A10 'A New Star-vsn-2' Writing about the new star of 1572, Cyprianus Leovitius ("De nova stella", Lavingae, 1573, pp.A2v-A3r) mentioned two possible earlier new stars, approximately in the same region of the sky, appearing in A.D. 945 and 1264. Below we give the latin text and a translation by one of us (EZ) as given in Section 5.11 of the main paper, and add some comments. "Historiae perhibent tempore Ottonis primi Imperatoris similem stellam in eodem fere loco Coeli arsisse Anno Domini 945. Ubi magnae mutationes plurimaque mala, varias Provincias Europae pervaserunt: potissimum propter peregrinas gentes infusas in Germaniam. Verum multo locupletius testimonium in hiftorijs extat de Anno Domini 1264. Quo stella magna & lucida in parte coeli septentrionali circa sydus Cassiopeae apparuit, carens similiter crinibus, ac destituta motu suo proprio: cum paulo post duae praestantissimae ac florentissimae familiae Germanicae excisae sint: & inter Electores ac Principes Germaniae summae distractiones fuerint, interregnumque plurimorum annorum cum laniena secutum sit." Translation: "Histories tell us that in the times of Emperor Otto I, in A.D. 945 a similar star appeared in almost the same place of the sky. Various provinces of Europe were affected, generally in a bad way, mostly due to peoples intruding into Germany.We have more testimonies in histories of the year A.D. 1264, when a great and bright star appeared in the northern part of the sky, near the constellation Cassiopeia, also without a tail and a motion of his own: two of Germany's most excellent and flowering families were murdered not long after, there were disagreements between the Electors and Princes of Germany, and there was an interregnum for a long time, followed by a massacre." Comments They are clearly not comets, since Leovitius said about the second, that it was without a tail and motion. The use of "similiter" indicates that he thought the first one to be similar. These objects are likely not the comets seen in these years. Kronk (1999, p.155) says that the comet seen in 945 was "a cubit long". Something a cubit long is not like a star. Unfortunately, it seems there is no data about its place on the sky. More is known about the comet of 1264 (Kronk, 1999, Cometography. A Catalogue of Comets. Volume 1, Ancient-1799, p.155 and pp. 218-222, Cambridge Univ. Press Cambridge, pp. 218-222). Its path went as follows: LMi-Leo-Cnc-Gem-CMi-Mon-Ori-Eri-Lep-Eri. This path is not the northern part of the sky, nor is it near Cassiopeia. It seems to have had a long tail which reached Cassiopeia and Cepheus, but again this is not a starlike object. And Leovitius ("De nova stella", Lavingae, 1573, pp.A2v-A3r) clearly stated it was without a tail. So these "stars" are not identical with the comets; we simply do not know. However, there is a tiny possibility that one of them at least might have been really a "new star", in which case - another huge maybe - we can think of HR 8752 (or, alternatively, of {rho} Cas). The star {rho} Cas would probably have been visible over long periods of time; it has a designated name-place in Cassiopeia. If the variations of V-magnitude for {rho} Cas in the period 1963-1989 between V=4.175 and V=4.692 (Zsoldos & Percy 1991A&A...246..441Z) are representative for a longer period, {rho} Cas could be expected to stay visible to the naked eye, and would probably not be a candidate for a 'new' star. Interesting is that the difference of 319 y between the above observations is not far from the numbers given for the recovery time for an indicated model of Maeder (1989, in "Physics of Luminous Blue Variables", IAU Coll. 113, p.15, Ed. K.Davidson et al., Kluwer Acad Press Dordrecht}) of 350 y. If we sequence the two mediaeval observations as if they were of one star and use a (constant) recovery time of 320y with a tolerance of 30y, the sequence could possibly be extended to : 945, 1264, 1584+/-30y and 1904+/-60y. 'Naked eye' viewing of HR8752 with critical v~5.1m would probably have been possible around 1900 (cf. Fig.12 in the main paper), with maximum light (v~~4.5 ) in the years around 1973. So in this respect the correlation between the extended (virtual) observations and HR8752 seems possible for constant recovery time, but this would have to be verified. Note that we are not certain of the values of the recovery time in our above estimations, nor of the possible maximum light. (end)