Sensibility, as it traverses the depth-psychology corpus, names no single faculty but rather a contested zone of receptivity situated between raw sensation and reflective cognition. The term carries at least four overlapping registers across the library’s voices. In the classical-philosophical tradition — Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus — sensibility designates the soul’s capacity for perceptual attunement to the world, a power prior to and distinct from intellect yet constitutive of all knowledge; Aristotle’s ‘general sensibility’ for common qualities and Plato’s aisthesis as the contested ground of opinion both establish the problematic early. In the Romantic-literary tradition mediated through Abrams and Havelock, sensibility becomes the organic, creative responsiveness of the self to nature — Wordsworth’s ‘infant sensibility’ and ‘first creative sensibility’ marking the developmental root of poetic consciousness. In depth-psychological and archetypal registers — Hillman, Romanyshyn, Miller — sensibility is elevated to a mode of soul-awareness: ‘mythic sensibility,’ ‘metaphoric sensibility,’ and ‘modern sensibility’ each name a quality of attending that exceeds mere sense-data and opens the invisible. Finally, in contemporary clinical-interoceptive research, sensibility re-emerges as a technical construct — self-reported interoceptive sensibility — distinguishable from accuracy and awareness, indexing an individual’s habitual propensity to notice bodily signals. The central tension runs between sensibility as passive receptivity and as active, poetic, or mythic responsiveness; between physiological substrate and ontological orientation.