Across the depth-psychology corpus, ‘skin’ operates on at least three distinct registers that rarely reduce to one another. In the oldest stratum — Plato’s Timaeus and its Cornford commentary — skin is a physiological boundary material: a film of dried sinew, bone, and flesh that encloses, protects sensation, and, crucially, limits the interference of covering with the movements of mind. Bruno Snell’s philological excavation adds a further layer: Homeric chros designates not anatomical integument (derma) but the body’s outer surface as the locus of colour, contour, and perceptual limit — skin as phenomenal frontier rather than tissue. Damasio reframes this frontier physiologically, insisting that the skin is the body’s largest organ and that its vascular thickness — not merely its tactile surface — is indispensable for homeostatic regulation and, by extension, for the somatic-marker processes that underwrite rationality; skin conductance responses become his empirical fulcrum. The mythopoeic tradition, above all in Estés and von Franz, converts skin into a symbolic garment of soul: the seal-woman’s pelt is the wildish self that can be stolen, lost through exhaustion, or burned in misguided love — its possession or absence determining a woman’s psychic vitality. These traditions share the intuition that skin is the site where interior life meets exterior world, but they disagree sharply about whether that boundary is primarily somatic, phenomenal, or archetypal.