Within the depth-psychology corpus, the figure of the Poet occupies a privileged and contested position at the intersection of divine inspiration, psychological creativity, and cultural authority. The tradition divides broadly into two trajectories. The first, archaic and comparative, treats the poet as a receiver of divinely authorised speech — a vehicle for bicameral hallucination in Jaynes, a master of kleos mediating between Muses and audience in Nagy, an arbiter of Aletheia and communal memory in Detienne and Vernant. Here the poet’s function is not aesthetic but ontological: poetry was, in Jaynes’s formulation, ‘divine knowledge.’ The second trajectory, running from Nietzsche through Jung and Rank to Bloom, internalises the divine source and recasts inspiration as an autonomous creative process that may exceed or even overwhelm conscious intention. Jung distinguishes the poet who identifies with the creative process from one who remains its surprised subject; Rank locates the tension between unconscious language-formation and conscious formal control. Across these positions, the Poet stands as the site where collective mythic transmission, individual psychological complexity, and the fate of consciousness itself converge. The hero cult of the Poet in Nagy, the Dionysiac-Apolline duality in Nietzsche, and the Romantic visionary tradition surveyed by Abrams all testify to the term’s persistent charge within depth-psychological and mythographic inquiry.