David Adams Leeming

His theories about mythology and religion examined by Stefan Stenudd

David Adams Leeming (born 1937) is not a psychologist, but an American professor of English and comparative literature, who has spent most of his professional life at the University of Connecticut, presently as professor emeritus. The bulk of his writing is on mythology, especially creation myths, where he has applied Jungian perspectives.

Archetypes of Mythology

by Stefan Stenudd
This book examines Jungian theories on myth and religion, from Carl G. Jung to Jordan B. Peterson. Click the image to see the book at Amazon (paid link).

Psychoanalysis of Mythology

by Stefan Stenudd
This book examines Freudian theories on myth and religion, from Sigmund Freud to Erich Fromm. Click the image to see the book at Amazon (paid link).

His first book on mythology was published in 1973. Several books on the subject followed. In 1994 he released a dictionary of creation myths, written together with his daughter Margaret Adams Leeming. An expanded second edition of it came in 2010, with him as the sole author.

Voyage of the Hero

The Jungian influence on Leeming’s treatment of myth is evident already from the title of his first book on the subject, from 1973: Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero. The hero was the favorite archetype of Carl G. Jung, since he meant it to represent the human quest for individuation, the self-realization of becoming conscious of one's unconscious and its content. It is also the perspective and theme of Joseph Campbell's famous book The Hero With a Thousand Faces from 1949, previously discussed, which has evidently also influenced Leeming considerably.

He refers generously to both Jung and Campbell as sources to his perspective on myths, and stresses their importance in the study of mythology. As for Jung, he praises him in particular for not shunning the mystical:

Most of all, Jung broke the path into regions scientists had feared to explore — regions which had been labeled "mystical" and therefore unworthy of attention.[1]

In an appendix, Leeming goes much further in his praise of Jung, calling him “an individual endowed with keen extrasensory perception” and comparing him to the mythical hero: “Like the hero of the monomyth, Jung was a pathfinder in search of the elixir of life.”[2] He describes Jung’s development from childhood to old age in terms that portray him as something of a mage or an enlightened being:

Jung at Bollingen succeeded in creating a mythical consciousness — in establishing meaningful contact with the life force which is everywhere and in everything.[3]

Leeming’s respect for Joseph Campbell is also way up there. He regards Campbell as the one who has “perhaps done more than anyone else to revive the study of myth”[4] and continues:

Campbell is particularly important because he makes the next step in our approach to mythology much simpler by demonstrating that mythology is the property of no single theorist or theory.

That is a strange statement, since Campbell leaned heavily on Jung’s theories, and his own main contribution — the universal hero myth, which he called the monomyth — argues for a rather narrow way of understanding the content and meaning of mythology. He just added another theory to the many competing ones around.

But it happens to be the one Leeming admittedly applies: “This book of myths is built upon a simplified form of the monomyth.”[5] And his definition of it is, as is that of Campbell, decidedly Jungian:

The monomyth itself is an expression of the journey of the hero figure, of our own journey through physical and psychic life, and of the evolutionary path of humanity to full consciousness.

Leeming also insists that there are inherited themes in myths as well as dreams, “buried in the very depths of the human psyche.”[6] They are universal in humankind and have an effect on us that we are unable to explain:

These are themes — archetypes — which, when we come across them, in literature, for instance, "strike a chord" for no apparent reason.

But of course there are apparent reasons. When those ingredients labeled archetypes — whether characters, things, or events — strike a chord, it is quite easy to grasp why. Simply put, they relate to our own fears and wishes.

The hero myth is a typical example. Who doesn’t want to be a hero? All those stories attract us because we long to make that journey, and they scare us because we know that so much can go wrong on the way. At the outset, it is impossible to know if the journey will end in success or failure, which is why we are hesitant about it.

Also, our own lives may be described the same way, though less spectacular. It is the human adventure from cradle to grave, with disappointments followed by delights followed by disappointments, obstacles and breakthroughs, where the staircase of all those events hopefully leads upwards, at least to an increased understanding of how we and the world work.

So, of course we can relate.

Even Leeming confirms it when on the same page he states that “myths reveal concerns which are common to all of us as a species.” Such concerns cannot be unfamiliar to our conscious minds. And later in the book he expresses the same, with additional Jungian terminology:

The beginning of the path to psychic wholeness is the recognition that the hero's voyage is in reality the voyage of each and all of us.[7]

Like Campbell, Leeming divides the hero’s voyage into separate phases. They differ somewhat in number and specifics, but are overall quite similar. Leeming lists eight such phases, and for each he goes through a number of examples from mythology and other myths of distinction. Those eight phases are:

1. The miraculous conception and birth and the hiding of the child;

2. Childhood, initiation, and divine signs;

3. Preparation, meditation, withdrawal, and refusal;

4. Trial and quest;

5. Death and the scapegoat;

6. The descent to the underworld

7. Resurrection and rebirth;

8. Ascension, apotheosis, and atonement.

In myths about heroic quests, and there are plenty of those, certainly some or even several of these phases can be found, but what the monomyth idea implies is that they should all be present in every hero myth. That is definitely not the case.

There is, though, one particular story fitting this structure remarkably well — that of Jesus. The Gospels, when combined to form a complete story from conception to ascension, contain all eight phases quite clearly.

Jesus is conceived miraculously, born with several signs of his importance, and hidden from Herod by the escape to Egypt. Already in his childhood he shows remarkable insights, and an affinity for the temple. He gets baptized and then withdraws into the desert to meditate his calling, where he is tempted by the devil but resists. He begins his preaching, meeting dismissals and hostility but persisting. Then he is put to trial and dies as sort of a scapegoat for our sins. He doesn’t descend to the underworld, but is kept in a cave and stays dead until the third day, when he is resurrected. After meeting and giving some final teachings to his disciples, he gloriously ascends and by that makes atonement with God possible for all people then and since.

This story fits Leeming’s model so well that its influence on the model must be assumed, considering Leeming’s cultural heritage and also the fact that his father was an Episcopal priest.[8] Leeming refers to Jesus and parts of his story frequently in the book, with examples in each of the eight phases, but he doesn’t discuss what this similarity to his model might reveal about his own preconceived notions when constructing it. That should be obvious.

The problem is that his intention is to present a monomyth formula applicable to all hero myths, so he regards any story fitting it as proof, also the one that is very likely to have made him decide on the formula to begin with.

He is not alone among Jungians to exhibit that flawed reasoning.

Creation Myths

In an appendix of the above discussed book, Leeming presents seven creation myths without any comment. It is understandable that he felt the need to add a few such myths to his book, since those stories are essential parts of many mythologies, even though they cannot be fit into the hero monomyth model. He was to expand considerably on this topic, in particular with an anthology of creation myths, first published in 1994 as The Encyclopedia of Creation Myths, and in 2010 an expanded second edition with the title Creation Myths of the World.

Both books show a clear change in Leeming’s attitude towards Carl G. Jung. In the earlier book he is just mentioned once, and that is in the text about his student Marie-Louise von Franz. None of his books are in the bibliography, nor any by Joseph Campbell, who is not mentioned at all.

Jungian concepts are present, though. In his definition of myth, Leeming writes:

A myth is a projection of an aspect of a culture’s soul. In its complex but revealing symbolism, a myth is to a culture what a dream is to an individual.[9]

The comparison between myths and dreams is popular among Jungians, who link the former to the collective unconscious and the latter to the personal unconscious. That is a neat model, but what is thereby claimed is that myths are not formed by conscious minds, which is particularly doubtful when it comes to creation myths with their elaborate speculations about the emergence of the world and everything in it.

Leeming also makes use of the archetype concept, though with some reservation regarding its dominance over cultural aspects:

While it is true that each creation myth reveals the priorities and concerns of a given culture, it is also true that when creation myths are compared, certain universal or archetypal patterns are discovered in them.[10]

Even the creation myth as such, he describes as an archetype, and a grand one at that:

In short, the archetype of the creation myth speaks to the equally universal drive for differentiation from nothingness that is expressed by everything that exists in the universe.

Another approach to creation myths, popular among Jungians as well as others studying them, is the division into categories. Those models are seldom identical, but usually similar. Here are the five categories Leeming suggests:

1) from chaos or nothingness (ex nihilo), 2) from a cosmic egg or primal maternal mound, 3) from world parents who are separated, 4) from a process of earth-diving, or 5) from several stages of emergence from other worlds.[11]

Such models are of limited use. The sorting of them into such categories doesn’t lead to any further understanding of the nature and function of creation myths. It is not even used for that. The models are created and myths are placed in the categories, and that’s it. Nor do they really convey the significances in each myth, but tend to blur them into types where deviations are neglected — and there are plenty of deviations.

Already the first category is problematic, since a pure creation out of nothing is hard to find in mythology. I am yet to find one. Genesis 1, for example, is certainly not it, although this has been claimed in Christian theology through its history. Another anomaly is that many creation myths contain more than one of the categories, and others are such that it is only by far-fetched reasoning they can be put in any one of them.

The problem with this kind of model is evident also in Leeming’s writing, since he presents a slightly deviating set of categories in his expanded second edition of the book, from 2010: ex nihilo creation, creation from chaos, world parent creation, emergence creation, and earth-diver creation.[12]

Reduced Archetypes

This later edition of Leeming’s book also deviates from the first in how Carl G. Jung is treated. There is still no book of his in the bibliography, which is odd, but he is mentioned several times and there is even a short biographical text about him.[13] Joseph Campbell is also given room this time around, even with a couple of his books in the bibliography.

There is also a difference in Leeming’s treatment of archetypes. In the first edition he recognized it as an important ingredient in myths, but in the second edition it is treated more or less as just one way of looking at it. He is distancing himself from it, almost as if the concept is a deserted theory of the past. He writes in the introduction:

Universal patterns or common motifs in mythology have been called archetypal, that is, reflective of psychological tendencies that are common to the human species as a whole.[14]

That is quite different from his previous elevation of its meaning. Also, he stresses the importance of understanding that the archetypes “only take on life and meaning when they are clothed in cultural particularity.” That is practically the opposite of the Jungian use of the concept, which emphasizes that the archetypes are shared by all, regardless of time and place.

In the encyclopedic text on the archetype, where Jung’s, Campbell’s, and Eliade’s use of it are explained, he ends with a similar reservation:

It must be emphasized, however, that the universal archetypal language of myth requires the elements of particular cultural experience in order to be realized, just as dreams require the local experience of individuals.[15]

The prerequisite of a cultural experience is that it cannot be innate, nor can it be completely unconscious. So, there is just about nothing Jungian left in Leeming’s view on the archetypes. Quite a change from the 1994 edition, and even more so from his 1973 book on mythology, discussed earlier. Leeming has gone from his initial adoration of Jung to distancing from him, almost dismissing him completely.

That doesn’t stop him from frequently presenting Jungian perspectives on the myths, but by quoting other sources, such as Marie-Louise von Franz and Charles H. Long.

There is another problem with Leeming’s encyclopedia of creation myths, but it doesn’t concern its Jungian perspectives. It is how he treats the sources to the myths he recounts. He doesn’t quote those sources, but re-tells most of the myths with his own words.[16] That is probably for copyright reasons. Still, it leads to doubts about the accuracy of his versions, and therefore also to what grounds he has for his interpretations.

Furthermore, as a source for many of the myths he uses The Beginning: Creation Myths around the World by Maria Leach, who has done the same. So, he has re-told stories already re-told by her, instead of going to her sources, although she has referenced them all commendably.

Religious Myth

In between the two above discussed editions of his book on creation myths, in 2002, David Adams Leeming published Myth: A Biography of Belief, where he discusses myth and religion more freely, in a personal way, allowing himself to speculate and make claims that are based on his opinion more than objective facts. That is certainly his prerogative as an author, and the result is a stimulating read in spite of his claims often being questionable.

On the other hand, all through the book it is often unclear if he just refers to the opinions and theories of others, or declares his own support for them. Since he often doesn’t quote sources but interprets the views of others with his own words, it is hard to sort out where the line goes between their views and his.

This ambiguity is shown also in his treatment of Carl G. Jung, whose theories are referred to frequently, although without either approval or dismissal. Contrary to the above discussed books, this one’s bibliography contains several texts by Jung. That has some significance but is easily explained by the many references to Jung’s theories. Leeming’s own opinion about those theories often remains unclear.

The book is based on a series of lectures he held in the year 2000, intended to define patterns of archetypes in the myths he presents as examples, also interpreting those archetypes and their functions. Doing so, he uses myths from religions, well aware that some people may be offended by his labeling of religious stories as myths, which would imply that they are fabrications.[17] He explains:

Myths reflect our spiritual and psychological development, our spiritual and psychological biography as a species, and it seems fair to hope that religions can also reflect that development.

He may be right, but there is also a possibility that he gives religion more credit than it deserves. There are many indications, and he mentions several of them in the book, that religions have primarily opposed development, and to a large extent still do. But Leeming has religion in very high regard, indeed, stating that “all cultures are joined in their many different ways in the great ‘religious’ and mythological process of examining the Unknown.”[18] The ultimate goal of this examination is self-awareness of the whole creation:

Mystics of all the great religions have especially been in agreement about their own traditions being non-exclusive vessels for the eternal and continuing process of making creation conscious of itself.[19]

It is a thought-provoking idea, which is proposed also in modern speculations about cosmology. Whether intentionally or not, the universe has given birth to creatures who are able to observe it and shed some light on its birth and development. That this is at all possible is not something given, we might just as well have been unable to explore the world beyond our own limited habitat — and up until very recently we were.

Tradition

As for the relation between myth and religion, Leeming states:

Traditionally, religions have been the repositories and interpreters of sacred stories — of myths — and the creators of rituals to express them.[20]

It is likely that religions, in the meaning of socially shared and upheld beliefs, have developed rituals enacting those beliefs. But, as Leeming implies, the myths are likelier to have been the sources of religions than the other way around. The beliefs were developed and transmitted in the form of myth, speculations turning into imaginative stories, which by time became the building blocks of religious doctrine. Time is what makes myth sacred.

Religious belief systems consist essentially of myths that became traditional and cherished as such. The myths may have started as speculation or mere entertainment, but as time passed their value increased because of their long tradition. What made them sacred was not primarily their content, but their cultural presence through multiple generations. They were preserved as legacy from the ancestors.

This is indicated by the very common response anthropologists have received as to why a culture holds on to certain rites and the beliefs they promote — it was the way of the ancestors. What has been cherished for long tends to continue to be cherished, even through cultural and social changes. The power lies not primarily in the symbolism or the dogma, but in the long history. It is sort of what is expressed by the saying that old habits die hard.

We have numerous traditions also in this modern world, which we stick to although they have more or less lost their original meaning. We don’t need to believe in the old myths and rituals. It is usually enough that they are old. For example, there is a Germanic tradition of raising a maypole, covered in leaves, when celebrating spring or midsummer. It is not known what this tradition originally meant or how it started. It is simply done because it has been done for so long.

Leeming makes the claim that “as our experience as cultures and as a species changes, so do our myths.”[21] That may be true for some myths, but the overwhelming number of them are faithfully kept unchanged from generation to generation, even in societies having to rely solely on oral transmission. It is quite remarkable, showing our reverence for tradition.

This also explains why it is not a problem that myths are not realistic and the meaning of rituals often are clouded or even misguided. As Leeming puts it, “we celebrate events that are clearly impossible according to the laws of reason.”[22] That has nothing to do with why we keep them around. Regardless of how fictional they may be, the myths and rituals are true in the sense that they truly belong to our traditions. We can, and we do, appreciate what our ancestors treasured for whatever reason.

Although myths tend to remain the same, reason is something that changes when our knowledge and culture does. Leeming writes that “the very essence of myth and ritual is anti-rational,”[23] and regards this as an essential aspect of them. But rationality and reason are in the eyes of the beholder. Many of the myths made sense to our ancestors, and the fabulous events described were regarded as possible or at least plausible.

It is even one of the attractions of the old myths that they contain ancient beliefs, which we can grasp through those myths — and appreciate. We get a chance to think like our ancestors did and understand them, as if sitting beside them when they told those tales. It is akin to time travel.

That is particularly true for creation myths, which tried to make sense of the world from very little factual knowledge about it. The cleverness and imagination by which this was pursued are fascinating to us, although we now know how wrong they were. What is wrong to us was right to them, and right for them.

Leeming hopes for a new mythology, whereby he seems to dismiss the traditional value of the ones we already have. He sees all kinds of new myths and mythical concepts appearing in modern society, for example in the arts and in politics, but what he looks forward to the most is a mythology bringing together religion and science. He already sees signs of it:

Perhaps the best indication of the beginnings of the acceptance of a new mythology is the relatively recent recognition of the common purposes and understandings of the old enemies, religion and science, spirit and reason.[24]

But he also sees a persistent refusal to modify religion in accordance with scientific progress, and he describes it as “a general resistance or inability of ordinary people — those not on the radical fringes of theology and those out of touch with the esoteric disciplines of astro and microphysics.”[25]

That is quite a prejudiced view, as if “ordinary people” would be incapable of understanding that scientific discoveries contradict old religious cosmology. We don’t need deep insights into either theology or physics to be aware of the consequences to religious dogma.

A much more plausible explanation to the slow or non-existent adaption of religion is, as discussed above, that it is not about facts but about tradition. Religions of old are conserved because of their age, and in that perspective deviations from later scientific findings are irrelevant.

Even fundamentalists who insist on a cosmology rejected by science do so because of their commitment to tradition, whether or not they use scientific counterclaims. Their incentive is that their religion should remain in accordance with tradition, since that is to them essential to its value and meaning.

It is true that religion and science have been colliding a lot for hundreds of years, but not all religions and not always. The animosity to science has mainly been within Christianity, already in the Middle Ages when the works of the Greek philosophers were rediscovered and much of their thinking was found to contradict the dogma of the church. Many other religions were not similarly provoked by scientific theories and discoveries.

And it must be remembered that there was a time when there was no conflict between religion of whatever kind and science, because they were merged into one. Mythologies are inseparable combinations of spirit and reason.

New Myths

Leeming’s book is divided into three parts, which concern three main aspects of mythology: creation, deity, and the hero. He ends each part by discussing the prospects of a new mythology, adapted to modern mentality and knowledge, which he presumes and hopes to emerge. It would consist of a new creation myth, a new perspective on divinity, and a new hero monomyth.

To Leeming, the content of these new myths must be universalistic, in the meaning that the archetypes of which they consist are revealed by comparing many mythologies and lead to a universal symbolic language.[26] Accordingly, he speaks of those who promote the new myths as universalists.

The new universalist creation myth should be “based on our new understandings of the universe, but using traditional language patterns,” where humans play a much larger part than in the old myths-[27]

He sketches what that new myth would be like, starting by replacing the creator god with another concept: “In the beginning was the Great Mystery.” It was energy with “the potential for everything that was, is, and will be,” which burst into “the explosion that became the Universe.”

That is an image of the Big Bang, except for the significant fact that it was not an explosion, but an expansion. In an expansion the center remains, whereas in an explosion it is emptied — and that would be an odd universe, even in a mythical sense. Leeming should have held on to astrophysics on this point.

He goes on with the solar system and Mother Earth as other parts of the continuing creative process driven by the Great Mystery. We humans have an obligation to retell the story:

In our paintings, our thoughts, our words, and our stories we have learned to imitate creation and make creation conscious of itself. As long as we keep doing this the Mother will not discard us.[28]

He insists that all creation stories are spiritual parables, “never meant to be taken literally,”[29] but symbolical celebrations of the creation archetype, which is the pattern of chaos to order. The re-creation of this pattern is essential to us, or even crucial:

If we do not re-create, if we do not make creation conscious of itself, we have no reason for being.

Harsh words. It is kind of an ouroboros circle that the universe would appear for the sake of discovering that it did. It is also a parallel to those types of mighty gods whose main concern is to be worshipped by the people they created. For being new, this creation myth carries a lot of baggage from the old ones.

As for the new deity, Leeming describes it as one sole supreme being of which “all deity myths are partial metaphors.”[30] Another distinct characteristic is that this deity has no gender, which to Leeming means that it must be nonpersonal:

However we perceive of deity now in the intellectual sense, it is likely to become neither masculine nor feminine and, therefore, in any human sense nonpersonal as it slowly takes form in our collective psyche.

Why a deity without gender therefore must lack personality is doubtful. There is more to personality than gender, especially with deities, who are notoriously sexually ambiguous. In some cases, gender is not at all applicable. If there is just one single deity, it can but be genderless. Still, such deities can be very personal, indeed.

It is also very questionable that all deities are metaphors for one supreme being. Mythologies prove this wrong. In polytheism, the many deities are clearly separate characters with their own roles in the world, and in monotheism the deity can’t be a metaphor for itself.

Leeming is biased by belonging to a culture impregnated by Christian ideas for two thousand years — and even that tradition he misunderstands. Christianity is not strictly monotheistic, since the deity is divided into a trinity, whereof the son is obviously separate from the father, also according to his own words as retold in the Gospels. In addition, there are angels, including the fallen one, who can rightly be compared to the deities of polytheism.

Leeming’s claim of all deities really being one would meet with approval from the proponents of the trinity, but hardly from comparative religion.

Thirdly and lastly, Leeming demands of the new hero monomyth that it leaves the old patriarchal value systems, instead to promote inclusiveness and universal interrelatedness, as the human perspective becomes increasingly global.[31] In the new hero myth, which Leeming calls ecological, we are the heroes.[32] And for us to be comfortable with the hero myth, it has to change substantially:

What we know is that the old mythologies represented by the old patriarchal and individualistic hero masks are no longer viable as expressions of who and what we are.

It is no longer a question of brave men in battle with each other to save the day, but a realization that the world is in dire need of unity:

The crucial salvation now is communal salvation; without it our species will die and creation will lose its consciousness.[33]

The path of the ecological hero who has the whole planet in mind is to discover the Self, his own as well as that of the species.[34]

It is somewhat unclear if Leeming means that these new myths are de facto taking form in society, or if it is wishful thinking on his part. Probably both.

Certainly, new myths appear frequently, some to quickly disappear and others to remain. But it is also true that many of the old myths stay with us, regardless of how they fit our present understanding of the world.

As discussed earlier, it is very much a question of tradition. The longer myths have been around, the likelier it is that they continue to be. That is particularly the case with those connected to religious mythology. They are part of our cultural heritage, which is why their content is not that important to us. It is enough that they once were relevant to our ancestors.

New myths are easily formed, but it is extremely difficult for them to replace the old ones. They will coexist.

Another problem with Leeming’s theory of new myths is its claim of homogeneity, i.e., that they would be adapted by society as a whole, even across the globe. It is very unlikely. Many things in society can be said to move towards homogeneity, such as political and economic structures, but spiritual beliefs and their myths are not similarly conforming. Quite the opposite. They tend to go their separate ways, rejecting any adaptation to other beliefs.

A culture can surely be dominated by one religion and its mythological content for as long as hundreds of years, but not forever. Although the religion remains, its monopoly does not. And if it is missionary, it might spread over the world but not convert everybody. We humans are alike in that we are reluctant to conform to others, especially if they are from other cultures than our own.

So, Leeming’s vision of globally adapted new myths fitting the needs of our time is not realistic. Already the fact that he sketches myths with what he regards as utopian qualities, perfectly fulfilling optimal individual as well as social realization, should tell him that he is naïve. Perfection is nowhere in sight, only steps hopefully getting us closer to it. But always many steps remain, if there is at all a final step.

[1] David Adams Leeming, Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero, second edition, New York 1981 (first edition 1973), p. 2.

[2] Ibid., p. 329.

[3] Ibid., p. 332.

[4] Ibid., p. 3.

[5] Ibid., p. 6.

[6] Ibid., p. 4.

[7] Ibid., p. 333.

[8] "Leeming, David Adams 1937-," Encyclopedia.com.

[9] David Adams Leeming & Margaret Adams Leeming,A Dictionary of Creation Myths, New York 1995 (first published in 1994 as The Encyclopedia of Creation Myths), p. vii.

[10] Ibid., p. viii.

[11] Ibid.

[12] David Adams Leeming,Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia, Santa Barbara 2010, p. vii.

[13] Ibid., p. 443.

[14] Ibid., p. xix.

[15] Ibid., p. 376.

[16] Ibid., p. 31.

[17] David Adams Leeming, Myth: A Biography of Belief, New York 2002, pp. ix f.

[18] Ibid., p. 15.

[19] Ibid., p. 23.

[20] Ibid., p. 19.

[21] Ibid., p. 19.

[22] Ibid., pp. 12f.

[23] Ibid., p. 12.

[24] Ibid., p. 24.

[25] Ibid., p. 48.

[26] Ibid., p. 10f.

[27] Ibid., p. 49.

[28] Ibid., p. 51.

[29] Ibid., p. 52.

[30] Ibid., p. 105.

[31] Ibid., p. 151.

[32] Ibid., p. 158.

[33] Ibid., p. 160.

[34] Ibid., p. 162.

Jungians on Myth and Religion

This text is an excerpt from my book Archetypes of Mythology: Jungian Theories on Myth and Religion Examined from 2022. The excerpt was published on this website in January, 2023.

BOOKS	ART	MYTH	PHILOSOPHERS

AIKIDO	BATTO	REVIEWS	SPECULATIONS