The Socratic Daimonion occupies a singular position in the depth-psychology corpus as the ancient world’s most celebrated instance of an autonomous inner voice whose authority transcends rational ego-control. The corpus engages it along three main axes. First, there is the phenomenological axis, most fully developed by Marie-Louise von Franz, who catalogues the ancient testimonies — semainein, phōnē, semeion, echo, even the mantic sneeze of Therpsion — and reads them through a Jungian lens as evidence that the daimonion functioned as a mediating figure between the conscious personality of Socrates and an autonomous unconscious ground, active in his relational choices, his ethical restraints, and ultimately his acceptance of death. Second, there is the ethical axis, most sharply formulated by Bruno Snell, who observes that the daimonion’s grammar is exclusively prohibitive — it never commands the good but only arrests the wrong — making it structurally comparable to the negative commandments of Hebrew ethics and to the physician’s epistemic situation before health. Third, Nietzsche’s reading of Socratism introduces a counter-valence: the rational-optimistic Socrates who suppresses the Dionysiac becomes, ironically, himself possessed by a daimonic necessity. Otto Rank registers the daimonion in his index as a node connecting Socratic self-knowledge to the primal trauma. The term thus mediates between autonomous psyche, prohibitive conscience, and the uncanny.