The term ‘Scale’ appears across the depth-psychology corpus in two broadly distinct registers, neither of which resolves neatly into the other. In the empirical and clinical literature — meta-analyses of sandplay therapy, long-term psychodynamic and psychoanalytic efficacy studies, studies of religious coping, recovery capital, interoceptive awareness, and somatic dissociation — ‘scale’ functions as a psychometric instrument: a scored, standardised measure by which interior states (anxiety, self-esteem, dissociation, spiritual well-being, affect consciousness) are made legible to research. Here the term carries the weight of epistemological aspiration: the conviction that gradations of psychic reality can be captured and compared. In the cosmological and philosophical literature — most prominently Plato’s Timaeus and its commentators — ‘scale’ appears in a geometrical and proportional sense, embedded in accounts of harmonic intervals, numerical series, and the architecture of the World-Soul. Rank’s Art and Artist offers a third usage: the proportional scale of the human body as the generative principle of architectural measure, linking anthropos to cosmos through ratio. These strands share an underlying concern with proportion, gradation, and the relationship between the measurable and the real — a tension the depth-psychological tradition has never fully settled.