Manual of the apiary

by Albert John Cook

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.