For those who have never encountered Jung's primary works, rather than the massive body of interpretations, especially New Age, it comes as no surprise, that a permanent mythological dictionary is required at hand before delving deeply into the mysteries this book uncovers!
Also, I was made keenly aware that this book assmumes a prior understanding of Jung's concepts of the anima, eros, and the shadow for instance, and that the chapters are in actual fact extracts from Volume 9 of The Collected Works.
Therefore, if the reader is seeking a precis of Jung's overarching theories or a major delineation of the concept of the archetype - which I was naively led to think would be the case from the book cover - then this book will only ever be an entry point.
More than anything else then, I was left with the impression that this book provides an amazing insight into the mind of a brilliant analytical psychologist (though translated). In particular his elaboration of the figure Kdidr that plays a great role in Islamic mysticism, as a set of symbols outlining the process of tranformation (rebirth), and a "very" detailed psychoanalysis of the animal spirit (wise man) symbolism in a fairy tale about a three-legged horse, both left me wondering at the power of his archetypal interpretations.
However, at the same time I also pondered on how open Jung's radical approach is to allowing the assumption that one cannot assume a disposition and attitude as universal, even his own analysis. But in the introduction to the book, there is an answer, and a credible one at that: one can never know the archetype "..it designates only those psychic contents which have not yet been submitted to conscious elaboration.." The historical formula of the archetype that has evolved through personal consciousness is coloured by individuals, society and culture in the shape of myths, fairy tales and dreams. The question is then, is Jungs personal analysis taken as a gateway to the archetypal realm - a man closer to its understanding than most - or have we accepted at face value his own interpretations as actual archetypal fact too fully, and ignore too readily his "..critical and evaluating influence of conscious elaboration"??