Hyperion enters the depth-psychology corpus along two distinct but frequently intersecting axes. The first is mythological-cosmogonic: as the Titan father of Helios, Eos, and Selene, Hyperion represents a pre-Olympian solar sovereignty whose displacement by the younger gods encodes the archetypal motif of supersession — the old luminous order yielding to a more differentiated consciousness. Kerényi’s classical scholarship grounds this reading, tracing Hyperion’s genealogy through Theia-Euryphaessa and situating his solar authority as the ancestral stratum beneath Helios’s more individuated radiance. The second axis is literary-psychological, and here the corpus is dominated by M. H. Abrams’s sustained engagement with Keats’s Hyperion fragments and Hölderlin’s epistolary novel of the same name. For Abrams, both works dramatise the Romantic crisis-autobiography: the circuitous journey from primal unity through alienation toward a higher, hard-won reintegration. Hölderlin’s Hyperion is the paradigmatic Romantic outcast — expelled from the garden of Nature, self-divided, estranged — whose suffering is the necessary condition for self-discovery. Keats’s fallen Titan figures the innocent stage that must be surrendered so that Apollo, the new god of verse, can ‘die into life’ through knowledge. The term thus concentrates the corpus’s central tension between luminous, solar archetype and the painful dialectic of consciousness that Romantic and depth-psychological thought equally prize.