The depth-psychology corpus approaches rape along two distinct but intersecting axes: the archetypal-mythological and the clinical-feminist. Hillman, writing through a Panian lens, situates rape alongside panic and nightmare as eruptions of numinous concreteness — moments when an insufficiently embodied consciousness is overwhelmed by instinctual force. The horror of rape, in this register, is not reducible to its legal or moral coordinates but radiates as an archetypal affect that even discussion of the theme cannot fully escape. Berry and López-Pedraza pursue a cognate mythological reading: the rape of Persephone by Hades becomes the paradigm of a psychic movement out of Demeter-consciousness into underworld depth, an initiation that, however violent, carries transformative necessity. Greene occupies a mediating position, acknowledging the reality of violation while insisting that neither pure feminist attribution of blame to patriarchy nor the Judaeo-Christian projection of guilt onto the victim adequately accounts for the psychological complexity. Herman, working squarely within trauma theory and feminist sociology, delivers the counter-weight: rape is an atrocity endemic to patriarchal culture, systematically under-prosecuted, and generative of post-traumatic sequelae — disrupted trust, sexual avoidance, social isolation, shame — that demand clinical attention. The concordance thus maps a genuine tension: between archetypal readings that risk aestheticizing violence and clinical readings that insist on the literal, political, and therapeutic primacy of the survivor’s experience.