The first reliable sighting is that of 5 November reported by Francesco Maurolyco. See HellmanC. Doris, “Maurolyco's ‘lost’ essay on the new star of 1572”, Isis, li (1960), 322–36.
3.
The modern literature on the 1572 nova is vast and includes: LernerMichel-Pierre, “La supernova de 1572: Une diversité d'interpretations”, L'astronomie, November 2005, 558–65; WeichenhanMichael, “Ergo perit coelum…”: Die Supernova des Jahres 1572 und die Überwindung der aristotelischen Kosmologie (Stuttgart, 2004); HellmanC. Doris, “The gradual abandonment of the Aristotelian universe: A preliminary note on some sidelights”, in Mélanges Alexandre Koyré: L'aventure de la science, i (Paris, 1964), 283–93; eadem, “The new star of 1572: Its place in the history of astronomy”, in Actes du IXe Congrès d'Histoire des Sciences: Barcelona-Madrid 1–7 Septembre 1959 (Barcelona and Paris, 1960), ii, 482–7; and GranadaMiguel A., “Michael Maestlin and the new star of 1572”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxviii (2007), 2007–124.
The most frequently expressed opinion of the physical explanation of the nova, held by Tycho and many others, was that it was a miracle. Tycho did note, however, that the star had appeared in the Milky Way, and thought it might have been made from the supposedly nebulous galactic matter; it even seemed to him after the star had vanished that a dark space had appeared where the nova had been. Other astronomers hypothesized a vertical motion, either of some terrestial matter which had somehow entered the heavens (e.g., Elias Camerarius, cited in Tycho's Progymnasmata, 1602), or of a star which had descended to the planetary region, then reascended (the view of John Dee, in an unpublished work). Thomas Digges proposed a Copernican variant of this hypothesis (in Alae seu scalae mathematicae, 1573) in which it was the Earth that approached the nova. (I owe these references to W. H. Donahue.) Cyprianus Leovitius suggested in De nova stella (Lauingen, 1573, reprinted by Tycho in Progymnasmata) that the nova may have resulted from the recent conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn (information from M. A. Granada). RiccioliJ. B., in Almagestum novum (Bologna, 1651/53), ii, Liber VIII, Sectio II, gives a list of alleged new stars (chap. 1); discusses at length the stars of 1572 (chaps. 2–11), 1600 (chaps. 12–13) and 1604 (chaps. 14–15) with summary (chap. 16); considers their material, nature and generation (chap. 17) and efficient and final causes (chap. 18); and concludes with a discussion of the Star of Bethlehem (chaps. 19–20).
7.
BraheTycho, De mundi aetherei recentioribus phaenomenis (Uraniborg, 1588).
8.
On this see HoskinMichael, Stellar astronomy: Historical studies (Chalfont St Giles, 1982), 23. In De nova stella (ref. 5 above) Leovitius cites records that implied stars had appeared in 954 and 1264 not far from the star of 1572. The intervals between these dates suggested that it could be the same star reappearing every three, or one-and-a-half, centuries, a possibility that aroused much interest as recently as the late nineteenth century. For further details see Hoskin, Stellar astronomy, 26–27, ref. 10.
9.
KeplerJohannes, De stella nova (Prague, 1606).
10.
For an explanation of the special significance of this particular conjunction, see “The astrology of the ‘great’ conjunctions”, in The Cambridge illustrated history of astronomy, ed. by HoskinMichael (Cambridge, 1997), 200.
11.
The phrase occurs in English in GregoryDavid, The elements of physical and geometrical astronomy, 2nd edn (London, 1726), i, 312.
12.
KeplerJohannes, Ad Vitellionem paralipomena (Frankfurt, 1604), 237.
13.
“Observationes quas misit mihi Dominus David Fabricius”, BraheTycho, Opera omnia, ed. by DreyerJ. L. E. (Copenhagen, 1913–29), xiii, 114–15.
HeveliusJohannes, Mercurius in Sole visus (Danzig, 1662), 146–71.
18.
BullialdusIsmael, Ad astronomos monita duo (Paris, 1667), Monitum Primum.
19.
Philosophical transactions, i (1665–67), 382.
20.
Letter from Hevelius to Philosophical transactions, i (1665–67), 349.
21.
Bullialdus, Ad astronomos monita duo, Monitum Alterum.
22.
MontanariGeminiano, “Sopra le sparizione d'alcune stelle et altre novità celesti”, Prose de' signori accademici Gelati (Bologna, 1671), 369–92. Montanari announced other discoveries of changes among the stars in a letter to the Royal Society dated 30 April 1670, which was read at the meeting of 27 October (Thomas Birch, A history of the Royal Society of London (London, 1756–57), ii, 448).
23.
The account in Journal des sçavans for 22 June 1671, 32–36, was translated in Philosophical transactions, vi (1671), 1671–202 (quotation from pp. 2201–1).
24.
See ref. 21. The translation used here is from KeillJohn, An introduction to the true astronomy (London, 1721), 58.
25.
op. cit. (ref. 22), 35; translated in Philosophical transactions, vi (1671), 2201.
26.
For further information on the matters discussed above, see Section A, chap. 2 of Hoskin, Stellar astronomy (ref. 8).
27.
[HalleyEdmond], “A short history of several new-stars that have appear'd within these 150 years …”, Philosophical transactions, xxix (1714–16), 354–6.
28.
In the entry for 14 November 1781, in his Journal (Edward Pigott MSS, North Yorkshire County Council).
29.
Pigott, Journal, 171.
30.
Pigott, Journal, 176.
31.
Letter B.6, RAS MS Herschel W. 1/13.
32.
Published as GoodrickeJohn, “A series of observations on, and a discovery of, the period of the variation of the light of … Algol”, Philosophical transactions, lxxiii (1783), 474–82.
33.
Ibid., 482.
34.
Goodricke, Journal (John Goodricke MSS, North Yorkshire County Council), 49, 93.
35.
Goodricke, Journal, 79.
36.
PigottEdward, “Observations on a new variable star”, Philosophical transactions, lxxv (1785), 153–64.
37.
GoodrickeJohn, “A series of observations on … δ … near the Head of Cepheus”, Philosophical transactions, lxxvi (1786), 48–61.
38.
Ibid., 61.
39.
PigottEdward, “On the periodical changes of brightness of two fixed stars”, Philosophical transactions, lxxxvii (1797), 133–41.
40.
PigottEdward, “Observations and remarks on those stars which the astronomers of the last century suspected to be variable”, Philosophical transactions, lxxvi (1786), 189–219.
41.
For detailed information on the work of Pigott and Goodricke, see HoskinMichael, “Goodricke, Pigott and the quest for variable stars”, Journal for the history of astronomy, x (1979), 23–41, or Section A, chap. 4 of Hoskin, Stellar astronomy (ref. 8).
42.
William Herschel unwittingly stole Goodricke's thunder over Algol. See Hoskin, “Goodricke, …” (ref. 40), 29, or Hoskin, Stellar astronomy (ref. 8), 43.
43.
Published, along with other materials, in papers in Philosophical transactions, lxxxvi (1796), 166–226; lxxxvi (1796), 452–82; lxxxvii (1797), 293–324; and lxxxix (1799), 121–44.
44.
In his discussion of William Herschel's observations, Harvard annals, xxiii (1890), 231.
45.
de LalandeJ.-J. L., Astronomie, i (1792), art. 824.
46.
HerschelJ. F. W., A treatise on astronomy (London, 1833), para. 597.
47.
Ibid., para. 593.
48.
Ibid., para. 594.
49.
Ibid., para. 595.
50.
Ibid., para. 596.
51.
HerschelJ. F. W., Results of astronomical observations made during the years 1834, 5, 6, 7, 8, at the Cape of Good Hope (London, 1847), chap. 3.
52.
Ibid, section II.
53.
Ibid., 33–34.
54.
HerschelJ. F. W., Outlines of astronomy (London, 1849), section 830, quoting approvingly an unidentified author.
55.
ArgelanderF. W. A., Uranometria nova (Berlin, 1843), with seventeen charts and a catalogue of stars.
56.
In a letter to the Editor, published in Astronomische Nachrichten, no. 483 (3 August 1843).
57.
HalleyEdmond, “The number, order, and light of the fix'd stars”, Philosophical transactions, xxxi (1720–21), 24–26. Even Alan Cook, in his Edmond Halley (Oxford, 1998), makes the common mistake of dating this paper to 1720, but the Journal Book of the Royal Society shows that it was read on 16 March 1720/1 (O.S.), that is, 1721.
58.
PogsonNorman, “Magnitudes of forty of the minor planets for the first day of each month of the year 1858”, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, xviii (1857–58), 47–49, pp. 48–49.
