Vocation, within the depth-psychological corpus, names something far more consequential than occupational choice: it designates the imperative issued by the psyche’s deeper strata to the conscious personality. Jung establishes the term’s etymological root — ‘to be addressed by a voice’ — and traces it from Old Testament prophecy through Goethe and Napoleon to ordinary individuals who hear the inner daemon more faintly as personality diminishes in scale. For Jung, vocation and the development of personality are inseparable; the ‘inner voice’ is a ‘powerful objective-psychic factor,’ not a subjective fancy. Edinger extends this into institutional territory, proposing that depth psychotherapy constitutes a historically unprecedented vocation whose antecedents lie in the priest, the shaman, and the sacred mediator. Von Franz sharpens the distinction between professional competence and vocation proper, locating the latter in the analyst’s connection to transpersonal powers — the gods manifest in the psyche. Hillman complicates the Platonic inheritance by warning against reducing vocation to a specific job, insisting that character expressed in the performance of any calling matters as much as the calling’s content. Moore grounds vocation in the soul of work itself, arguing that all labor is, in its depths, a calling from beyond human intention. Romanyshyn theorizes research as vocation — a turning toward what claims the researcher, animated by ancestors, wounds, and imaginal forces. Hoeller frames vocation as the human being’s authentic, improbable destiny, making us fully human in proportion as we heed it. The central tension across these voices is between vocation as rare, fateful endowment and vocation as the inherent telos of all psychic life.