Panic occupies a uniquely layered position in the depth-psychology corpus, being simultaneously a clinical phenomenon, an archetypal irruption, and a collective contagion. The most theoretically sustained treatment appears in Hillman’s collaboration with Roscher, where panic is restored to its mythological etymology in Pan and read not as a pathological disturbance of the ego but as the numinous arrival of an archetypal power that consciousness cannot contain — rape, panic, and nightmare forming a triad of concretizing visitations from nature’s underworld. Against this mythological reading, the neuroscientific literature (Panksepp, LeDoux) treats panic as a discrete neuroemotional system, separable from anticipatory anxiety, with its own pharmacological profile and ties to separation distress. Konstan’s classical scholarship locates panic’s ancient sense in collective, nocturnal military terror attributed to Pan — an irrational, contagious, objectless fright — in contrast to the modern individualized clinical construct of the panic attack. Levine adds a somatic-trauma dimension, showing how panic arises when rage is stifled and immobility is fear-potentiated. Hollis, in the Jungian tradition, reads panic disorder as an enforced encounter with angst and Pan’s wooded domain. The crucial tension running through the corpus is between pathologizing panic as ego-dysfunction and honoring it as a genuine, irreducible incursion of the non-ego — a tension that marks the boundary between therapeutic psychology and depth-mythological hermeneutics.