Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘cry’ operates across at least three distinct registers that resist easy synthesis. First, it functions as an archetypal signal of the abandoned child—Hillman’s most sustained contribution—wherein the cry is never merely a symptom but an irreducible existential declaration: the voice through which a subject organizes existence from within radical dependency, and which, crucially, is never ‘cured.’ Second, cry appears as a somatic-affective event with measurable physiological correlates: Fogel documents how the ‘good cry’ activates the parasympathetic nervous system, restoring homeostatic balance after sympathetic arousal, thereby grounding the phenomenon in embodied self-awareness. Third, mythopoeic and ritual traditions—Estés, Alexiou, Hausherr—treat the cry and its tears as sacred mediators: substances that germinate healing, repel demonic forces, and constitute the very grammar of ritual lament. A fourth axis, furnished by Nietzsche and the comparative mythologists, reads the cry as existential summons—the cry of the Higher Man calling Zarathustra toward pity and ultimate spiritual risk. Across these registers, unresolved tension persists between the cry as primitive regression and the cry as teleological necessity; between its social function as attachment signal and its solitary, ungovernable interiority. The term therefore stands at the intersection of somatic psychology, archetypal theory, and ritual studies.