3IO 



THE BEE-KEEPERS- REVIEW. 



"I have done so much talking already 

 this morning that I do not feelinclined to 

 quit without bothering you a little furth- 

 er with a word in regard to that greatest 

 of modern agitators of current bee litera- 

 ture, the Department of Criticism. From 

 my own personal point of view I would 

 say, privately, that I cannot express the 

 high estimate I place upon that depart- 

 ment. To those less in need of such 

 knowledge as is there imparted, than mv- 

 self, it may appear diflFerently. I realize 

 fully my inefficiency in a literary way, 

 and I am not blind to the superior, scien- 

 tific knowledge of Mr. Taylor in apicul- 

 tural matters. I feel that if by sacrific- 

 ing five years of my life, I could be asso- 

 ciated directly with him for one year, I 

 would be the gainer to avail myself of the 

 opportunity. It is a school that combines 

 the two branches of learning in which I 

 am most interested, and I therefore place 

 no light value upon its lessons. You 

 have not wielded a pen for all of these 

 3^ears, brother H., without realizing the 

 total inadequacy of language in giving 

 expression to certain sentiments of the 

 heart; you will understand me then when 

 1 say sincerely that my regard for the 

 Department of Criticism can not be ex- 

 pressed in words. Mr. Taylor's criticisms 

 are, obviously, honest and rendered in 

 an admirable style. They are simply ex- 

 pressions of individual views emanating 

 from a thoughtful and experienced mind. 

 Facts are facts, just the same after criti- 

 cism as before. Existing facts remain 

 the .same and new ones are revealed by 

 criticism; the successive revelation of 

 facts is progression itself. I, for one, 

 vote for progression. Our flight (?) to 

 that era of perfect methods and know- 

 ledge will be none too swift if we all 

 apply ourselves to the fullest extent of 

 our talents, to the detection of error in 

 every form." 



'■When I saw ihe first installment of 

 Mr. Taylor's criticisms, I experienced a 

 feeling of antagonism, although I had 

 not yet read it, on account of \\\?, pft'vious 

 utterances. It may be that others have 



felt the .same. To an inquiry in the 

 American Bee Journal, asked in good 

 faith, he replied ' Poppj-cock . ' When 

 E. R. Root misunderstood one of his ex- 

 periments he alluded to 'the gray matter 

 of the brain.' When Mr. F. Rauchfuss 

 criticised another, he remarked that 'he 

 was writing for bee-keepers who think.' 

 I consider these remarks uncalled for and 

 ungentlemanly. However, in his critical 

 articles of late, I do not see anything to 

 which exception need be taken in that 

 line. Criticism in the way of pointing 

 out errors, is badly needed; and I say by 

 all means continue the department. I 

 think everything he has spoken of is a 

 legitimate subject for discussion; only the 

 piTCOitaj^e of some of the topics, in a bee- 

 paper, needs to be kept low — and in this 

 I think he has hardly succeeded; at least, 

 if he intends to go on in the same way. 

 Of course, it would be all right to deal 

 fully with those subjects, if once for all, 

 or once in a considerable interval. It 

 .seems to me a mere absurdity to put the 

 praise as well as the blame in those arti- 

 cles. Mr. Hasty attends to that; so that 

 the Review, as a whole, can not be criti- 

 cised on that score; and there are enough 

 errors to be corrected to take up a whole 

 department. 



I think E. R. Root is away off in de- 

 fending the use of "canine" for dog. 

 That is what it means, but that isn't the 

 point. It is plainly as a sample of the 

 common and vicious reportorial style that 

 Mr. Taylor criticised it. and Mr. Root 

 falls into precisely the same trick again 

 in speaking of the "crimson fluid from 

 his sympathetic heart, " etc. This is mere- 

 ly childish dallying with language. And 

 how any one can attribute a distinct and 

 necessary shade of meaning to "smoled" 

 is more than I can conceive. Such lan- 

 guage is only fit for low dandies, who tip 

 their hats habitually on one side. I pre- 

 sume most of us fall into it occasionall}^ 

 but we need to be reminded of its loose- 

 ness. In one sense, it has a shade of 

 meaning, but that shade is vulgarity. 

 On the other hand, it is possible to go too 



