Read in fits & starts over two years, so: lost the line of argument, but left with a strong impression of both wide-ranging erudition and theoretical depth. Cassirer's epistemological project strives to trace the root of culture to a mythic consciousness, adopting portions of Schelling's account of myth and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

Next reading should focus on answering:

1 - Did Cassirer personally recover the Mythic Consciousness, or are his descriptions wholly reflective of secondary accounts? (Assuming it is even possible personally to recover a mythic consciousness.)
Primary sources from the Warburg Library in Hamburg, prior to its relocation to London (now part of Univ of London). The collection's focus being "the influence of antiquity on modern culture" (Wikipedia), organised along a unique classification system which "makes inspired connections between different fields of endeavour and study" (Warburg Institute).

2 - Any corroboration for his account?
Specifically within the anthropological literature or evolutionary biology. Without it, it's an interesting synthesis of material, but does not establish its validity. It is unclear whether the argument is based solely in phylogeny or whether aspects apply to ontogeny, e.g. whether an individual's development of a sense of self follows some stage of mythic consciousness.

3 - How does this argument fit into / rely upon his arguments set forth in earlier volumes on symbolic forms (thought)?
The key similarity of methodology: Cassirer focuses not upon the content of myth but on forms myths take in consciousness, the force they have, the way they are believed as intensely as 'objective reality' is believed. [5] He seeks a 'third way' of investigating mythological form: not its absolute / metaphysical basis (Idealism) nor from the perspective of social psychology (Ethnic Psychology), but "a critical analysis of consciousness" (Structuralism, Phenomenology). [10]

Basic myths are not a mere reflection of reality but a creative collaboration between self and reality; language confronts 'impressions' of reality with force of active 'expression'. Yet this dynamic occurs prior to the evolution of the conscious "I", so myths appear to consciousness as "objectively real". [24] And key is that mythical signs are different from signs of objective reality (e.g. from the mental experience of a stone or tree) in being spiritual not empirical, and so hold out potential for dissolution via a spiritual process, unlike empirical signs. And this process does, in fact, emerge "in the process from the magical-mythical world view to the truly religious view". [25]

4 - Does Cassirer's analysis imply a normative evolution from mythic consciousness to religious consciousness, or rather are they merely different perspectives, each with different advantages / disadvantages?
I presume we lose a specific connection to the material world when separate from a mythic consciousness, but not that it is on all accounts superior to the modern Cartesian outlook (or any of the presumably infinite possible manifestations of consciousness). But perhaps we may not pick and choose, or switch between, so much as find one to live into / within.

Need to integrate Cassirer's argument here and in Symbolic Forms generally, to his take in Essay on Man (a summary of the former?) and The Myth of the State (in which the rise of Nazism is taken as a case example of mythic consciousness at work?). ( )