Across the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Binding’ operates on at least three distinct registers that regularly intersect: the cosmological, the magical-religious, and the juridical-psychological. Onians furnishes the most sustained treatment, tracing the concept from Homeric peirata—cords of fate spun and held by the gods—through the defixio traditions of classical antiquity, in which literal bonds served as instruments of sympathetic magic aimed at enemies, lovers, and the dead. For Onians, binding is not merely metaphor: in archaic thought it is almost coextensive with causation itself, since to fix a thing in place, whether a yoke-pole or a human destiny, is to bind it. Benveniste introduces the juridical dimension, showing that religio itself may derive from ligare, ‘to bind,’ and that the oath (horkos) instantiates a binding declaration whose violation releases malevolent power against the swearer. This juristic sense extends into Roman nexus, the ‘bound man’ of debt, and into the very grammar of vowing and loosing. Kerenyi and Vernant provide mythological texture—the bound Hera, the capturing net of Ares—while Fogel introduces a somatic register in which psychological coherence itself is understood as a ‘periodic binding of things together.’ The key tension throughout is between binding as constraint (fate as imprisonment, sin as fetter) and binding as constitutive structure (the cosmos held together, the self organized). This ambivalence makes the term irreplaceable for depth-psychological reflection.