The term ‘palace’ in the depth-psychology corpus functions on at least three distinct registers: the archaeological-historical, the mythico-symbolic, and the initiatory-esoteric. In the archaeological register, Vernant, Burkert, and Lattimore treat the Mycenaean and Minoan palace as the organizing node of bureaucratic power — the hub through which surplus, personnel, and ritual authority were routed, an institution whose collapse opened the space for the polis and its democratizing logos. In the mythico-symbolic register, Campbell and Kerenyi read the palace as a site of sacred encounter and transformation: in the Osiris myth the dismembered god is concealed inside a palace pillar, an image Campbell treats as the containment of regenerative potential within structures of worldly power. Jodorowsky offers a striking tarot-psychological elaboration, treating each suit’s palace as the energetic center toward which the court cards orient themselves — a threshold-space governing initiation into a specific register of being. In the Tibetan and tantric materials gathered by Govinda and Evans-Wentz, the palace appears as a visionary architecture — the Dakini’s skull-palace encoding the body’s karmic inheritance, the royal palace of Bodh-Gaya as the arena of spiritual contest. Collectively, these treatments reveal the palace as a liminal structure: simultaneously seat of concentrated worldly authority and container for something hidden, sacred, or transformative. The tension between palace-as-power and palace-as-vessel is the generative axis of the term across the corpus.