3 4 Mr. herschel on the 
fuch repeated obfervations, even though they fhould not be 
attended with all the luccefs we expedled from them. On this 
aflu ranee, I endeavoured to take fuch a method for attempting 
the invefligation of the parallax of the ffars as to avail myfelf 
of the improvements I had already made, and was llill m hopes 
of making, in my telefcopes. 
The next thing that was neceflary to confider in this under- 
taking Vv r as, the manner of putting it into execution. The 
method pointed out by galileo, and firft attempted by hook, 
flamstead, molineux, and Bradley, of taking diflances 
of ffars from the zenith that pafs very near it, though it 
failed with regard to parallax, has been productive of the moft 
noble diicovenes of another nature. At the fame time it 
has given us a much jufler idea of the immenfe difhmee 
of the ffars, and furnifhed us with an approximation to the 
knowledge of their parallax that is much nearer the truth than 
we ever had before. Dr. Bradley, in a letter to Dr. h alley 
on the fubjedt of a new difeovered motion of the fixed ffars, 
favs, “ 1 believe I may venture to fay, that in either of the 
two ffars laff mentioned (jy Draconis and vj Uifie majoii.s^ it 
ti (the annual parallax) does not amount to 2 . I am of opi- 
“ nion, that if it were i" I fhoulu have perceived it in the 
“ great number of obfervations that I made, efpecially upon 
“ y Draconis ; which agreeing with the hypothecs (without 
“ allowing any thing for parallax) nearly as well when the 
“ fun was in conjundfion with, as in oppofition to, this ftar, 
« it feems very probable, that the parallax of it is not fo great 
u as one fingle fecond.” Phil. Irani, n. 4°6* p* 637* Dec. 
1728 As I do not know that any thing more decifive has 
been done upon the fubjedf, it will not be amifs to fee how far 
this method of finding the parallax has really been luccefsful. 
The 
