See for example KelényiOttó B., “Geschichte der ungarischen Astronomie”, Astronomische Abhandlungen des Königlichen Ungarischen Astrophysikalischen Observatoriums von Konkoly's Stiftung in Budapest-Svábhegy, i/2 (1930), 74–83 (on the Buda (Gerhardsberg) observatory), 83–86 (on the Bicske observatory).
2.
Kelényi, op. cit.86; PatkósLászló, “Miklós Konkoly Thege, the Hungarian astronomer”, in The role of Miklós Konkoly Thege in the history of astronomy in Hungary, ed. by VarghaMagdaPatkósLászlóTóthImre (Budapest, 1992), 4–10.
3.
Kelényi, op. cit.89.
4.
Ibid.90; see also von KövesligethyR., “Die Sternwarte des Baron Geiza von Podmaniczky in Kis Kartal, Ungarn”, Sirius, neue Folge, xv (1887), 145–6.
5.
A recent appreciation of Kövesligethy is by VarghaMagda, “Scientific life at Hurbanovo at the turn of the century”, in 125 Years of the Observatory in Hurbanovo, ed. by DrugaL. (Hurbanovo, 1998), 21–31.
6.
KövesligethyR., “A kis-kartali csillagvizsgálóról”, Értekezések a természettudományok köréböl, xix (1889), no. 2, 12–17 (on the Kis-Kartal Observatory).
7.
See JonesGlyn Kenneth, “S Andromedae, 1885: An analysis of contemporary reports and a reconstruction”, Journal for the history of astronomy, vii (1976), 27–40.
8.
de KonkolyN., “The new star in the Great Nebula of Andromeda (Messier 31)”, The observatory, viii (1885), 331.
9.
Kövesligethy, op. cit. (ref. 6).
10.
It contains observations made between 19 September 1886 and 7 July 1892.
11.
von KövesligethyR., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), col. 308.
12.
Kövesligethy, op. cit. (ref. 6).
13.
von KövesligethyR., “Ueber wahrscheinliche neue Veränderungen im grossen Andromeda-Nebel”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), cols 231–2; and “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, ibid. cols 305–8.
14.
von KonkolyN., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), col. 251.
15.
von GothardEugen, “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), cols 252–3.
16.
von BártfayJ. A., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), cols 253–4.
17.
von KonkolyN., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), col. 266.
18.
KruegerA., “Zusatz des Herausgebers”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), cols 253–4.
19.
SchönfeldE., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxv (1886), col. 265; MüllerG., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, ibid.; ValentinerW., “Beobachtungen des Andromeda-Nebels”, ibid..
20.
CopelandR., “On Hartwig's Nova Andromedae”, Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, xlvii (1886), 49–61.
21.
TarrantK. J., “31 Messier Andromedae”, The observatory, ix (1886), 397–8.
22.
WardI. W., “The red variable star V Cygni — 31 Messier Andromedae”, English mechanic and world of science, no. 1128 (1886), 217.
23.
MüllerG.HartwigE., Geschichte und Literatur des Lichtwechsels der bis Ende 1915 als sicher veränderlich anerkannten Sterne nebst einem Katalog der Elemente ihres Lichtwechsels (Leipzig, 1920), ii, 420.
24.
Kövesligethy, op. cit. (ref. 11).
25.
Kövesligethy, op. cit. (ref. 6).
26.
Personal communication from JankovicsIstvánDr, Director of the Herény Observatory.
27.
SeraphimoffW., “Ueber den Andromedanebel”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxlvii (1898), cols 319–20.
28.
HartwigE., “Ueber den grossen Andromedanebel”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxlviii (1898), cols 11–14; BarnardE. E., “The Great Nebula of Andromeda”, Astrophysical journal, viii (1898), 226–8; and idem, “The temporary stars: On the present appearance of some of these bodies”, Astronomische Nachrichten, cxciv (1913), cols 401–8.
29.
LakitsF., “Az új csillag az Andromeda-ködben” (“The new star in the Andromeda Nebula”), Természettudományi Közlöny, xvii (1885), 509–11.
30.
LeovitiusCyprianus, De novae stellae (Lavingae, 1573). Leovitius (1524–74) was a well-known astronomer/astrologer of his time, though Dreyer in his Tycho Brahe (Edinburgh, 1890), 30 calls him more of an astrologer. Leovitius claimed to have found references in old manuscripts for similar new stars occuring in a.d. 945 and 1264 (Dreyer, op. cit.65).
31.
The first to suggest that these new stars may be the reappearances of the same object seems to be John Keill (HoskinMichael, “Novae and variables from Tycho to Bullialdus”, Sudhoffs Archiv, lxi (1977), 195–204, later reprinted in his Stellar astronomy (Chalfont St Giles, 1982), 22–28). BártfayJ., “A csillagködök és változó csillagok” (“Nebulae and variable stars”), Természettudományi Közlöny, xviii (1886), 466–75, p. 469, mentioned that Goodricke had tried to equate the three objects (i.e. those of 945, 1264 and 1572). He is in error here, since it was Pigott who made the reference to Keill's statement (PigottE., “Observations and remarks on those stars which the astronomers of the last century suspected to be changeable”, Philosophical transactions, lxxvi (1786), 189–219). Also, though Herschel (op. cit.) did not mention Leovitius, Humboldt (op. cit.) did so. Thus there is a clear link between Leovitius and the “observations” of Kövesligethy.
32.
Bártfay, op. cit. (ref. 31); and LakitsF., “A változó csillagok jelenségének magyarázatáról” (“On the explanation of the phenomenon of variable stars”), ibid., 507–11.
33.
von HumboldtAlexander, Kosmos, iii (Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1850), 219. There is a stamp of the Kiskartal library inside the book.
34.
HerschelJohn F. W., Outlines of astronomy5th edn (London, 1858), 602. The book belonged to Konkoly Thege.
