The Father Imago occupies a singular position in the depth-psychological canon as the psychic precipitate of the actual father, transformed by the child’s projections into an archetypal configuration that far exceeds any biographical individual. Jung’s own formulations—most fully elaborated in the Collected Works, Symbols of Transformation, and Civilization in Transition—establish the father-imago as the psyche’s representation of spirit, law, authority, and the yang principle, an ‘auctor’ figure whose ambivalence is constitutive rather than incidental. The imago is structurally dual: it may sever the child from infantile maternal bondage and catalyze individuation, or it may enforce neurotic fixation, operating ambivalently as Yahweh acted toward Job. This ambivalence distinguishes the imago from the archetype proper, though the two interpenetrate: personal experience loads the archetypal template, and archetypal energy inflates the biographical father beyond recognition. Post-Jungian writers such as Hollis and Stein extend the analysis into clinical and gendered registers—Hollis examining the wounding consequences of father-hunger, Stein differentiating the personal father imago from larger archetypal transference figures. The mother-imago functions as the structural counterpart, and the tension between the two imagos maps onto broader polarities of yin/yang, nature/spirit, and unconscious/consciousness. Across the corpus, the father-imago is thus both wound and initiatory force, always requiring differentiation if individuation is to proceed.