The depressive descent occupies a contested yet generative space within the depth-psychology corpus. Far from converging on a single formulation, the tradition’s major voices distribute the phenomenon across developmental, mythological, neurobiological, and phenomenological registers. Hillman, working from an archetypal standpoint, recasts the descent not as pathological regression but as a movement belonging to Dionysian consciousness, one that heroic-linear models systematically misread as defeat. Hollis extends this reading through clinical narrative, insisting that energy lost to the surface world has not vanished but descended into underworld reserves awaiting encounter. Winnicott situates depression diagnostically between psychoneurosis and schizophrenia, grounding its aetiology in the maturational field. Klein traces the descent structurally to the infantile depressive position, where the partially integrated ego must confront guilt, reparative urgency, and the threatened loss of the whole object. Abraham approaches the same territory via the psychoanalytic economics of repressed sadism and libidinal obstruction, while Moore resurrects the Saturnine cosmology of Ficino to honour the descent as philosophical deepening rather than disorder. Panksepp anchors the despair phase in neurobiological substrate, linking it to separation, CRF activation, and monoamine depletion. Together these positions produce a sustained tension between the descent as meaningful passage and the descent as pathological state requiring relief — a tension that has not resolved and that continues to animate clinical and theoretical debate.