Archetypal Cosmology names a multidisciplinary field that emerged in the early twenty-first century at the convergence of depth psychology, astrology, philosophy of science, history, and the new sciences. Its canonical definition, supplied by Keiron Le Grice, designates it as a ‘multidisciplinary subject drawing on scholarship from many areas such as astrology, depth psychology, history, philosophy, cosmology, religious studies, cultural studies, the arts, and the new sciences.’ Richard Tarnas’s Cosmos and Psyche (2006) stands as the field’s foundational monument, arguing that correlations between outer-planet alignments and patterns of human and historical experience are not coincidental but reflect a meaningful, participatory cosmos in which psyche and world are structurally related. The Promethean-Uranian, Saturnine, and Neptunian complexes figure as recurring interpretive categories. Against this synthetic ambition, critics within the wider depth-psychological tradition maintain a more cautious imaginal register: Hillman insists that astrology functions as a metaphorical rather than literal grammar, ‘a metaphorical way of recognizing that the rulers of personality are archetypal powers.’ Jung’s own synchronicity framework supplies the epistemological hinge — archetypes possess ‘transgressivity,’ occurring in both psychic and physical registers simultaneously — yet stops short of the cosmological systematisation Tarnas advances. The field thus holds in productive tension the participatory cosmology of Tarnas and Le Grice, the imaginal restraint of Hillman, and the synchronistic ontology of Jung, with practical applications now appearing in clinical and recovery contexts.