Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Nature’ functions as a contested, multi-layered term that simultaneously denotes the external biological world, the instinctual substrate of the psyche, the Stoic-alchemical principle of self-ordering process, and the Romantic locus of spiritual encounter. Jung and his heirs—Edinger, von Franz, Hillman—inherit the Stoic-alchemical axiom that ‘nature rejoices in nature, nature subdues nature, nature rules nature’ (Ostanes, via Jung), treating Nature as an autonomous dynamic whose telos resides in perfectibility and whose products are indistinguishable from the unconscious. Hillman adds a post-Romantic critical inflection: the sentimental idealization of Nature as God’s veil or nurturing Mother is, for him, culturally ‘pretty well gone,’ yet devotion to the actual biosphere extends soul beyond individualism. A second, empirical register—represented by Bratman, Bettmann, Anderson, and Annerstedt—treats nature exposure as a measurable psycho-physiological dose with demonstrable effects on attention, mood, stress, and clinical mental illness. Estés bridges the registers by homologizing the endangered wilderness with the endangered feminine instinctual psyche. Tarnas, meanwhile, maps the Saturn-Pluto archetypal complex onto Western civilization’s adversarial objectification of Nature, revealing the ideological wound underneath the ecological crisis. The central tension of the corpus is thus between Nature as healer-of-psyche and Nature as image-of-psyche—between an environmental-health paradigm and an imaginal-animistic one.