maha strategies · governed federation

Aphrodite and Venus — Epithet and cult

Aphrodite and Venus — Epithet and cult is implemented as a source-bounded epithet and cult guide.

Active canonical release · fedrelease_757722439ad05bfb056b2e31adcdb088 · exact revision sha256:44ff1d79aadfd5159f81f7cf6791ef8441a36b92d1cdda798e1165d3066df72a

answer

Direct answer

Aphrodite and Venus — Epithet and cult is implemented as a source-bounded epithet and cult guide.

method

Answer contract

Apply the epithet and cult lens only to the exact inspected source scope; do not infer authority from adjacent topics.

evidence

Evidence and exact locators

William Smith, A Smaller Classical Dictionary of Biography, Mythology, and Geography (London, 1873) — s.v. “Aphrodite, called Venus,” pp. 41–42; scan PDF pages 51–52. Supports: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

limitations

What the evidence does not establish

This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

rights

Rights and reuse

public-domain-historical-work; bounded original paraphrase only

relationships

Dependencies and related concepts

derived-from: urn:maha:concept:mythology:greek-roman:aphrodite-venus

governed-by: urn:maha:concept:interpretation

limits: urn:maha:concept:translation

required-by-specification

Smith’s historical framing

This smith’s historical framing section is constrained to the same inspected scope: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

required-by-specification

Located evidence

This located evidence section is constrained to the same inspected scope: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

required-by-specification

Greek and Roman relationship

This greek and roman relationship section is constrained to the same inspected scope: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

required-by-specification

Limits and later scholarship

This limits and later scholarship section is constrained to the same inspected scope: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

required-by-specification

Related concepts

This related concepts section is constrained to the same inspected scope: Names the Greek and Roman figures, narrates the dictionary’s genealogy and attributes, and locates worship and selected associations.

It must preserve the recorded boundary: This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

bounded answers

Questions this page can answer

What does Smith’s 1873 entry say about Aphrodite and Venus?

Aphrodite and Venus — Epithet and cult is implemented as a source-bounded epithet and cult guide.

Which printed pages support this answer?

William Smith, A Smaller Classical Dictionary of Biography, Mythology, and Geography (London, 1873), s.v. “Aphrodite, called Venus,” pp. 41–42; scan PDF pages 51–52

Does a paired Greek and Roman name establish identity?

This is a nineteenth-century reference synthesis, not a primary ancient text, modern classical consensus, proof of equivalence, common origin, or living theological authority. Every route must attribute the frame to Smith and preserve Greek evidence, Roman reception, and later comparison as different propositions.

What is specific to cult, place, or period?

derived-from: urn:maha:concept:mythology:greek-roman:aphrodite-venus governed-by: urn:maha:concept:interpretation limits: urn:maha:concept:translation

What requires primary ancient texts or modern scholarship?

A source, locator, rights, scope, boundary, dependency, implementation, or release change requires a new exact-revision review.