Abandonment occupies a structurally central position in the depth-psychology corpus, operating simultaneously as a developmental wound, a relational dynamic, and an existential condition. The literature divides broadly into two orientations. The first, anchored in attachment theory — most systematically in Bowlby’s trilogy — treats abandonment as the empirically documentable consequence of separation from primary caregivers, tracing its sequelae through protest, despair, and detachment into adult patterns of anxiety, depression, and pathological mourning. Bowlby’s detailed case observations (Patrick, Owen, Laura, Kate) make abandonment concrete: it is not metaphor but measurable disruption to the attachment system. The second orientation, concentrated in the ACA literature, frames abandonment as the constitutive trauma of dysfunctional family systems — not merely physical absence but the chronic emotional withdrawal, shaming, and failure of attunement that leave the child structurally alone. Here abandonment is paired invariably with shame as the twin pillars of adult-child pathology, generating hypervigilance, relationship anorexia, approval-seeking, and the compulsive fear that permeates adult intimate life. Hillman and Giegerich gesture toward abandonment in its mythic and philosophical registers — the abandoned child as archetype, self-abandonment as paradoxical self-investment. Kalsched links severe early abandonment to archetypal defensive formations. Across traditions, the corpus agrees that unresolved abandonment fear does not remain historical; it recapitulates in adult relationships, therapeutic transference, and spiritual crisis.