From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The passage about the Mechwarrior Universe is completely superfluent and does not belong here.

I would be inclined to agree that the mechwarrior passage does not belong in this article as well. It at least needs to be cleaned up significantly - two planets are mentioned first and then only one is described in later sentences by the pronoun "it," but the writer does not specify which, the passage is divided into two paragraphs for no ostensible reason, and the first sentence of the second paragraph is a fragment. And really, why say proliferous over prolific? Maybe that last one is just personal taste though.

Sorry it's very confusing, you say eosphorus is the evening star but then in another moment, that eos means dawn therefor he is the morning star! Who is who, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A Ship?[edit]

Somebody once commented that my room looked like 'The wreck of the Hesperus' - which I understood at the time simply to mean it was messy, without considering the back-story. Now I would assume that the Hesperus was the name of a ship that was famously wrecked but I haven't seen the fine old lady who made the comment in years and everyone I ask these days looks at me as though I'm a mental case.

Was this a ship? Or was that old lady crazy? Or am I crazy? Are we all crazy?

It's a poem [1] by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow - I knew that off the top of my head, but even if I hadn't, Google is your friend. Try using that next time instead of wasting space here. --Jpbrenna 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Equality for Phosphorus![edit]

The phosphorous article is (of course) only about the element. It seems to me that "Phosphorous" is just as important a name for Venus as "Hesperus" is. So if Hesperus deserves its own article, so would Phosphorous—but since this article is already half about Phosphorous, I think it should be moved to Hesperus and Phosphorous. Comments? --<unsigned entry>

In my mind, it is the name Eosphorus that has always been tied to Hesperus as the morning and evening stars respectively -- not Phosphorus, which I always associate with the chemical element. I therefore think it reasonable that that both Hesperus and Eosphorus, but not Phosphorus, call up this article. However, a link from the page about the chemical Phosphorus, to the Eosphorus/Hesperus page may be in order. That page mentions the etymologic association with the morning star near the end but I see no link. --Black Walnut 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Link from Phosphorus (chemical element) added. --Black Walnut 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pythagoras' role[edit]

The article credits Pythagoras with discovering that the evening and morning stars are the same entity. The Greeks may indeed have not known this and he may have been the first of them to discover it, but I have also read that earlier civilizations (Assyrian? Babylonian?) knew this and that the 5-pointed star symbol (pentagram), which was sacred to them, was a description of Venus's orbital path, as viewed from Earth: every 5 Venus-years, the planet returns to the same position in our sky. Implicit in this understanding are the planet's intermediate positions, and hence the understanding that it appears as the evening star. Maybe someone can follow up? --Black Walnut 00:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just about everything Pythagoras has been credited for is controversial these days. I am removing that until someone can find a citation or adjust the quote to reflect that it is debated. sidd 04:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Few things can be more obvious than that the Hesperides are the daughters of Hesperus, not Eosphorus.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hesperus is Phosphorus[edit]

Gottlob Frege did not use the terms Hesperus and Phosphorus. He used the terms Morgenstern and Abendstern. I think here is some clarification needed, (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No references for first paragraph (geneology)[edit]

Several facts are given there without sources cited. Having studied classics, I find that it reads as authoritative; but the sources still need to be cited. In particular, my concern is that I have looked in a variety of print sources and cannot find either the personification Hesperus, nor the geneology listed, as being attested in original Greek sources. Oxford Classical Dictionary mentions Hesperus as a god, but other classical reference works say the deity is unattested in original sources. There's too much well-done detail for the writer to have made up the first paragraph, and I suspect the writer is familiar with a source that he/she has neglected to list.

The Hesperides, for example, whose generic means 'offspring of Hesper-' (root of the name is present, not the name ending) are variously attested to be the daughters of Hesperius (female), of Nyx (Night), and of several other parents; I don't think there is attestation of them being the daughters of a Hesperus, as one might expect from their generic name. MrOrigamiPants (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)