pdf - Roger Gaskell Rare Books

the eye with an accompanying leaf of letterpress and two folding letterpress
tables. It does not appear that they were ever present. The paper on which
the book is printed is subject to browning, though some copies have fared
worse than others. This copy is particularly heavily browned, some pages a
uniform dark coVee colour, though some gatherings are very clean, presumbly
printed on a diVerent batch of paper.
106
KEPLER, Johannes (1571–1630)
De stella nova in pede serpentarii et qui sub ejus exortum de novo
iniit; trigono igneo... Accesserunt I. De stella incognita cygni: narratio
astronomica. II. De Jesu Christi servatoris vero anno natalito.
Prague: Pragae ex oYcina calcographica Pauli Sessi. Anno M. DC.VI,
1606.
4to: )?( 6 A–2C4 , 2D2 ; 2A–E4 (blank E4), 132 leaves, pp. [12], 212;
35 [5] including the terminal blank. Woodcut device on title, 11 text
woodcuts.
1 folding engraved plate.
210 x 158mm. The majority of gatherings lightly browned.
Binding: Eighteenth­century vellum boards, red page edges. Spine
soiled.
Provenance: Partially erased inscription on free endleaf; Signet Library,
Edinburgh with gilt arms on sides.
First edition. Caspar 27; Zinner 4097; Lalande p. 145.
The new star was a supernova, visible to the naked eye,
discovered on 9 Oct ober 1609. Because of Kepler’s
account of it in this book it has been called Kepler’s
Nova. Kepler Wrst saw it on 17 October and began a
systematic study, inspired by Tycho Brahe’s work on
the 1672 supernova. The engraved star chart showing
the position of the new object is based on Bayer’s atlas
of 1604. Kepler’s Nova is the last supernova to have
been observed in our own galaxy.
Kepler Wrst described the supernova in an 8­page
pamphlet. The present work is a more extensive
collection of observations together, as the subtitle
announces, with ‘astronomical, physical, metaphysical,
meteorological and astrological discussions, glorious
and unusual’. Owen Gingerich considers it ‘a monument
of its time but the least signiWcant of Kepler’s
major works. It broke no new astronomical ground,
although twentieth­century astronomers have preferred
its faithful descriptions over numerous other accounts
when searching the literature to help distinguish
supernovae from ordinary novae.’ (DSB 7:298a.)