The term ‘age’ in the depth-psychology corpus does not resolve into a single stable concept but fractures across at least four distinct registers of meaning, each pressing upon the others. In the cosmological register, inherited from patristic and Eastern Christian sources, age designates vast temporal epochs — the seven ages of creation culminating in the eighth, eschatological aeon — where it functions as the temporal analogue to eternity itself. In the mythological register, drawing on Hesiod and comparative Indo-European cyclical schemes, age marks qualitative moral deterioration across golden, silver, bronze, and iron phases of human civilization, a descent that the Indian yuga system renders with extraordinary numerical precision. In the archetypal-psychological register, most elaborated by Hillman, age becomes the phenomenological field of the senex — that principle of depth, endurance, wisdom, and character that cultures mistake for mere biological decline. Here ‘old age’ is rehabilitated as a distinct mode of being, irreducible to longevity or to its opposite, youth. Finally, in the developmental-feminist register represented by Estés and Harding, age is demythologized into psychic phases that are chronologically approximate but experientially sovereign. What unites these otherwise disparate treatments is a shared resistance to the modern Western convention of ageism — the reduction of aging to affliction — and a sustained attempt to recover age as a bearer of soul.