The number Four occupies a privileged and systematically elaborated position throughout the depth-psychology corpus, functioning not merely as an arithmetical quantity but as the primary archetypal symbol of wholeness, orientation, and realized totality. Jung established its centrality through multiple converging lines of evidence: the fourfold typological model of consciousness (thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition), the recurrence of quaternary structure in mandalas, alchemy, cosmology, and comparative religion, and the phenomenological observation that four appears in patients’ dreams and active-imagination products precisely when integrative processes are reaching completion. Von Franz extends and systematizes this finding, distinguishing Four from Three on structural grounds: Three marks dynamic creative process, while Four denotes the establishment of visible order — the result when creative flow becomes still, measurable, and oriented. She further identifies the archetypal priority of the quaternary pattern over its Jungian psychological instantiation, insisting the four functions are derived from the archetype, not the reverse. Hamaker-Zondag adds the crucial Jungian caveat that the step from Three to Four is psychologically painful, linked to confrontation with the inferior fourth function. Edinger, Pauli, Nichols, and Bly collectively document Four’s saturation across alchemical, theological, mythological, and cosmological traditions, confirming its trans-cultural status as what Jung called ‘an archetypal arrangement.’ The central tension in this literature is whether Four is a psychological discovery or a metaphysical given — a question the corpus deliberately leaves generative.