Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Nightworld’ functions as a technical counter-term to ‘dayworld,’ designating the ontological register of dreams, the underworld, and the psyche’s autonomous imaginal life — a domain governed by its own logic, resistant to translation into the waking ego’s categories. The term achieves its fullest theoretical elaboration in James Hillman’s archetypal psychology, where it designates not merely the nocturnal or unconscious but a distinct cosmological perspective: the underworld of Hades understood as co-extensive with, yet irreducibly other than, the dayworld of ego-consciousness. Hillman’s central polemical move, as noted by Samuels, is to insist that therapeutic interpretation has historically violated the nightworld by converting dream images into dayworld currency — undoing dream-work rather than inhabiting its native register. This position stands in tension with the Jungian tradition’s compensatory model, which treats the nightworld as a corrective supplement to conscious life rather than an autonomous realm in its own right. Classical sources — Hesiod, the Homeric cosmology, Kerényi on Hermes and Night — underwrite the term’s mythological depth, while Hillman’s reading of Heraclitus lends it philosophical warrant. The nightworld is thus not darkness as privation but darkness as the soul’s proper medium: a perspective rather than a place, and a demand on consciousness rather than its negation.