Remembrance occupies a structurally pivotal position across the depth-psychology corpus, operating simultaneously as a therapeutic imperative, a spiritual discipline, a somatic fact, and a mythological power. The breadth of positions is remarkable: in trauma theory (Herman, Janet, Ogden), remembrance names the essential but structurally compromised action through which traumatic material must be recovered from its dissociated, pre-narrative form and integrated into a coherent life-story. In the Philokalic and ascetic traditions (Climacus, Sinkewicz, the Philokalia volumes), remembrance achieves its fullest dignity as the ceaseless interior orientation of the intellect toward God and toward death — a practice that is simultaneously cognitive, volitional, and soteriological. In Vernant’s reconstructed Greek thought, remembrance (anamnesis) emerges as the cosmological power through which the soul escapes the cycle of generation, joining beginning to end in a salvific recollection of prior existence. Hillman reframes it as a specifically psychological calling: the speech-act that carries soul within itself, the mythic-metaphoric language that participates in what it names. Pargament situates it within mourning ritual as the mechanism by which the dead are transformed from physical presences into inner spiritual legacies. The deepest tension in the corpus runs between remembrance as cure — the restoration of what trauma, grief, or spiritual negligence has fragmented — and remembrance as ongoing practice, the sustained interior attention that constitutes the very structure of a well-lived, or well-dying, life.