Sublimity occupies a peculiar and generative position within the depth-psychology corpus, appearing simultaneously as aesthetic category, ontological attribute, alchemical operation, cosmological principle, and literary aspiration. The corpus does not resolve these registers into a single definition; rather, it holds them in productive tension. McGilchrist situates sublimity neurologically and phenomenologically, identifying it with the right hemisphere’s tolerance for unknowability — the experienced coincidence of presence and absence, of attachment and isolation. Auerbach traces the term’s literary history from the medieval ethics of humilitas-sublimitas through Dante’s radical mixing of colloquial and elevated registers and into the aristocratic isolation of Racinian tragedy. Edinger, working from alchemical sources, treats sublimatio as a fundamental psychic operation — an ascent from matter toward spirit, purification through separation, the extraction of the eternal from the temporal — while insisting that every lesser sublimation demands compensatory return. The I Ching commentaries, via Wilhelm, present sublimity as the primal attribute of the Creative (Ch’ien), the cosmogonic ‘head’ from which all generative power flows. Harold Bloom reframes these currents through the ‘American Sublime,’ reading sublimity as a specifically daemonic literary achievement — the voice that rises to break through ordinary utterance. Nietzsche, Otto, and Auerbach further complicate the picture by aligning sublimity with tragedy, mask, madness, and the co-presence of the divine and the terrible. What unites these positions is a shared insistence that sublimity is not mere magnitude but the encounter with that which exceeds containment.