Sophia, a positive Anima figure of the Great Mother[1]
The Great Mother: An Analysis of the Archetype (German:Die große Mutter. Der Archetyp des grossen Weiblichen) is adepth psychology study of the Great Motherarchetype, as it appears throughout history, mythology, religion, and culture, by the psychologistErich Neumann. The dedication reads, "ToC. G. Jung friend and master in his eightieth year". Although Neumann completed the German manuscript in Israel in 1951,[2]The Great Mother was first published in English in 1955.[3]
Neumann’sGreat Mother presents a diagrammatic model ("Schema III"), known as the Great Round, to illustrate the dynamic nature of the feminine archetype in psychological development.[4] This structure is not a religious typology but a depth psychologyschema representing the evolutionary and ambivalent nature of the feminine archetype in mythology, culture, and the psyche.[5]
At the outer rim of the Great Round, Neumann places archetypal figures drawn from mythology and world religions, representing universal psychological forces rather than fixed deities of any single tradition.[6] To illustrate this, Neumann selects six primary figures positioned along two intersecting axes, forming an X:
[7]The lower quadrant is described as "negative" in a developmental sense, not as an absolute moral judgment, with both Kali and Lilith embodying creative and destructive forces simultaneously.[8] Furthermore, Neumann stipulates that each archetype in the Great Round is fluid and multidimensional, shifting depending on psychological context and personal integration.[9]
Anticipating criticism, Neumann explicitly warned that this schema is reductionist, meant for conceptual clarity rather than rigid classification.[10] Each of these figures is to be regarded as ambivalent, overlapping, and transformative, as archetypal structures are not fixed but evolve over time.[11] Neumann describes these figures as dynamic energies that can shift or reverse into their opposites, depending on psychological and cultural influences.[12] Neumann’s analysis is both historical and psychological, incorporating traditional mythological interpretations while exploring their manifestation in individual and collective psychology. He argues that in-depth psychological work involves integrating these archetypal forces, rather than repressing or idealizing them.[13][14][15]
These female figures are not of precise attributes, nor rigid, fixed characteristics, but are changeable,[31] as explained both objectively by religious history,[32][33][34] and subjectively by archetypal psychology.[35][36] Hence, there is overlap in the Great Round positions.
The Development of Feminine Archetypes and Consciousness
Following the theme of hisThe Origins and History of Consciousness (1949; 1954),[37] Neumann tracks the development of femininearchetypes from their originaluroboros, a symbol of primordial unconsciousness, which forms the symbolic matrix of the Great Round. These archetypes undergo differentiation, leading to the formation of new symbolic constellations (as briefly introduced above).[38] "The psychological development [of humankind]... begins with the 'matriarchal' stage in which the archetype of the Great Mother dominates and the unconscious directs the psychic process of the individual and the group." Eventually, from the symbolic Great Round, new psychic constellations are differentiated out and become articulated in the culture, e.g., theEleusinian Mysteries.[39]
In ancient cultures, the emergence of structured spiritual transformation provided pathways for the gradual differentiation of ego-consciousness from the collective unconscious. This process caused the rise of consciousness, which emerged through semi-unconscious collective processes, becoming embedded in cultural institutions such as initiatory rituals and mystery traditions.[40][41] Over time, more individualized paths emerged, further advancing this process.[42][43]
Neumann’s Psychological Interpretation of Bachofen
Neumann praisedJohann Jakob Bachofen in a 1930s manuscript, later published,[44] calling Bachofen "a treasure chest of psychological knowledge" if "interpreted symbolically and not historically".[45][46][47] Bachofen'sDas Mutterrecht (1861) (Mother Right: an investigation of the religious and juridical character of matriarchy in the Ancient World) was highly influential upon publication.[48][49][50] However, Bachofen's theory of "female dominated epochs" did not survive scrutiny and was "criticized and rejected by most contemporary historians".[51][52][53] Neumann, following the critical scholarship, viewed Bachofen not as a cultural historian of an ancientmatriarchy, but as a key figure in the psychological study of symbolic femininity.[54][55][56]
While acknowledging the rejection of Bachofen's historical claims, Neumann, along with Jung, engaged in an effort "to rescue Bachofen's concept of an age ofgynaecocracy through a psychological revision."[57] Expanding on Jung's work on the mother archetype,[58] Neumann’sDie Grosse Mutter (1951) reflected this approach, incorporating a wide range of mythological and artistic representations and drawing on Eranos’s extensive collection of female archetype illustrations. Given the historical debate over Bachofen’s theories, Jungian scholarHans Thomas Liebscher later cautioned that Neumann’s work should be "read not as a contribution to a failed ancient cult of the Goddess but as an exemplary study of archetypal psychology."[59][60]
Jungian analystRobert H. Hopcke callsThe Great Mother "monumental in its breadth" and considers it "Neumann's most enduring contribution to Jungian thought," alongsideThe Origins and History of Consciousness (1949).[61]
ScholarMartin Liebscher writes that "Neumann'sThe Great Mother provided a watershed moment in the way archetypal studies would be conducted." Liebscher argued that previous monographs on specific archetypes, "could not compete with the minute detail and careful structuring of Neumann's examination of the Great Mother archetype."[62]
Jungian scholar,Siegmund Hurwitz, draws onThe Great Mother in his exploration of female archetypes, highlighting Neumann’s distinction between the mother figure and the anima as separate psychological archetypes.[63]
Cultural criticCamille Paglia describesThe Great Mother as "a visual feast" and "Neumann’s most renowned work." She credits the book with influencing her understanding of feminine archetypes in art and literature, particularly in her study of symbolic imagery inSexual Personae (1990).[64]
^Neumann,TGM (1955, 2d ed. 1963), Schema III is between pp. 82 & 83, discussed at pp. 64-81.
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p.18: The Great Round derives or evolves from theuroboros, a circling snake eating its tale. This round shape, as if it envelops us, acts as a symbol of the primordial unconscious. Our initial ego consciousness is surrounded by the uroboros, which is experienced only darkly at the shifting edge of our fragile first awareness. In its nascent formative stages the Great Round includes "positive and negative, male and female, elements of consciousness, elements hostile to consciousness, and uncosciousness elements" which are "intermingled" and undifferentiated" (p.18 quote). From this origin the feminine archetypes stationed on its rim are eventually seen or constructed, and articulated as consciousness develops. Cf., Ch. 12, pp. 211-239.
^Neumann,Origins (1949, 1954), themandala at maturity: "the Great Round of the uroboros arches over" the entire span of life, over its beginning and its end. In the second half of life, "the uroboros symbol will reappear as the mandala" (pp. 36-37).
^Frey-Rohn (1969, 1974): the mandala, as symbol of anuminous nature, impresses beholders with the "transcendental order of the unconscious" and fosters "ritualcircumambulation" (p.271).
^Neumann presents a rich array of 185 photographic Plates at the end of hisThe Great Mother (1955, 1963). His source was theEranos seminars. These often ancient artworks of Feminine archetypes includes sculptures, masks, ceramics, reliefs, paintings, drawings.
^In Neumann'sOrigins (1949; 1954), the archetype is discussed from another perspective, following developmental stages, e.g., the uroboros, creation myth, dragon fights of the hero. Cf., specifically his chapter III, "The Great Mother" (pp. 39-101).
^Cf., Jung,Types (1921, 1971), "The worship of the woman and the worship of the soul" pp. 221-240, at 235.
^Neumann,TGM (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p.82/83: "Schema III". Analysis of axis M and axis A, pp. 64-81. Also addressed are the vertical F+ and F- (p.77), related to Schema I (p.18/19). As ego consciousness advances, for good or ill, it moves from Schema III's center (more detailed than shown here) to the periphery (p.78). The general chronology is theuroboros, the stage of the Great Mother, then the dragon fight (p.82).
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), at pp. 74-79: the negative pole of the Anima axis "can shift into the positive" (p.74). As ego consciousness at the polar points may become unable to differentiate, a figure "may shift into its opposite" (p.76). Cf. p. 293 (magic of "priestess and witch"). Cf. p. 305 (the archetype may "guide" or "beguile").
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p.77: Schema III can be viewed as a globe, with mother axis and anima axis continuing asmeridians.
^Articles on Ishtar, Isis, the Greek, the Canaanite-Hebrew, Mary, Sophia, Kali, Kuan-yin and other figures were edited by Olson (1993).
^Jung, "Archetype" article (1938; 1969), p. 82 {¶158}, mentions that Kali, here being a symbol of her ferocious negative aspect, is more. "In India 'the loving and terrible mother' is the paradoxical Kali."
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), Gorgon: Schema III & pp. 166, 169-170.
^Cf., Neumann,Roots ([1940]; 2019), "Lilith" at pp. 157-163, notes at 169-171. "Lilith's essential characteristic as a demon is not her devouring of children, however, but her profound hostility toward men" (p.160).
^Hurwitz (1992), of two sections: historico-religious and psychological.
^Neumann (1955, 1963 2d ed. 1963), pp. 80-81: analogous figures (e.g.,Astarte and theLorelei) as "alluring and seductive figures of fatal enchantment"; Circe in Schema III, e.g., Circe connived to drug men, turning them into beasts (pp. 273-274).
^Neumann, (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p.80; Demeter, pp. 307-309.
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p. 80. Mary's maternity is likened to the "Jewish figure of theShekinah"; Mary also shares attributes of the positive Anima, with the "virginalAthene". Kwan-Yin, thebodhisattva.
^Jung,Types (1921, 1971),"The worship of the woman and the worship of the soul" pp. 221-240, at 221-223:Dante, in "the birth of modern individualism" elevates the woman, and his ownanima, into the "mystical figure of the Mother of God" as "source of wisdom and renewal", and so works the transformation "of his own being"; at 235: Mary "in the heritage of the Magna Mater".
^Neumann, "Moon" article (1950, 1994), pp. 116-117: "When the moon-spirit... in female form as Sophia" appears to matriarchal consciousness "the female Self has become visible to the woman's ego." Involved is "the transformation of the archetypal Feminine itself... its inherent spirit character [which] stands in opposition to the earth-unconsciousness of the archetypal Demeter" who refuses to surrender the daughter.
^Neumann,TGM (1955, 2d ed. 1963), Schema III: the Muse, "the original seeress" and "the inspiring anima of the poets" (p.296). Maat, the Egyptian goddess of justice (p.80).
^Cf., Jung,Symbols (1912; 1950, 1967), p. 236 {¶352}: the good mother in confusion might be seen by the child as a "most frightful danger" of the "Terrible Mother". Cf. Jung's 1938 article (1969), p.82 re Kali.
^E. O. James,The Ancient Gods (NY: Putnam 1960), pp. 85-87, e.g., Isis "the Goddess of many names". A specific deity was often 'compromised' by thehenotheistic assimilation of a wide range of othernuminous powers. A local figure became goddess of a city, then a region, latter of an empire. Neumann used art of ancient goddesses in developing archetypes.
^Mircea Eliade (1978; 1982),A History of Religious Ideas (Paris: Payot; Univ. of Chicago),syncretism: pp. 208-209, 277-298. Isis at 291, 294;Thoth andHermes at 295-296.
^Robert Wright,Evolution of God (Boston: Little, Brown 2009):Sargon fused Inanna ofSumer and Ishtar ofAkkad as one goddess (pp. 84-85);Hammurabi favoredMarduk, who then absorbed many gods (87-88).
^Jung, "Archetype" article (1938; 1969, in CW, v.9i).
^Neumann,TGM (1955, 2d ed. 1963), e.g., p.38: InHansel and Gretal the witch appears in an attractive gingerbread house, "but who in reality eats little children". The Terrible Mother may prompt the transformative 'fight with the dragon': "Perseus must kill [her] before he can winAndromeda". Circe, "the enchantress who turns men into beasts, meets the superior Odysseus [and] invite him to share her bed" (p.35), as ambivalent (cf., pp. 73-74). Circe andMedea, each was "originally a goddess, but has become a 'witch' in the patriarchally colored myth" (quote at p.288, cf. p.81).
^Neumann (1949; 1954), pp. 5-127 (Creation Myth: I. the Uroboros, II. the Great Mother, III. the Separation of the World Parents: Opposition).
^Neumann (1955, 1963), p. 18 (uroboros), p. 211 (Great Round).
^Neumann (1955, 1963), p. 91 (quote); pp. 305-306, 317-321, cf. 162.
^Neumann (1955, 1963), p. 11 (individual), p. 268 (ego consciousness), p. 281 (ritual).
^Cf., Jung (1950; 1967), transformation: p. 224 [¶332] (The "incest-tabo" stimulates "the creative imagination" which leads to "the self realization of thelibido". It "becomes imperceptibly spiritualized"); pp. 363-364 [¶569] (Until the son becomes conscious of himself, the libido treasure "lies hidden in the mother-imago, i.e., the unconscious". It is "one of life's secrets" that "the total personality, the psychic totality... consists of both conscious and unconscious.")
^Neumann (1955, 2d ed. 1963), p. 355 (self, tree of life).
^Neumann (1952; 1956), p. 153. "The most fascinating aspect of [the story] is... the liberation of the individual from the primordial mythic world, the freeing of the psyche."
^Liebscher (2015), pp. vii-xii, at vii (Neumann quote).
^Neumann'sTGM (2d ed. 1963) starts with a Bachofen motto (pp. x, 1). He cites Bachofen a score of times in each of hisTGM andOrigins.
^Douglas (2008), p.26: Neumann's earlierOrigins "loosely followed Bachofen". Jung saw his 'matriarchy' as a phase of culture only.
^J. J. Bachofen,Das Mutterrecht: Eine Untersuchung über die Gynaikokratie der alten Welt nach ihrer religiösen und rechtlichen Natur (Stuttgart 1861), complete in several volumes.
^Bachofen (1967),Mutterrecht selections pp. 67-207; intro byJoseph Campbell. Translation ofMutterrecht und Urreligion (1926), ed. by Marx.
^Cf.,James Frazer, whoseThe Golden Bough (London: Macmillan 1890, 2 vols.; 1915, 12 vols.) is comparable toMutterrecht (1861). Neumann in hisOrigins (1949, 1954) cites Frazer a dozen times.
^Neumann,Amor (1956), pp. 147-148, 154-155. "Here, as so often, Bachofen intuitively perceived and interpreted highly important relationships. [Yet] we agree with him only in certain points..." (p.154).
^Neumann,TGM (1955, 2d ed. 1963): "if understood psychologically rather than sociologically, his discoveries have lasting value" (p.25).
^Neumann,Origins (1949, 1954): as a "phase of ego consciousness" (p.41); "Bachofen's matriarchate stands for the stage when..." (p.42).
Hurwitz, Siegmund (1992),Lilith the first Eve. Historical and psychological aspects of the dark feminine. Daimon Verlag, Einsiedeln.
Jung, Carl (1912, 4th rev'd 1950; 1956, 1967),Symbols of Transformation. Bollingen, Princeton University, CW, v.5.
Jung, Carl (1921; 1971),Psychological Types. Bollingen, Princeton University, CW, v.6.
Jung/Neumann (2015),Analytical Psychology in Exile. The correspondence of C. G. Jung and Erich Neumann. Princeton University. Edited by Martin Liebscher.
Monick, Eugene (1987),Phallos. Sacred image of the masculine. Inner City, Toronto.
Neumann, Erich ([1940]; 2019),The Roots of Jewish Consciousness. v.1, Revelation and apocalypse. Routeledge, London.
Spretnak, Charlene (2011), "Anatomy of a backlash: concerning the work of Marija Gimbutas" inJournal of Archaeomythology 7: 25-51.
Tringham, Ruth, and Margaret Conkey (1999), "Rethinking the Figurines. A critical view from archaeology of Gimbutas, the 'Goddess' and popular culture", in Goodison and Morris, editors.
