Within the depth-psychology corpus, the vase occupies a surprisingly rich symbolic register, moving between the archaeological, the philosophical-economic, and the psychoanalytic-mythological. Kerenyi, whose iconographic method dominates the Dionysian literature, treats painted vases primarily as documentary evidence for cultic practice — the chous, krater, pithos, and hydria each carrying ritual specificity — yet implies that the vessel-form is itself a container of sacred meaning, a logic made explicit by Otto Rank. Rank, working from the premise that vessel-form is modelled upon the human body, argues that the vase originally signified the lower body, then the whole body, thereby grounding ceramic symbolism in what he calls the ‘abdomen-ideology.’ Campbell’s index entry for the ‘ritual vase’ (the Warka Vase) situates the form within the earliest strata of sacred iconography, while Campbell’s treatment of the vas hermeticum signals the alchemical current in which the vessel becomes a transformation-chamber. Richard Seaford introduces an entirely different tension: for him the vase serves as the paradigm case of a commodity whose qualitative particularity is dissolved by the abstraction of monetary value. Taken together, these treatments reveal a persistent structural question — whether the vase is a container that preserves (life, the body, mystery) or a form that is itself dissolved by the systems of exchange and abstraction that surround it.