Dream interpretation stands as one of the most contested and generative sites within the depth-psychological tradition, drawing together epistemological, clinical, and metaphysical concerns that no single theoretical framework has fully resolved. Freud established the foundational dichotomy between manifest and latent content, arguing that the dream-text disguises an unconscious wish through condensation, displacement, and secondary revision — a hermeneutic model predicated on decipherment. Jung radically reoriented the enterprise: insisting that the dream means what it says and is not a disguise, he replaced Freudian decoding with amplification, distinguishing interpretation on the subjective level from interpretation on the objective level, and granting the dream authority as a natural communication from the unconscious psyche rather than as a symptom of repression. Von Franz extended this by detecting an ‘imaginal logic’ internal to dreams, irreducible to mathematical or discursive rationality. Johnson, Hall, and Papadopoulos codified Jungian clinical procedure, attending to compensation, the risk of ego-inflation, and the psyche’s capacity to correct erroneous interpretations through subsequent dreams. Bulkeley, Hill, and Goodwyn introduce pluralist and cognitive-neuroscientific perspectives, acknowledging that no single correct meaning exists while nonetheless insisting that interpretive engagement with dream imagery produces demonstrable therapeutic and integrative effects. Hillman complicates the entire enterprise by arguing that both Freud and Jung projected their governing ideas onto the dream rather than receiving its autonomous dramaturgy on its own terms.