Within the depth-psychology and psychological astrology corpus, Virgo emerges as one of the most psychologically complex of the zodiacal signs, situated at the intersection of archetype, mythology, and individual developmental challenge. Liz Greene’s treatment stands as the most sustained and theoretically ambitious: she traces Virgo through the kore mythology of Persephone, the constellation’s identification with Astraea-Dike, and the paradox of the sacred prostitute—arguing that the sign’s inner tension derives from a conflict between collective morality and an autonomous, archetypal femininity that predates patriarchal chastity codes. For Greene, the Virgo dynamic is inseparable from the Hermes-Mercury rulership and from the maiden’s necessary ‘soiling’ as the price of incarnation. Jung’s seminar notes approach Virgo cosmologically, reading the constellation as the moment when the feminine principle subdues the solar masculine—the eye-womb that receives Ra, the virgin who tames the lion—casting the sign as a threshold figure in the annual myth of solar descent. Rudhyar frames Virgo as the ‘Span of Idealization,’ emphasizing the shaping power of idea over form. Sasportas and Cunningham contribute more functionally oriented observations: Virgo’s Mercury-ruled dissective intelligence, its sixth-house correlations with work, health, and service, and its earth-sign kinship with Taurus and Capricorn. Across all voices, the central tension is between Virgo’s perfectionist idealism and the irreducible messiness of embodied life.