused on the connotative level which can operate like a language, but the later Barthes stressed the traumatic which is different from and frustrates the language. Now, what is the relation between Barthes`s theory of photography having the continuation with reversal and the rush of photography theory in the English-speaking world in the same period? There is no relation with the Formalist theory either with Barthes`s earlier semantics or his later ontology. While Formalist theories defended the aesthetic qualities and values of photography to make it as art, Barthes`s earlier semantics developed semiotics exactly to oppose this aesthetic position, and his later ontology pointed out fine art as the efficient way to seal the lurking madness in photography. His relation with Postmodernist theory of photography is more complex: first seminal, and then ending up with dissent. Postmodernist theories regard in general photography not as a medium with some essential natures, but as a variable medium whose signification could vary in the social and cultural contexts. This perspective is what Barthes found out in the earlier semantics of photography. In the later ontology, Barthes presented the essence of photography which existed before the language, and he believed this essence was the breaking force which could frustrate the way photography signifies like language. This later suggestion was not accepted by Postmodernist theorists, who expressed discontent and disappointment to it.

칼 바르트 신학 속에 내재된 교회와 사회의 관계성에 대한 현대신학의 제(諸)이해: 존재론적 계층 구조로 읽기

오성욱 ( Oh Sung Wook ) 한국조직신학회 2016 한국조직신학논총 Vol.45 No.-

Karl Barth`s understanding of the relationship between the Church and society has been interpreted from many different perspectives. While Will. Herberg suggests that Barth understands this relationship as a correspondent, Friedrich-Wilhelm Marquardt argues the constant conflict between the Church and society in the theology of Karl Barth. On the other hand, John Howard Yoder portrays the relationship between the Church and society in Barth as both a mutual indifferent and a peaceful coexistent. Kimlyn J. Bender reviews the relationship between the Church and society in Barth from the asymmetrical Christocentric perspective. Bender`s asymmetrical Christocentric perspective focuses on Barth`s venn diagram which reveals the relationship between the Church and society in Barth`s theology: At the center Jesus Christ is fixed, inner circle is the church, and outer circle is a secondary society. In this structure, the Church plays an important role of the bridge between Jesus Christ as the center and society, and the Church has a priority over the society. Hence, The Church and society in Karl Barth are an asymmetrical Christocentric relationship. Based on Bender`s asymmetrical Christocentrism, however, I would like to propose the relationship of the ontological hierarchy between the Church and society in Karl Barth. In the God`s redemptive economy, society is ontologically next to the Church. This ontological hierarchy maximizes the difference between the Church and society, and illumines Church`s ontological responsibility for the society. This means that the Church should actively participate in the socio-political issues raised by society. In the process of active participation of the Church into society, the Church should show a good model for society and serve as a peaceful superintendent. Depending on the relationship of ontological hierarchy between the Church and society in Barth, this paper intends to reinterpret Barth`s theology from the Christocentric perspective to the ecclesio-centric perspective. In additions, This paper also seeks to find the nature of Radical Orthodoxy within Barth`s neo-Orthodoxy.

칼 바르트의 속죄론과 보편구원론

우병훈 ( B Hoon Woo ) 개혁신학회 2014 개혁논총 Vol.32 No.-

This essay aims to argue that Karl Barth`s doctrine of the atonement necessarily leads to universalism. It seeks to prove the thesis by observing Barth`s reception of Anselm`s doctrine of the atonement. Barth`s doctrine of objective atonement develops as he distances himself from Anselm`s doctrine of the atonement. In his Romerbrief, Barth endorses Anselm`s idea that God who is robbed of his honor must punish those who robbed him. In Church Dogmatics I/2, Barth advocates divine freedom in the incarnation with the support of Anselm`s Cur Deus Homo. Barth holds that Anselm`s doctrine of the atonement preserves both God`s freedom and the necessity of Christ`s incarnation. The positive endorsement of Anselmian motives in Cur Deus Homo continues in Church Dogmatics II/1. Barth maintains with Anselm that the sin of humanity cannot be removed by the merciful act of divine forgiveness alone. In Church Dogmatics IV/1, however, Barth`s doctrine of the atonement diverges from that of Anselm. By over-christologizing the doctrine, Barth completes his formulation of objective atonement. He finalizes the necessity of God`s mercy at the place where Anselm firmly establishes the dignity and freedom of the will of God. In Barth`s view, God`s mercy is identified with God`s righteousness in a distinctive way where God`s mercy always takes the initiative. The change in Barth`s reception of Anselm`s doctrine of the atonement shows that Barth`s doctrine entails support for universalism.

롤랑 바르트의 비평에 내재하는 정신분석적 사유

한용희 한국프랑스학회 2019 한국프랑스학논집 Vol.105 No.-

Le rôle de la psychanalyse dans l’œuvre de Roland Barthes n’a, jusqu’à présent, pas encore été bien étudié. Notre recherche a pour but de révéler la pensée psychanalytique dans la critique barthésienne. Pour ce faire, nous avons d’abord examiné le rapport de la linguistique et de Saussure avec le structuralisme. Levi-Strauss est le précurseur du structuralisme. Il a en effet souligné l’importance de la linguistique dans la science sociale. Pourtant, il a avoué que la psychanalyse est une des “trois maîtresses” lui ayant permis de développer son épistémologie. Roland Barthes a pareillement désigné le rôle décisif de la linguistique dans le travail structural. Le fait que deux pionniers du structuralisme aient fortement souligné l’importance de la linguistique dans le structuralisme a peut-être masqué que diverses épistémologies existent dans l’œuvre de Roland Barthes. Parmi elles, la pensée psychanalytique est assez importante pour bien comprendre sa critique. Nous avons ainsi examiné la tendance des études sur la psychanalyse dans les travaux de Roland Barthes. Certaines études simples ou rapides ne sont pas suffisantes pour bien révéler l’epistémologie psychanalytique dans sa critique. Nous sommes surtout déçu par le fait que Julia Kristéva, en tant que psychanalyste, n’a pas profondément traité la critique psychanalytique de Roland Barthes, dans son œuvre Sens et non-sens de la révolte, Pouvoirs et limites de la psychanalyse I, même si elle y a accordé un chapitre sur Roland Barthes. Pour élucider le concept du mythe dans Mythologies, connu comme étant un travail sémiologique, Roland Barthes met en avant la ‘condensation’ et la ‘déformation’ qui sont les éléments fondamentaux dans le travail de l’inconscient. Ces concepts sont précisément développés par Freud pour expliquer la structure de l’inconscient, surtout du rêve. Pour Roland Bathes, le système du mythe est semblable à celui de l’inconscient. Dans l’œuvre Sur Racine, connue comme étant un travail structuraliste, Roland Barthes a critiqué le théâtre racinien en invoquant la pensée freudienne développée dans Totem et Tabou. Selon lui, le processus de prohibition de l’inceste dans l’hypothèse freudienne se retrouve dans les actions fondamentales du théâtre racinien : “l'inceste, la rivalité des frères, le meurtre du père, la subversion des fils”. Barthes a également avoué qu’il a du beaucoup à Charles Mauron qui a écrit “une excellente psychanalyse de Racine”. A travers diverses références, on peut conclure que le degré d’influence de l’épistémologie psychanalytique n’est pas négligable dans l’œuvre de Roland Barthes. Nous laissons pour de futures recherches la psychanalyse de la thématique, la psychanalyse de la théorie du texte et l’influence de Lacan dans l’œuvre de Roland Barthes.