The term ‘oral’ occupies strikingly different registers across the depth-psychology corpus, demanding careful disambiguation. In the psychoanalytic lineage, Karl Abraham’s foundational work establishes ‘oral’ as the earliest libidinal stage, tied to the erotogenic zone of the mouth and the sucking experience of infancy. Abraham delineates an oral character formed by either excess or deprivation during the sucking period, manifesting in social dependency, impatience, and what he memorably terms a ‘vampire’-like attachment to others. Melanie Klein extends this territory by grounding envy, idealization, and the primal relation to the good breast in the oral matrix. A wholly distinct usage pervades the cultural-theoretical and classical-philological literature: ‘oral’ designates the preliterate mode of composition, transmission, and knowing — the world of Homeric epic, tribal narrative, and indigenous landscape-bound speech, as explored by Havelock, Ong, Parry-Lord, and Abram. Here orality is not a developmental phase but a cognitive and ecological formation, one that binds knowing to the body, to place, and to the animate more-than-human field. The tension between these two usages — libidinal stage versus epistemological regime — marks a productive fault-line in the corpus, with both traditions converging on the mouth as the primordial site where self, world, and knowledge first meet.