Divination occupies a richly contested position in the depth-psychology corpus, situated at the intersection of epistemology, cosmology, and the psychology of the unconscious. The tradition rarely treats it as mere fortune-telling; rather, divination emerges as a technology for accessing what lies beyond the reach of ordinary rational cognition. Julian Jaynes situates it historically within the breakdown of the bicameral mind, reading its proliferation as humanity’s compensatory response to the silencing of the gods. The Stoic philosophical tradition, preserved through Cicero and Sedley, frames divination as either technically grounded in empirical observation or inspired by the loosening of rational control — a taxonomy that anticipates Jung’s own distinction between ego-directed and unconscious processes. Plato’s Timaeus locates the seat of divination in the irrational part of the soul, insisting that true inspired divination requires the suspension of ordinary understanding. Jung himself, and von Franz after him, reframe the mechanism through synchronicity — the meaningful coincidence that underlies oracular systems like the I Ching. López-Pedraza assigns divination to the Apollonian rather than Hermetic register, restricting Hermes to a marginal and paradoxical variety. The Daoist material in Kohn provides the broadest cross-cultural archive, demonstrating that divination is not a single practice but a field of techniques — astromancy, physiognomy, oracle bones, geomancy — unified by the assumption that the cosmos communicates with human fate. Tarot writers from Pollack to Place situate the practice within synchronicity theory and archetypal symbolism, while Nichols probes its limits against questions of fate and free will.