Within the depth-psychology corpus, ‘Many’ functions less as a simple numerical quantifier than as the philosophical counterweight to Unity — the pole against which oneness, integration, and wholeness are dialectically measured. The tension surfaces most forcefully in Hillman’s archetypal polytheism, where ‘the manyness’ of gods, dominants, and psychic figures is championed against what Hillman diagnoses as the reductive monotheism embedded in ego-psychology and the Jungian self-axis. For Hillman, psychological health requires honoring the full plurality of the divine field — not the reduction of the many to one. Plato’s Parmenides provides the ancient philosophical ground: the hypotheses of the One and the Many are presented as mutually entailing and mutually problematic, a paradox that resurfaces in Jung’s formulation of the self as simultaneously one and many. Jung himself treats ‘Integration’ as the gathering of many into one, but does not dissolve multiplicity entirely — rather, the many-in-the-one and the one-in-the-many name the unresolved enigma at the heart of archetypal theory. Miller’s theological critique extends this into cultural diagnosis: decadent monotheism, the tyranny of a single organizing principle, suppresses the generative plurality that polytheism and a differentiated psychology each, in different registers, affirm. Nietzsche’s ‘many-too-many’ adds a sociopolitical shadow, warning against the leveling mass. Across these voices, ‘Many’ names the irreducible plurality of psychic life.