The term ‘phallic’ traverses the depth-psychology corpus along several distinct but intersecting axes. In Freudian and post-Freudian clinical literature — most systematically in Abraham and Lacan — the phallic designates a developmental stage and a privileged signifier: the phallus as the organizing object of partial love, the locus of the castration complex, and the pivot around which desire is structured. Jung, by contrast, consistently interprets phallic symbolism as an expression of libidinal energy broadly conceived, linking it to solar symbolism, creative divinity, and the generative power of the unconscious. For Jung, the phallus stands for the creative divinity — Hermes being the exemplary case — and phallic imagery in dreams and myth signals the constellation of transformative, generative forces rather than narrowly sexual instinct. Hillman extends this into an archetypal phenomenology of puer-consciousness, arguing that phallic erectness is a figure for a particular mode of consciousness — upright, ambitious, fascinated, priapic — that is mythically embedded in figures such as Priapos, Pothos, and the herms. Kerenyi and Burkert situate phallic cult historically within Dionysian religion and apotropaic ritual, demonstrating its social, territorial, and initiatory functions in antiquity. Radin’s treatment of Trickster identifies the phallic as one component of a composite principle of disorder. Neumann reads phallic symbolism structurally within the matriarchal–patriarchal dialectic. Together these voices reveal a field in which the phallic is simultaneously a clinical category, an archetypal image, a ritual institution, and a cultural symptom.