There has been a concealed urgency in this essay, underlying its rhetoric and polemic and its compulsive collection of information. I like to think that this urgency arises from the soul itself, whose emotions ask the psychologist to remember psyche. What place has psyche in psychology? Do its statements speak for the soul, call it forth? Do its descriptions reflect Psyche, to whom we devoted so much of the last essay? And has Eros touched psychology with joy and passion, so that psychology, too, may become a place of soul-making?
Psychology, as the specialty named after Psyche, has a special obligation to the soul. The psychologist should be a keeper of the great natural preserve of memory and its innumerable treasures. But the nineteenth-century psychologist(and the nineteenth century is a style of mind not confined to the last century) laid waste this area of the soul with his inroads and signposts. While other nineteenth century investigators were polluting the archaic, natural, and mythic in the outer world, psychology was doing much the same to the archaic, natural, and mythic within. Therapeutic depth psychology shares this blame, since it shares nineteenth century attitudes. It gave names with a pathological bias to the animals of the imagination. We invented psychopathology and thereby labeled the memoria a madhouse. We invented the diagnoses with which we declared ourselves insane.