Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Cosmos’ operates as a charged ontological category whose valence shifts dramatically depending on the tradition under scrutiny. For Eliade, the cosmos is the primary religious datum: a living, sacred totality perpetually renewed through cyclical time, to which archaic humanity understood itself as organically and indissolubly bound. This contrasts sharply with the Gnostic inversion excavated by Jonas, wherein the cosmos becomes prison rather than home — the antithesis of divine transcendence and the site of alienated human existence. Plato’s Timaeus, as read through Cornford, presents a third position: the cosmos as a rationally ordered, ensouled, and uniquely beautiful artifact of the Demiurge, the visible image of intelligible eternity. Tarnas extends this into a contemporary depth-psychological register, arguing that psyche and cosmos are ‘the most consequentially intertwined’ of all categories, their relationship constituting a ‘mysterious marriage’ that remains generatively unresolved. Von Franz traces the microcosm–macrocosm homology through alchemy, linking it to Jung’s unus mundus and the Self. Giegerich, by contrast, subjects Hillman’s rehabilitated ‘cosmos’ to dialectical critique, arguing that what imaginal psychology calls cosmos is in fact a naive positivity obscuring the soul’s properly speculative movement. The tension between cosmos-as-sacred-home and cosmos-as-object-of-critique structures much of the theoretical debate in this literature.