The castration complex occupies a contested and generative position across the depth-psychology corpus. In Freud’s foundational framework, elaborated through clinical case material and theoretical essays, it functions as the pivotal crisis of infantile sexuality — the threat or fantasy of penile loss that organises the Oedipus complex, structures sexual difference, and determines the pathways of neurosis and character formation. Karl Abraham extends this architecture with remarkable clinical precision, mapping the specifically female castration complex as a spectrum of neurotic transformations: masculinity wishes, penis envy, frigidity, oral and anal substitutions, and fantasies of active castration. Abraham’s contribution establishes that the complex operates differently across sexes and that its unresolved residues saturate symptom formation across neurotic, melancholic, and perverse configurations. Lacan, by contrast, insists that the castration complex cannot be fully articulated without situating it at the intersection of the instinctual and the signifying registers — displacing the anatomical reading toward a structural and linguistic one. Neumann, writing from a Jungian archetypal vantage, challenges the reductive personalism of the Freudian account, arguing that castration is properly a symbol — one expression of a transpersonal myth of sacrifice — and distinguishing matriarchal from patriarchal forms. Jung himself, in correspondence with Neumann, neither dismisses the term nor its symbolism but proposes supplementing it with the concept of sacrifice, precisely as he supplemented incest with hierosgamos. The tension between clinical-structural and mythico-symbolic readings of the complex runs through the corpus as its defining fault line.