Cowardice occupies a revealing position in the depth-psychology corpus precisely because it sits at the intersection of moral evaluation, somatic experience, and the construction of the self under social pressure. The ancient sources — Homer, Plato, Aristotle’s commentators, and the tragic poets — establish the foundational tension: cowardice is simultaneously a moral failing, a disgrace visited upon collective honour, and a physiological state (the cold limbs, the fleeing body) that may or may not be voluntary. Cairns’s exhaustive study of aidos demonstrates that in Homeric culture cowardice and battlefield defeat were virtually synonymous with the aischron — the shameful — and that the warrior’s sensitivity to this judgement was itself a social adhesive. Adkins presses the question further, showing how the Greek agathos was expected to resist even lawful authority rather than suffer the charge of anandria. The Philokalic tradition introduces a vertical inversion: cowardice is redefined as falling short of the courage required to resist the passions, not the enemy. Levine’s somatic-trauma perspective supplies the modern counter-argument that what culture reads as cowardice is frequently involuntary paralysis — a neurobiological response to overwhelming threat misread by honour cultures as a moral defect. These positions form a coherent scholarly arc: from shame-culture condemnation, through virtue-theoretic analysis, to compassionate re-description. What remains constant across traditions is the assumption that cowardice names a failure of appropriate response to danger — disagreement concerns only whether that failure is voluntary, structural, or systemic.