Sophoclean tragedy occupies a distinctive and contested position within the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as dramatic artifact, ethical laboratory, and psychological mirror. The corpus does not treat Sophocles as merely one tragedian among three; rather, his work — Oedipus Rex, Antigone, Ajax, Electra, Philoctetes, Oedipus at Colonus — recurs as the privileged site where questions of moral luck, shame, necessity, the divided self, and the boundary between human agency and divine compulsion are most sharply posed. Bernard Williams reads Sophoclean irony as structurally encoding the gap between what characters know and what the audience perceives, making Ajax and Oedipus paradigmatic for his analysis of necessity, responsibility, and the tragic outlook. Martha Nussbaum returns repeatedly to Antigone and the Sophoclean hero as the testing ground for vulnerability, ethical conflict, and the limits of Platonic self-sufficiency. Bruno Snell traces in Sophocles the pivotal moment when the Greek hero becomes isolated — acting in deliberate opposition to the social world, so that action converts into self-destruction. Ruth Padel finds in Sophocles a uniquely compressed theology of inside and outside, the Erinys simultaneously inhabiting and menacing the phrenes. David Konstan examines shame, rage, and pity as social emotions whose dynamics Sophocles renders with unparalleled analytic precision. The central tension running through all these readings is whether Sophoclean fate externalizes psychological forces or whether it dramatizes an interior necessity that antiquity had not yet learned to name as such.