Incest occupies a uniquely contested position in the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as literal transgression, archetypal symbol, and transformative metaphor. Freud, in ‘Totem and Taboo,’ establishes the horror of incest as the foundation of cultural prohibition, reading both the taboo and the exogamic institution as socially constitutive responses to an underlying and universal desire — a framework Jung explicitly contested. Jung’s reformulation, most fully elaborated in ‘Symbols of Transformation’ and ‘The Practice of Psychotherapy,’ insists that the incest impulse is primarily psychic rather than literal: it signifies the libido’s regression toward origins, a longing for rebirth and renewal that, when blocked by the taboo, is transmuted into spiritual and cultural energy. The alchemical literature, as Edinger demonstrates, encodes this symbolism in the motif of the coniunctio, where incestuous union between sol and luna, king and mother, figures the opus of psychic integration. Hillman, from the archetypal perspective, demands that incest be located first within imagination and myth — among divinities where it is neither compelled nor taboo — before any humanistic or developmental purpose is assigned to it. Samuels surveys post-Jungian elaborations, particularly Stein’s argument that the taboo itself is the generative force, producing consciousness, mystery, and love. Neumann reads incest mythologically as the hero’s swallowing by the mother, a necessary regression preceding solar rebirth. Moore introduces the clinical and existential dimension, attending to how identification with an ‘incest narrative’ may itself constitute a secondary psychological closure. These divergent positions — Freudian, Jungian, alchemical, archetypal, clinical — constitute the field.