The term ‘omen’ occupies a significant, if structurally dispersed, position across the depth-psychology corpus, appearing most densely at the intersection of archaic Greek religious practice, bicameral consciousness theory, and the psychology of divine communication. The corpus reveals no single unified theory of omen but rather a constellation of positions. Jaynes treats omens—celestial, oneiric, and divinatory—as historically diagnostic: they are the compensatory apparatus of a consciousness recently severed from its bicameral gods, a civilization learning to read the silence of heaven. Benveniste grounds omen-adjacent terminology (phēmē, sēma, teras, monstrum) in the Indo-European semantics of portent and divine speech, showing how the ‘voice of the people’ and the thunderclap both function as equivalent manifestations of divine will. Padel situates the Greek oionos—the bird-omen—within the broader ecology of animal symbolism and prophetic interpretation, noting that birds incarnate what lies beyond human grasp. López-Pedraza, reading the Homeric Hymn to Hermes, develops a distinctly archetypal-psychological argument: Hermetic omens are bodily, comic, and deliberately anti-Apollonian, challenging the oracular gravity of Delphi with flatulence and a sneeze. Across these positions, a productive tension emerges between omen as rational instrument of divination and omen as eruptive, somatic, or unconscious signal—a tension that mirrors depth psychology’s own ambivalence about the irrational.