AXIOMS.
The following axioms, given by Mr. Langstroth, are just as true to-day as they were when written by that noted author:
There are a few first principles in bee-keeping which ought to be as familiar to the Apiarist as the letters of the alphabet.
First. Bees gorged with honey never volunteer an attack.
Second. Bees may always be made peaceable by inducing them to accept of liquid sweets.
Third. Bees, when frightened by smoke or by drumming on their hives, fill themselves with honey and lose all disposition to sting, unless they are hurt.
Fourth. Bees dislike any quick movements about their hives, especially any motion which jars their combs.
Fifth. In districts where forage is abundant only for a short period, the largest yield of honey will be secured by a very moderate increase of stocks.
Sixth. A moderate increase of colonies in any one season, will, in the long run, prove to be the easiest, safest, and cheapest mode of managing bees.
Seventh. Queenless colonies, unless supplied with a queen, will inevitably dwindle away, or be destroyed by the bee-moth, or by robber-bees.
Eighth. The formation of new colonies should ordinarily be confined to the season when bees are accumulating honey; and if this, or any other operation, must be performed when forage is scarce, the greatest precautions should be used to prevent robbing.
The essence of all profitable bee-keeping is contained in Oettl's Golden Rule: keep your stocks strong. If you cannot succeed in doing this, the more money you invest in bees, the heavier will be your losses; while, if your stocks are strong, you will show that you are a bee-master, as well as & bee-keeper, and may safely calculate on generous returns from your industrious subjects.
"Keep all colonies strong."
APPENDIX.
HISTORY OF MOVABLE FRAMES.
Movable frames have revolutionized bee-keeping, and so out-rank the reaper and mower, and equal the cotton-gin. Few inventions have exerted so powerful an influence upon the art which they serve. Their history will ever be a subject of exceeding interest to bee-keepers, and their inventor worthy the highest regard as the greatest benefactor of our art. In writing their history, I have no personal interest or bias, and am only impelled by a love of truth and justice. I am the more eager to write this history, as some of our apiarists, and they among the best informed and most influential (American Bee Journal, vol. 14, p. 380), are misinformed in the premises. In obtaining the data for this account, I am under many obligations to our great American master in apiculture. Rev. L. L. Langstroth, whose thorough knowledge and extensive library have been wholly at my command.
We are informed by George Wheeler, in his "Journey into Greece," published in 1682, page 411, that the Greeks had partial control of the combs. "The tops" of the willow hives "are covered with broad flat sticks. Along each of these sticks the bees fasten their combs; so that a comb may be taken out whole."
Swammerdam had no control of the comb, nor had Réaumur. The latter used narrow hives, which contained but two combs; but these were stationary. Huber was the first to construct a hive which gave him control of the combs and access to the interior of the hive. In August, 1879, Huber wrote to Bonnet as follows: "I took several small fir boxes, a foot square and fifteen lines wide, and joined them together by hinges, so that they could be opened and shut like the leaves of a book. When using a hive of this description, we took care to fix a comb in each frame, and then introduced all the bees."—(Edinburgh edition of Huber, p. 4). Although Morlot and others attempted to improve this hive, it never gained favor with practical apiarists.
Fig. 111.
The first person to adjust frames in a case appears to have been Mr. W. Augustus Munn, of England. I have in my possession a letter from Mr. Munn, dated November 9th, 1863, in which he states that the hive "had been in use since 1834." The first printed description of any of his hives appeared in the "Gardener's Chronicle" for 1843. This article was written by a lady, and signed "E. M. W." Its premature publication made it impossible for Mr. Munn to secure a patent in Great Britain. In 1843 he secured a patent in France. The hive patented is fully described in his "Description of the Bar and Frame Hive," published in London, in 1844. There is also a figure ([Fig, 111]). I copy from the work which is before me, pp. 7 and 8: "An oblong box is formed, about thirty inches long, sixteen inches high, and twelve inches broad. One of the long sides is constructed to open with hinges, and to hang on a level with the bottom. As many grooves half an inch broad, half an inch deep, and about 9½ inches long, are formed 1⅛ inches apart on the inside of the bottom of the box, as its length will admit. At the top are corresponding grooves to those made in the bottom of the box. The bee-frames are made of half inch mahogany, being 12 inches high, 9 inches long, and not more than half an inch broad, sliding into the fifteen grooves formed on the bottom, and kept securely in their places by the upper grooves," and by propolis, the author might well have added. American apiarists need not be told that such a hive would be wholly impracticable. Without bees in it, the changes of weather would make the sliding of the frames very difficult; with the bees inside, the removal of the frames would be practically impossible.
Fig. 112.
In 1851 Mr. Munn issued a second edition of his book, in the preface of which I find the following: "Having materially simplified the bar-frame hive, by forming the 'oblong bar-frames' into 'triangular frames,' and making them lift out of the top, instead of the back of the bee-box, I have republished the pamphlet." The triangular hive ([Fig, 112]) is described and figured, and is the same as found illustrated in Munn's "Bevan on the Honey Bee." This hive, although a possible improvement on the other, is costly, intricate, and still very impracticable. In the price-list of J. Pettitt, Dover, England, 1864, I find this hive priced at £3 3s., or about $15.00. From the figure we learn that there were some wide spaces about the frames. These would of course be filled with comb, and render the hives entirely unsuitable for common use. That this hive lacked the essential requisites to success is evident from words penned by the inventor in 1863: "The hive matters little if the pasturage is good." And it is easy to see from the complex arrangement of the frames, and the wide spaces about them, that as Mr. Munn said, referring to his hive, "When left to themselves the bees shut up the shop." Had invention stopped with Major Munn's hive, we should to-day be using the old box hive, and sighing in vain for a better. Neighbour well says (3d edition, p. 129): "Probably the reason of the invention's failure was the expensiveness of the Major's fittings, which make the hive appear more like some astronomical instrument, than a box for bees. Be this as it may, there was no such thing as a frame hive in use in England till 1860."
It would seem strange, that after going so far Major Munn should have failed to give bee-keepers a hive of value. Yet with his view that smoke injured the bees and brood (2d edition, p. 21), we can readily see, that with his hive and black bees, a man would need the skin of a rhinoceros, and nerves of brass, to do much by way of actual manipulation for practical purposes. It has been truly said that "The Huber hive can be used with far greater ease and safety, by a novice, than can Munn's."
It will be seen by reference to "Bee Culture with Movable Frames," published by Pastor George Kleine, Hanover, Germany, in 1853, p. 5, that a druggist by the name of Schmidt, in a work which he published in Freiburg, in 1851, entitled, "The New Bee Homes," describes a hive with the Huber leaves having prolonged tops which hung on rabbets, much as do our frames. These Huber leaves were close-fitting, and so not practical. Kleine regarded this as inferior to the Huber hive, in that the combs must be taken out from above. With a side opening he thinks it would be a material improvement. It is evident from Kleine's work, that he knew nothing either of Munn or his hive.
In 1847, Jacob Shaw, Jr., then of Hinckley, Ohio, published in the Scientific American, March 5th, 1847, p. 187, the description of a hive devised by him. A person who has seen the hive tells me that as described and first used, this hive had close-fitting frames, which rested in a double-walled tin box. By turning hot water into the chamber, the frames would be loosened. We do not wonder that, as Mr. Shaw deposed, he only made one hive, and that he could only persuade one colony of the several which he tried, to accept the situation, and that this one soon perished. He got no surplus, and wisely set the hive aside.
In 1847, the well known agricultural writer, Solon Robinson, suggested in an article published in the Albany Cultivator; a tin hive made up of unicomb apartments which should set close side by side, and be connected by inter-communicating holes. Of course, such a hive would only succeed in the imagination.
M. Debeauvoys published, in 1847, the 2d edition of "Guide de l'Apiculteur," at Angers, France, in which he described a movable comb hive, to meet the practical wants of French bee-keepers. This hive was not only no improvement on that of Huber, but even less easy of manipulation. The top-bar and uprights of the frames were close-fitting to the top and sides of the hive. Says M. Hamet, editor of the French bee paper, in his work, "Cours Pratique D'Apiculture," 1859 edition: "The removal of the frames is more difficult than from the Huber hive, and it has never been accepted by the practical bee-keepers of France." Mr. Chas. Dadant describes this hive, which he once made and used, in the American Bee Journal, vol. 7, p. 197. He says of it: "The hive worked well when new and empty; but after the bees had glued the frames, it was difficult to remove them without breaking the combs. It would have been entirely impossible to remove them at all, without separating the ends of the hive from the frames with a chisel. This hive, which had gained 2,500 proselytes in France, was very soon abandoned by all, and the disciples of Debeauvoys returned to the old-fashioned straw hive." He adds, further, that these hives were disastrous to French bee culture. Once misled by movable frames, they ever afterwards refused them even for trial. Of course Mr. S. S. Fisher, once commissioner of patents, and an expert, could see nothing in this hive, or any of the inventor's modifications of it, to invalidate the Langstroth patent. How grateful all American apiarists should be, that Mr. Langstroth's invention was of a different type.
As already stated, bars were used centuries ago in Greece. Della Rocca, in a work published in 1790, also describes bars as used by him. Schirach used slats across the top of a box with rear-opening doors, as early as 1771. In Key's work, "Ancient Bee Master's Farewell," London, 1796, p. 42, such hives are described, and beautifully illustrated, plate 1, figs. 2 and 3. Bevan, London, 1838, describes on p. 82 a similar hive, with the bars set in rabbets, which is figured on p. 83.
In 1835, Dzierzon, who has been to Germany what Langstroth has to America, commenced bee-culture. Three years later he adopted the bar hive, and although these bar hives were previously of little value to practical apiculture, in his hands they became a most valuable instrument. To remove the combs, the great German master had to cut them loose from the sides of the hives. Yet from his great skill in handling them, his studious habits, and invaluable researches, which gave to the world the knowledge of parthenogenesis among bees, his hive and system marked a new era in German apiculture.
In 1851, our own Langstroth, without any knowledge of what foreign apiarian inventors had done, save what he could find in Huber, and edition 1838 of Bevan, invented the hive now in common use among the advanced apiarists of America. It is this hive, the greatest apiarian invention ever made, that has placed American apiculture in advance of that of all other countries. What practical bee-keeper of America could say with H. Hamet, edition 1861, p. 166, that the improved hives were without value except to the amateur, and inferior for practical purposes? Our apiarists not native to our shores, like the late Adam Grimm and Mr. Chas. Dadant, always conceded that Mr. Langstroth was the inventor of this hive, and always proclaimed its usefulness. Well did the late Mr. S. Wagner, the honest, fearless, scholarly and truth-loving editor of the early volumes of the American Bee Journal, himself of German origin, say: "When Mr. Langstroth took up this subject, he well knew what Huber had done, and saw wherein he had failed—failing, possibly, only because he aimed at nothing more than constructing an observing hive, suitable for his purposes. Mr. Langstroth's object was other and higher. He aimed at making frames movable, interchangeable, and practically serviceable in bee culture." And how true what follows: "Nobody before Mr. Langstroth ever succeeded in devising a mode of making and using a movable frame that was of any practical value in bee culture." No man in the world, beside Mr. Langstroth, was so conversant with this whole subject as was Mr. Wagner. His extensive library and thorough knowledge made him a competent judge. Now that the invention is public property, men will cease to falsify and even perjure themselves, to rob an old man, whose words, writings, and whole life, shine with untarnished ingenuousness. And very soon all will unite with the great majority of intelligent American apiarists of to-day, in rendering to this benefactor of our art, the credit; though he has been hopelessly deprived of the pecuniary benefits of his great invention.
Mr. Langstroth, though he knew of no previous invention of frames contained in a case, when he made his invention, in 1851, does not profess to have been the first to have invented them. Every page of his book shows his transparent honesty, and desire to give all due credit to other writers and inventors. He does claim, and very justly, to have invented the first practical frame hive, the one described in his patent, applied for in January, 1851, and in all three editions of his book.
While the name of the late Baron Von Berlepsch will always stand in the front rank of apiarists, he never gave the world any description of a movable frame hive, until Mr. Langstroth had applied for a patent, and not until the Langstroth hive was largely in use.
It has been claimed that Mr. Andrew Harbison invented and used in his father's apiary, previous to 1851, the Langstroth hive. In the Dollar Newspaper for January 21, 1857, a brother, Mr. W. C. Harbison, who also lived with his father at the time the invention is said to have been made, says: "I will venture the prediction that both Quinby's hive and mine will ere long be cast aside, to give place to a hive constructed in such a manner that the apiarian can have access to every part of the hive at pleasure, without injury to the colony. In this particular both Mr. Quinby and myself have singly failed. The invention of such a hive was reserved for Mr. Langstroth." It is significant that J. S. Harbison, another brother, who was also with his father at the time, in his "Bee Culture," San Francisco, 1861, speaks of the Langstroth hive, p. 149, but not of that of his brother. It has also been claimed that W. A. Flanders, Martin Metcalf, and Edward Townley, each invented this hive prior to Mr! Langstroth's invention. Yet, each of these gentlemen wrote a book, in which no mention is made of such an invention. Well might Mr. Langstroth say, "I can well understand what Job meant when he said, 'O! that my enemy had written a book.'" It is also stated that Mr. A. F. Moon was a prior inventor of this hive. Mr. Moon's own testimony, that he not only abandoned his invention, being unable to secure straight combs, but even forgot all about it, till it was discovered in an old rubbish pile, shows that he did nothing that would, in court, overthrow Mr. Langstroth's claims, or that in the least conferred any benefit upon bee-keepers. Mr. Maxwell, of Mansfield, Ohio, was another who is said to have anticipated Mr. Langstroth. Yet Mr. Maxwell's own son swears that he helped his father make all his hives, and that his father never used a movable frame till after 1851. Solon Robinson thought his brother. Dr. Robinson, of Jamaica Plains, near Boston, made and used movable frame hives prior to 1852. The wife of Dr. Robinson testified that her husband bought a right to use the Langstroth hive, and with it made his first movable frames.
Every claim, both at home and abroad, to the invention of a practical movable frame hive, prior to that of Mr. Langstroth, when examined, is found to have no substantial foundation. All previous hives were plainly inferior to the improved Huber hive as described in Bevan, p. 106. It is a sad blot upon American apiculture, that he who raised it to the proud height which it occupies to-day, should have been shamefully defrauded of the just reward for his great invention. But it gives me the greatest pleasure to state, that by no possible word could I gather that Mr. Langstroth feels any bitterness towards those who seem wilfully to have stolen his invention, while with a mantle of charity, great as is his noble heart, he covers the thousands who either thought he had no valid claim, or else that the purchase of a right from others, entitled them to his invention. As an inventor and writer on apiculture, Mr. Langstroth will ever be held in grateful memory. How earnestly will American apiarists desire that he may be spared to us until he completes his autobiography, that we may learn how he arrived at his great discovery, and may study the methods by which he gleaned so many rich and valuable truths.