Authority emerges in the depth-psychology corpus not as a stable institutional fact but as a contested psychic reality whose sources, legitimacy, and distortions demand careful examination. Fromm’s analysis in Escape from Freedom remains foundational: he distinguishes overt from ‘anonymous’ authority — the latter disguised as common sense, science, and normality — and traces authoritarian character as a socially adaptive sado-masochistic structure, particularly visible in Luther’s ambivalent submission to worldly power alongside defiance of Rome. Hillman, by contrast, rehabilitates authority as an intrinsic quality of mind — ‘disinterest with conviction’ — irreducible to expertise or office, and insists that confusing narrow technical competence with genuine sagacity impoverishes public discourse. Von Franz locates the shaman as the originary bearer of natural authority, won through individuation, and warns that its pathological double — the black magician demanding collective authority for personal gain — haunts every lineage. Benveniste’s philological excavations reveal that the Latin auctoritas derives not from mere power but from a root meaning increase or divine augmentation, while the Greek kraínō locates authority in the god’s ratifying nod, the sanction that alone grants a wish existence. Welwood extends this to spiritual communities, distinguishing earned from self-proclaimed authority. Taken together, the corpus maps a tension between authority as genuine inner weight and authority as compulsive submission — a distinction with urgent clinical, cultural, and political stakes.