Poetry occupies a contested and richly stratified position within the depth-psychology corpus. At one pole, Julian Jaynes argues that poetry originates as literal divine speech — the auditory hallucination of the bicameral mind — and that its subsequent history is a record of the progressive silencing of those inner voices: from prophetic utterance to institutionalised oracle, from ecstatic possession to the laborious, self-conscious rewriting of conscious artistry. Jaynes thus reads poetic form itself — dactylic hexameter, metered verse — as a residue of neurological authority, a nostalgia for the bicameral divine. Havelock, approaching the same archaic material through the lens of orality, treats poetry as the total mnemonic technology of pre-literate Greece: not mere aesthetic expression but an encyclopaedic storage system maintained by mimetic identification between performer and audience, with Plato’s assault on the poets legible only against that cultural background. Campbell distinguishes the ‘true poetry of the poet’ from the ‘poetry overdone’ of the prophet and the ‘poetry done to death’ of the priest, mapping the aesthetic onto the religious and the psychological with characteristic mythographic breadth. Otto Rank foregrounds the dialectic between unconscious creation and conscious linguistic mastery, locating in rhythm and rhyme the collective ideological containers through which individual creative expression is simultaneously liberated and constrained. Hillman’s trajectory — epitomised in his insistence that ‘a poetic basis of mind requires a poetic speech, not poetry’ — reframes the term as an epistemological stance rather than a literary genre. Across these positions, poetry functions as the primary site where psyche, language, memory, and the sacred are shown to be inseparable.