The term ‘matrix’ circulates through the depth-psychology corpus along several distinct but interrelated axes, each carrying its own theoretical weight. At its most foundational, the word retains its Latin sense of womb — a generative ground, a container that holds, nourishes, and eventually releases what is formed within it. Marion Woodman develops this etymological resonance most persistently, tracing a hierarchy of nested matrices (womb, mother, earth, body) that anchor psychic life in somatic reality. Jan Wiener translates this generative logic directly into clinical theory, proposing the ‘transference matrix’ as a co-constructed intersubjective field that integrates developmental and symbolic dimensions of the analytic relationship. Stanislav Grof employs the term with systematic precision in his cartography of perinatal experience, designating four ‘Basic Perinatal Matrices’ as experiential-biological templates that organize vast domains of the unconscious. Bion draws on a comparable logic when he posits the proto-mental system as the undifferentiated matrix from which group emotions proper to basic assumptions emerge. Further afield, von Franz and the physicists she cites use ‘matrix’ in its mathematical sense, though she notes that Chinese numerical arrays constitute matrices of a fundamentally different nature. Campbell and Harvey employ the term cosmologically, describing consciousness differentiating itself from the ‘matrix of nature.’ The term thus spans the clinical, the somatic, the cosmological, and the mathematical — a breadth that marks it as one of depth psychology’s genuinely polysemous structural metaphors.