While graphical records of astronomical/meteorological events before telescopic observations are of particular interest, they have frequently undergone multiple copying and may have been modified from the original. Here, we analyze a graphical record of the cross-sign of 806 CE in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which has been considered one of the earliest datable halo drawings in British records, whereas another cross-sign in 776 CE has been associated with the aurora. However, philological studies have revealed the later 806 event is derived from Continental annals. Here, records and drawings for the 806 event have been philologically traced back to mid-9th Century Continental manuscripts and the probable observational site identified as the area of Sens in northern France. The possible lunar halos at that time have been comprehensively examined by numerical ray tracing. Combined with calculations of twilight sky brightness, they identify a visibility window supporting monastic observation. Cruciform halos are shown to be fainter and rarer than brighter and more commonplace lunar halos. Physically credible cloud ice crystal variations can reproduce all the manuscript renditions. The manuscript records prove less than desirable detail but what is presented is fully consistent with a lunar halo interpretation. Finally, the possible societal impacts of such celestial events have been mentioned in the context of contemporary coins in Anglo-Saxon England and the Carolingian Empire. These analyses show that we need to trace their provenance back as far as possible, to best reconstruct the original event, even if graphical records are available for given astronomical/meteorological events.

Large sunspots can be observed with the unaided eye under suitable atmospheric seeing conditions. Such observations are of particular value because the frequency of their appearance provides an approximate indication of the prevailing level of solar activity. Unaided-eye sunspot (UES) observations can be traced back well before the start of telescopic observations of the Sun, especially in the East Asian historical records. It is therefore important to compare more modern, UES observations with the results of telescopic sunspot observations, to gain a better understanding of the nature of the UES records. A previous comparison of Chinese UES records and Greenwich photo-heliographic results between 1874 and 1918 indicated that a few of the UES were apparently not supported by direct photographic evidence of at least one sunspot with a large area. This article reveals that one of the Chinese unaided-eye observations had possibly captured the transit of Venus on 9 December 1874. The Chinese sunspot records on this date are compared with Western sunspot observations on the same day. It is concluded that sunspots on the solar disk were quite small and the transit of Venus was probably misinterpreted as a sunspot by the Chinese local scholars. This case indicates that sunspots or comparable "obscuring" objects with an area as large as 1000 millionths of the solar disk could easily have been seen with the unaided eye under suitable seeing conditions. It also confirms the visibility of sunspots near the solar limb with the unaided eye. This study provides an explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the Chinese UES observation on 9 December 1874 and the Western sunspot observations using telescopes, as well as a basis for further discussion on the negative pairs in 1900 and 1911, apparently without sufficiently large area.

The enhancement of carbon-14 in tree rings around AD 774/775 has generated wide interest in solar activity at that time. The historical auroral records have been examined critically. Of particular interest was the "white vapour" observed in China on AD 776 January 12/13. Both Usoskin et al. (2013, Astron. Astrophys. 55, L3; U13) and Stephenson (2015, Adv. Sp. Res. 55, 1537; S15) interpreted this record as an auroral display. Subsequently, Neuh\"auser and Neuh\"auser (2015, Astron. Nachr. 336, 225; NN15) proposed five "criteria" for the likeliness of aurorae and on this basis rejected an auroral interpretation. Instead, they interpreted it as a lunar halo, and suggested there were no auroral records as a proxy of solar activity in the interval AD 774-785. We consider if their "lunar halo hypothesis" and their auroral criteria could be of use in future researches on historical auroral candidates. We first show a counter-example for the lunar halo hypothesis from a parallel record on 1882 November 17, which was seen as a whitish colour, in the southerly direction, and near the Moon. We then consider NN15's criteria on colour, direction, and sky brightness and investigate other counter-examples from early-modern auroral observations. We also consider the extension of the white vapour in AD 776 according to the distribution of Chinese asterisms, and show that its large extension was inconsistent with the lunar halo hypothesis. Conversely, the streaks of white vapour penetrating the eight Chinese asterisms can be reproduced if we consider auroral-ray structures at altitudes between 97 km and 170 km, along geomagnetic field lines between the L-shells L=1.55 and 1.64. Our investigations show that we should consider candidate auroral records in historical documents not on the basis of the newly suggested a priori criteria by NN15 but on all the available observational evidence.

The anomalous concentration of radiocarbon in 774/775 attracted intense discussion on its origin, including the possible extreme solar event(s) exceeding any events in observational history. Anticipating such extreme solar events, auroral records were also surveyed in historical documents and those including the red celestial sign after sunset in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC) were subjected to consideration. Usoskin et al. (2013: U13) interpreted this record as an aurora and suggested enhanced solar activity around 774/775. Conversely, Neuhauser and Neuhauser (2015a, 2015b: N15a and N15b) interpreted "after sunset" as during sunset or twilight; they considered this sign as a halo display and suggested a solar minimum around 774. However, so far these records have not been discussed in comparison with eyewitness auroral records during the known extreme space-weather events, although they were discussed in relationship with potential extreme events in 774/775. Therefore, we reconstruct the observational details based on the original records in the ASC and philological references, compare them with eyewitness auroral observations during known extreme space-weather events, and consider contemporary solar activity. We clarify the observation was indeed "after sunset", reject the solar halo hypothesis, define the observational time span between 25 Mar. 775 and 25 Dec. 777, and note the parallel halo drawing in 806 in the ASC shown in N15b was not based on the original observation in England. We show examples of eyewitness auroral observations during twilight in known space-weather events, and this celestial sign does not contradict the observational evidence. Accordingly, we consider this event happened after the onset of the event in 774/775, but shows relatively enhanced solar activity, with other historical auroral records in the mid-770s, as also confirmed by the Be data from ice cores.

Here we report the recovery of the binary underlying the classical nova of 11 March 1437 A.D. whose age is independently confirmed by proper motion-dating, and show that in the 20th century it exhibits dwarf nova eruptions. The four oldest recovered classical novae are now all dwarf novae. Taken together they strongly suggest that mass transfer rates decrease by an order of magnitude or more in the centuries after a classical nova event, greatly slowing the evolution, and lengthening the lifetimes of these explosive binary stars.

The available historical records of supernovae occurring in our own Galaxy over the past two thousand years are reviewed. These accounts include the well-recorded supernovae of AD 1604 (Kepler's SN), 1572 (Tycho's SN), 1181, 1054 (which produced the Crab Nebula) and 1006, together with less certain events dating back to AD 185. In the case of the supernovae of AD 1604 and 1572 it is European records that provide the most accurate information available, whereas for earlier supernovae records are principally from East Asian sources. Also discussed briefly are several spurious supernova candidates, and the future prospects for studies of historical supernovae.