Within the depth-psychological and astrological corpus, Venus occupies a position of sustained interpretive tension: celebrated as a principle of beauty, love, and relatedness, yet consistently interrogated for the shadow dimensions that accompany her gifts. Ficino, as reconstructed by Thomas Moore, locates Venus at the centre of a Neoplatonic cosmology in which love constitutes a circular attraction binding God, world, and soul — a metaphysical amplitude far exceeding the merely romantic. Cunningham reads Venus as a benefic capable of becoming a trap, her charm and beauty potentially arresting psychological development rather than enabling it. Greene situates Venus in hard aspect to Saturn as the signature of emotional wounding and arrested relational growth, while also naming Venus the ‘chief significator’ of love’s projective field. Tarnas demonstrates that Venus-Uranus aspects correlate with the creative yoking of beauty and rebellion across artistic biography. Jung’s synchronicity research treats Venus empirically, examining her aspects as statistical markers in the astrological tradition’s claims about marriage. Sasportas distributes Venus through the twelve houses with meticulous attention to the ways self-worth, aesthetic sensibility, and relational need vary by placement. Together, these voices establish Venus not as a simple benefic but as an archetype whose full depth demands psychological accountability.