Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Fame’ occupies a surprisingly complex position, straddling the psychodynamics of creativity, the immortality impulse, power, and spiritual renunciation. Otto Rank furnishes the most sustained analysis, situating fame as the collective continuation of the artistic creative process — a mechanism by which the individual’s achievement is absorbed into the community’s eternalization-symbol. For Rank, fame is not merely recognition but a depersonalization: the work ceases to belong to its maker and becomes the community’s property, provoking in the serious artist a characteristic ambivalence and resistance. James Hillman approaches fame through the lens of calling and the daimon, treating it as the outward register of an inward necessity — the soul’s code made legible to culture — while also scrutinizing it as a species of power akin to prestige, driven by what John Adams called a ‘passion for distinction.’ Edward Edinger, drawing on Milton, transposes the term into an archetypal register entirely: true fame ‘grows not on mortal soil’ but is deposited in the eternal, collective treasury of consciousness. Daoist voices (Zhuangzi) and Hindu ones (Easwaran on the Gita) furnish the counter-tradition, warning that the pursuit of fame is a spiritual trap. The Greek etymological root — kleos, ‘rumor, fame, renown’ — grounds the concept in the sonic perpetuation of heroic deeds, linking personal identity to posthumous cultural memory. Together these voices reveal fame as a site of tension between individual immortality-striving and collective assimilation.