1921 



AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL 



405 



waste : Place two addresses on your 

 freight or packages, for if one is lost 

 you will still have another. Do not 

 save your crating material. I believe 

 the shippers are as much to blame for 

 waste and breakage as the lailroads 

 are. A. S. Porter, Canfii-lil, O. 



SOME EARLY BEEKEEPING HIS- 

 TORY 



(Continued. See July number, 



page 276). 



By G. W. Adams 



The failure of the town cf New- 

 bury to continue and maintain a mu- 

 nicipal apiary does not appear to have 

 discouraged the individual beelieepers 

 and Henry Rolfe, a neighbor, lecured 

 "stands" from the abandoned yard. 

 In his will he bequeaths "To my kins- 

 man, Thomas Whittear, a swarm of 

 bees." In the inventory of hi.s estate 

 his bees are valued at 7 pounds 10 s, 

 while his "muskett, fowling pieces and 

 2 swords and bandoliers" were consid- 

 ered worth only 1 pound -Js. Let 

 us follow the bees bequeathed to 

 "Whittear." 



They were taken across the Merri- 

 niae to the Whittier homestead, in 

 Haverhill, and under the care of the 

 thrifty Quaker throve and increased. 

 The farm was inherited by the broth 

 ers John and Moses, and a sister, 

 Mary, kept house for them. John, 

 returning from a business trip to 

 Canada, approaching the house by the 

 way of "Pear Tree Lane," just as he 

 was crossing the little stream, the 

 "brook of the barefoot boy, saw — 

 "Just the same as a month before, 

 The house and trees; 

 The barn's brown gable, the vine by 



the door — 

 Nothing changed but the hives of 



bees. 

 Before them, under the garden wall. 

 Forward and back. 

 Went drearily singing the chore girl, 



small, 

 Draping each hive with a shred of 



black. 

 Trembling, I listened, the summer sun 

 Had the chill of snow, 

 For I knew she was telling the bees 



of one 

 Gone on the journey we all must go." 

 The writer has it directly irom the 

 poet that "Telling the Bees" was not 

 a poetic fancy, but that the incident 

 was just as described in the poem. 



The apiary existed until a few 

 years ago, and as the homestead is 

 now under the care of an efficient and 

 loving board of trustees, the writer 

 expects to restore it during the pres- 

 ent summer. The latest collection of 

 Whittier's poems contains <>. very 

 pretty fragment, unfinished, descrip- 

 tive of the home-coming of li's grand- 

 mother, Sarah Greenleaf, when as a 

 bride she crossed the Merrimac in her 

 husband's canoe, and walking throuph 

 the primeval forest came to the clear- 

 ing where stood the new h-M-.ie, and 

 "from the garden hives came the 

 sound of bees." 



In looking up the bees of Aniesbury, 

 the administration of the estate of 

 Thomas Barnard, Sr., was of interest. 



not only as showing a good-sized 

 apiary, but from a quaintne;:S all its 

 own. I venture to quote from the 

 record : 



"Estate of Thomas Barnard, Sr.. 

 late of Amesbere, who was killed by 

 the Indians Oct. 9, 1677, to Elenor ys 

 relict, with as many of her husband's 

 children as she could get oi'dered to 

 come to ye next Salisbury court for a 

 division of ye estate." 



The inventory presented shows, 

 among other items, "8 hives of bees." 

 What became of them is nor stated, 

 but the eldest son was given "a dou- 

 ble portion," and of the real estate it 

 is pleasant to know that "ye widow to 

 receive ye Higgledee Piggleys with 

 ether land." 



The first use of the word "hive" to 

 appear in our county records is in 

 the inventory of Thomas Barker, of 

 Rowley, in 1650, "2 bee hives and 

 some auld boards, 1.5 pounds, 7, 6;" 

 the usual term being "stak," "stake" 

 or "stall," and very rarely "stand." 



The familiar word "skep," appears 

 but once, and that in 1665. where 

 Bridget Bradstreet, of Ipswich, be- 

 queaths "to my daughter, Kimball, 

 and my daughter, Walles, my 'skep' of 

 bees, and my desire is that they give 

 there furst swarms to their other too 

 sisters." 



From a careful study of the mat- 

 ter the writer is convinced that theie 

 were nearly — perhaps quite — as manv 

 people keeping bees in Essi x and 

 (old) Noi-folk counties, in the decade 

 1660-1670 as in 1910-20, although it 

 is hardly probable there v^-ere as 

 many colonies. 



There is strong temptation to write 

 here of other things than bees, to 

 show the conditions of life in those 

 days, when nearly every farm had its 

 little apiary. For instance, the Rev. 

 Ezekiel Rogers, founder of Rowley, 

 had "stak of bees (1661) valued at 

 3 pounds," while his "armour and am- 

 munition" were valued at 5 pounds. 

 Evidently women were then, a«t now, 

 successful in beekeeping, for 17 years 

 later his widow gives bees to Ann Nel- 

 son. 



In 1662, John Andrews, of Ipswich, 

 had "tow stocks of bees and tow 

 swarmes." This John never had a 

 "non-skid tire," but he was not only 

 better off than his neighbors in that 

 he owned "a paire of iron-bound 

 wheels." 



The same year the estate cf "Will- 

 yam" Harkes, of Lynn, inventoried 

 bees and also honey, "10 pounds at 

 17 shillings." 



William Patridge, of Salisbury, not 

 only had bees, but a serviceable 

 match-lock musket to protect them, 

 being better armed than Richard 

 Kent, of Newbury, whose ' fFoure 

 stakes" were valued at 3 pounds, 

 while his cross-bow at only 2 siiillings. 

 P-vidently in 1664, when this inven- 

 tory was taken, the cross-bow was get- 

 ting out of date. 



In the foregoing researc! es, the 

 writer has learned somethin-j of the 

 bees, and not a little of respect for, 

 and admiration of, the nun and 

 women who won this beautiful North 

 Shore from the wilderness; snd as he 

 pens the familiar names, many of 



which are maintained in honor by 

 their descendants still with us. there 

 is a life and reality to this little his- 

 tory which will not leave the heart to 

 be spread upon paper. 



After 1670, bee culture declined so 

 rapidly that a colony, which three 

 years before would have been of equal 

 value with three sheep, would bring 

 but 3 shillings. Thei-e app'.ared to 

 be no reason for this, either in change 

 of purchasing power of money or in 

 the presence of any substitute for 

 honey and wax. Although sugar was 

 gradually coming into more j:eneral 

 use, it could have had no appreciable 

 effect on beekeeping. 



The fact remained, however, that in 

 the space of less than ten years an 

 economic asset greatly valued by the 

 settlers had depreciated in valre more 

 than 75 per cent and the production 

 of an article of food highly prired and 

 for which there was no cheaper substi- 

 tute, was practically abandoned. 



Probate records show a decline in 

 value to about 15 per cent of values 

 three to five years earlier, and an ap- 

 parent decline in the number of bees 

 kept, fully equal to the decline in 

 value. 



Seeking a reason for this, we find 

 in the inventory of John Neale, filed 

 1672: "Three hives of bees, 10 shil- 

 lings, being somewhat decayed." This 

 is not a bad description of American 

 foulbrood, and the writer is inclined 

 to believe we have here the explana- 

 tion sought. 



Although Quinby was probably the 

 first to recognize the disease in this 

 country, Schirach was investigating it 

 as early as 1771, and it may have been 

 in the colonies with early importa- 

 tions; it is possible that, the country 

 being sparsely settled, it may have 

 burned itself out in a restricted lo- 

 cality and, for want of material, 

 spread no further. Also, a colony sul- 

 phured was a colony disinfected, and 

 it was customary to sulpliur t dead 

 colony to kill the moths. 



Of coui-se, it is possible the an- 

 praiser of Neale's estate used tne 

 word in the sense Latimer used it in 

 1550, when he says: "So order the 

 matter that preaching may rot de- 

 cay," and Goldsmith, in the "Deserted 

 Village" uses it in a similar sense, but 

 evidently because he must have some- 

 thing to rhyme with "prey"; so, as 

 this old appraiser was neither a 

 preacher nor a poet, can we not be- 

 lieve he had, as in duty bound, seen 

 the brood, and said just what he 

 meant in plain New England .peech? 

 So rapid was the decline in bee- 

 keeping that for the next 30 years— 

 the period of a generation — we find 

 nothing to show commercial value or 

 practical interest. 



It was not until the second half of 

 the 18th century that the interest re- 

 vived, although there is little doubt 

 that a few widely scattered farms 

 still maintained their little rpiaries. 

 Perhaps their remoteness had been 

 their protection, and from 1770 to 

 1800 there was a considerable in- 

 crease, as is plainly shown in certain 

 old diaries. 



From this time the advance was 

 rapid, Langstroth beginning his work 



