Circumference appears in the depth-psychology corpus as a figure of fundamental ontological and psychological significance, moving between cosmological speculation, theological paradox, and the analytic vocabulary of selfhood. Its most persistent and charged appearance is in the Hermetic-scholastic formula — ‘God is an infinite sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere’ — which Jung, von Franz, and Edinger each mobilise as a psychological proposition: the Self, like the God-image, exceeds any fixed boundary while remaining oriented around a centre. This creates an essential tension between circumference as limit (Blake’s ‘outward circumference of Energy,’ where reason contains but can never fully enclose vitality) and circumference as the totality that embraces both known and unknown, conscious and unconscious. Samuels captures the Jungian synthesis precisely: the Self is not only centre but ‘also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious.’ McGilchrist draws the figure through Donne, Blake, and Shelley to argue that the sphere and circumference are characteristic expressions of right-hemispheric, holistic cognition. Rudhyar, Nichols, and Pauli approach circumference through cosmological geometry — the circle, the periphery of the wheel, the reciprocal relation of circumferential and central figures. The tension between bounded and unbounded, peripheral and central, gives the term its depth-psychological vitality.