THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



279 



and months examining the different parts 

 of the bee; and his original knowledge in 

 this iield is probably the equal of some 

 who have made greater pretentions. 



The space for an apiary in his back 

 yard is very limited, but his peculiar 

 arrangement of hives enables him to 

 crowd them quite closely together with- 

 out any danger of the bees mixing up or 

 queens getting lost. The apiary is so 

 surrounded by trees, vines and a high 

 picket fence that the only way in which 

 I could get a view of even a part of the 

 hives was by poking the camera's nose 

 out of the up stairs window of his honey 

 house. 



By the way, Mr. Aspinwall has also 

 made some minor improvements in shij)- 

 ping-cases; but, as he expects soon 

 to take up his pen again for the Review, 

 I won't tell any more. 



J)epartment of 



riticism 



R. L. TAYLOR. 



Hlamn whore you iniisf . 

 And be oacli critic tlio 



(lid wlierH.voii can. 

 laturod M.ni. 



G LDSMITH, 



THANKFUL FOR CRITICISMS. 



Dr. Miller (Gleanings, 609) points out 

 a gross error of mine in using "it don't." 

 Mr. Bevins (A. B. J., 457) also takes me 

 to task for using an adjective for an ad- 

 verb, but in a case palpably the fault of 

 the jjrinter. To both I want to express 

 my hearty thanks. Helpful criticism is 

 more than meat and drink to me. 



.\ STRONG PLE.A FOR PURE, PERFECT 



LANGUAGi:. 



I am considerably disappointed at the 

 attitude of the editors of the journals 

 above referred to, including Dr. Miller, 

 in this matter of the improper use of 



language. Both editors refer to the pro- 

 verbial glass houses and stone throwing, 

 and Dr. Miller says in effect: " I like to 

 say this, but I wouldn't say that as you 

 do. ' ' They appear to look upon criticism 

 as a mere personal contest, and to think 

 that my idea is simply to get what sport 

 I can out of attempts to worry them. 

 No, no! If it is necessary to say so ex- 

 pressly, I will admit that the house I live 

 in is as defective as theirs; but I am very 

 thankful to have the defects pointed out 

 that I may mend them. I am reminded 

 of an answer given to a question at a 

 Sunday school convention by the person 

 who presided at the question-box. The 

 question was, should a hypocrite be al- 

 lowed to teach a class in Sunday school. 

 The answer began: That depends; we 

 are (7// hypocrites. .As no one is too good 

 to teach a class in Sunday school, so no 

 one can select language too pure and 

 sweet for every day use; but no one is 

 perfect in this re.spect. Even Homer 

 nods, and .Addison himself, a noted pat- 

 tern in style, makes many slips It has 

 been said that clioice language is an in- 

 dex of good character; but I feel a per- 

 sonal pride in the matter. I would like 

 any journal in which I am intere.sted to 

 be up to the highest standard. I do not 

 like to be ])Ut to shame on a comparison. 

 I can't help comparing apiciiltural jour- 

 nalism with other journalism of the coun- 

 try. I would take delight in believing 

 the journalism of our country to be equal 

 or superior in point of clioice language to 

 that of an)- other in the English tongue. 

 The newspaper press has been a reproach 

 to our country — though greatlj- improved 

 it is not yet above reproach. I will not 

 compare apicultural literature with that 

 of the newspapers. I could wish it to be 

 at least equal — it ought to be much su- 

 perior. Much has been justly said in 

 commendation of the typography of our 

 journals, but good language is of as much 

 greater concern than that as substance is 

 of more importance than form. Beauti- 

 ful typography is a treat; pure, choice 

 language is a feast. 



