Chastity in the depth-psychology corpus occupies a remarkable range of registers — ascetic, psychological, mythological, and polemical — that resist reduction to a single doctrine. In the Philokalic and monastic literature (Cassian, Climacus, the Philokalia translators), chastity names a hard-won psychosomatic state achieved through fasting, humility, and ceaseless prayer; its completion is described as the mortification of the body’s spontaneous erotic responses and the purification of the intellect from base imagery. Cassian frames it as inseparable from perfect love, posing the question whether a soul so purified can remain perpetually free from concupiscence. John Climacus supplies a three-stage developmental model culminating in total bodily and imaginal stillness. By contrast, Thomas Moore, drawing on Ficino’s Neoplatonic psychology, radically redefines chastity as a grace that moderates — but does not abolish — the soul’s engagement with sensory life, directing erotic energy toward Mercurial interpretation rather than renunciation. Jung’s seminar on Zarathustra situates Nietzsche’s chapter ‘On Chastity’ within a genealogy of repression, linking the exaggerated medieval ideal of chastity to patriarchal anxiety and the suppression of instinct. Nietzsche himself, in the Genealogy of Morals, reads ascetic self-denial — including sexual abstinence — as the will to power of the dominating instinct, not virtue. The tensions between these positions — transformative discipline versus instinctual suppression, psychological integration versus renunciatory transcendence — constitute the term’s deepest intellectual life in this corpus.