Within the depth-psychology corpus, ambrosia functions as far more than a mythological curiosity; it serves as a privileged locus for investigating the ancient Greek conception of immortality, the nature of divine substance, and the relationship between life-principle and material substance. Onians provides the most sustained scholarly treatment, arguing against the prevailing honey-hypothesis advanced by Bergk, Roscher, and Gruppe, and insisting that ambrosia is properly understood as the divine counterpart to animal grease or olive oil — a substance infused through the skin rather than ingested, whose fragrance signals its vital potency. Harrison complicates this picture by recovering a ritual definition — ‘pure water and olive oil and pankarpia’ — and linking ambrosia’s immortalizing power to earth’s cyclical regeneration rather than to Olympian immutability, thereby foregrounding its chthonic rather than celestial valence. Homer’s own usage, as parsed by Onians and reflected in the Homeric lexicography of Autenrieth, systematically differentiates ambrosia from nectar: ambrosia is unctuous, applied or poured, while nectar is wine-like and drunk, a distinction that later antiquity collapsed. Campbell and Kalsched, by contrast, invoke the divine drink in more psychological registers — as nectar of archetypal fantasy sustaining the traumatized psyche — though ambrosia proper is not their primary focus. The tensions between philological reconstruction, mythological symbolism, and psychological application make ambrosia a revealing test case for the corpus’s broader negotiation between classical scholarship and depth-psychological interpretation.