Periodic Reporting for period 2 - SN1604 (The Ophiucus Supernova: Post-Aristotelian Stargazing in the European Context (1604-1654))
Berichtszeitraum: 2023-01-01 bis 2023-12-31
In October 1604 a giant supernova unexpectedly exploded in the constellation of Ophiuchus and its bright light remained visible to the naked eye for eighteen months. The sudden appearance was an anomalous and stunning event for those observers that conceived the stars as “fixed” and the heavens as unalterable – the accepted position in physics and astronomy at that time. Astronomers as well as astrologers and other stargazers tried to explain the nature and significance of the novelty. The interpretation of the new star was one of the main speculative battlefields where opposing conceptions of the universe collided and its presumed origin was debated at length, from Galileo’s first astronomical studies (1604), passing through Kepler’s magnum opus on the subject (1606), to G.B. Riccioli’s exemplary synthesis fifty years later. As in the case of Tycho’s supernova in 1572 and of the great comet observed in 1577, the appearance of the supernova was deployed as a direct challenge to the physics and cosmology of Aristotle, at a time when all contemporaries either accepted Aristotle’s views or had originally been trained in them. For a growing number of scholars, the supernova of 1604 disputed Aristotle’s doctrine that the heavens and the earth were absolutely distinct, and that all sorts of change could occur only in the region below the moon. The 1604 supernova appeared from nowhere, outshining the planets before declining in brightness and finally disappearing. This should have been impossible for a star, and some interpreters preferred to view it as a meteorological event in the upper reaches of the air. But measurements established that the object was beyond the moon, hence part of the heavens, and hence impossible according to Aristotle’s cosmology. In addition to occasional observers and extemporaneous writers, the interpretation of the supernova involved the most renowned astronomers of the time, some of whom saw it as salient evidence against Aristotle’s theories and in favor of the new astronomical alternatives supported by Kepler and Galileo. Today we know that the naked-eye observation of a supernova’s outburst is an extremely rare event. As a matter of fact, the Ophiuchus supernova was the last supernova that was seen in our galaxy before the telescope was invented. Kepler, Galileo and a multitude of less celebrated observers could witness the exceptional occurrence, leaving their written notes and records behind them. Recovering, studying and enhancing those heterogeneous materials grants us the equally rare privilege of watching the “new star” through their eyes and through their exquisitely baroque mindsets too. The overall objective of SN1604 research project is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the cultural and scientific impact that the Ophiucus supernova had on European society during and after its impressive outburst –a key moment in the history of astronomy.
To set the stage, the P.I. has published three articles. The first is about the reception of Ptolemy in the Renaissance, while the second (multi-authored) is about how the naked human eye perceives stellar light and how such light is described in historical sources. Other two articles (on the observers' scientific correspondence network and on literary references to SN1604, respectively) are forthcoming. The third article is a case-study about how was perceived and understood the antecedent nova (of 1572) by one of the leading astrologer of that time, namely Francesco Giuntini (1522-1590).
More specifically, however, the SN1604 research starts from a comprehensive "corpus", or set, of primary sources, which had been assembled in its entirety at the beginning of the project. Hence, a couple of treatises on the "new star" by Raffaello Gualterotti (1544-1638) have been selected as the first object of study for their contextual relevance. A commented edition of these neglected works is currently in progress. A second edition in preparation is the Discorso on the new star by Lodovico delle Colombe (Florence, 1606).
On this background, the main and somehow surprising result of the research project has been the attribution of a pseudonymous astronomical treatise on the “new star” to none less than Galileo Galilei. The attribution was possible thanks to the discovery and analysis of neglected documents at the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence in the course of the archival survey performed by the P.I. In the past Galileo was suspected as the author of the treatise, although his debated role could not be confirmed without the newly retrieved documentary evidence. Therefore the commented edition of the authentic but overlooked work by Galileo has been set on top of the research agenda of the SN1604 project. The edition is anticipated by a peer-reviewed article about the attribution process in the strict sense.
As planned, the P.I. has received one-to-one training in the fields of archival conservation, history of Renaissance astronomy, and digital humanities. Moreover, several talks on topics related to the research project have been given at seminar meetings, interdisciplinary workshops and international conferences. In particular, a workshop and a conference on topics related to SN1604 have been organized and hosted at the P.I.'s beneficiary institution in 2023.
A sequence of online notices, interviews and press releases has accompanied the implementation of the research project for its public fruition. A series of communication and public engagement activities have been offered as well, including the theatrical staging and adaptation of a vernacular comedy on the new star by Galileo Galilei on the occasion of the 2022 edition of the Researchers' Night.
More specifically, however, the SN1604 research starts from a comprehensive "corpus", or set, of primary sources, which had been assembled in its entirety at the beginning of the project. Hence, a couple of treatises on the "new star" by Raffaello Gualterotti (1544-1638) have been selected as the first object of study for their contextual relevance. A commented edition of these neglected works is currently in progress. A second edition in preparation is the Discorso on the new star by Lodovico delle Colombe (Florence, 1606).
On this background, the main and somehow surprising result of the research project has been the attribution of a pseudonymous astronomical treatise on the “new star” to none less than Galileo Galilei. The attribution was possible thanks to the discovery and analysis of neglected documents at the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence in the course of the archival survey performed by the P.I. In the past Galileo was suspected as the author of the treatise, although his debated role could not be confirmed without the newly retrieved documentary evidence. Therefore the commented edition of the authentic but overlooked work by Galileo has been set on top of the research agenda of the SN1604 project. The edition is anticipated by a peer-reviewed article about the attribution process in the strict sense.
As planned, the P.I. has received one-to-one training in the fields of archival conservation, history of Renaissance astronomy, and digital humanities. Moreover, several talks on topics related to the research project have been given at seminar meetings, interdisciplinary workshops and international conferences. In particular, a workshop and a conference on topics related to SN1604 have been organized and hosted at the P.I.'s beneficiary institution in 2023.
A sequence of online notices, interviews and press releases has accompanied the implementation of the research project for its public fruition. A series of communication and public engagement activities have been offered as well, including the theatrical staging and adaptation of a vernacular comedy on the new star by Galileo Galilei on the occasion of the 2022 edition of the Researchers' Night.
The scientific framework in which this episode is generally studied is the History of Renaissance Scientific Thought, and in particular the History of Early Modern Western Astronomy, for which there are today excellent overviews and comprehensive studies with sections dedicated to the 1604 supernova. A more specific interest in "historical supernovae" and their cultural and astrological meaning began with the studies of L. Thorndike (1941), M.A. Hoskin (1977) and O. Gingerich (1989). The recent, excellent studies by Miguel A. Granada, Patrick Boner, Dario Tessicini, and Michael Weichenhan, among others, have magnificently laid the ground for the SN1604 project.
Now the new collection of sources under analysis can provide a quantitatively and qualitatively different background for a general historiographical re-assessment of the Ophiucus supernova and its significance. The collected "corpus" extends up to five decades after the first outburst, when the main topic of discussion of stellar astronomy shifted to the new scientific frontier on variable stars; it covers contributions coming from all over Europe without limiting itself to those by astronomers in the strict sense, taking into considerations works of literature, medicine, meteorology and astrology, among others. In this way, more influential and epoch-making accounts of the stellar novelty will gain a new and richer contextualization, improving our understanding of their original conception. In short, this more ample assembly of documents would confirm through a wider range of sources Thorndike's claim that the explosion of a supernova was more of a shock to Europe than Copernicus' theories (Thorndike 1941, VI: 68).
Now the new collection of sources under analysis can provide a quantitatively and qualitatively different background for a general historiographical re-assessment of the Ophiucus supernova and its significance. The collected "corpus" extends up to five decades after the first outburst, when the main topic of discussion of stellar astronomy shifted to the new scientific frontier on variable stars; it covers contributions coming from all over Europe without limiting itself to those by astronomers in the strict sense, taking into considerations works of literature, medicine, meteorology and astrology, among others. In this way, more influential and epoch-making accounts of the stellar novelty will gain a new and richer contextualization, improving our understanding of their original conception. In short, this more ample assembly of documents would confirm through a wider range of sources Thorndike's claim that the explosion of a supernova was more of a shock to Europe than Copernicus' theories (Thorndike 1941, VI: 68).