52 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' HEVIEW 



is notenough. Onr knowledge must become 

 a part of ourselves. Facts should be view- 

 ed from as many different standpoints as 



possible. 



Experience is decidely the best way to 

 gain this adaptable knowledge, bat to gain 

 as much as we ought to have handy would 

 take a life-time and more, so that, though 

 relying on experience as much as we can, 

 we also find it profitable to resort to study 

 and varied repetition. Here is where bee- 

 literature as a whole cannot afford to give 

 scant measure. The kaleidoscopic possibili- 

 ties of the same old facts are infinite. With 

 each turn of the instrument ( the bee-paper ) 

 our knowledge becomes more pliant, more 

 far-reaching, more instantly available. ( I 

 am taking for granted that experience keeps 

 on all this time. ) A small periodical may 

 be excellent, for other reasons, but it is not 

 excellent because it is small. 



No doubt this influence is indirect; but 

 what of that ? It is a large-sized mistake to 

 condemn it on that account. And here I 

 am only stating " a fact and not a theory " 

 in saying that a large proportion of my own 

 present knowledge, perhaps one-half ( I 

 think more ) was attained in this way ; 

 further, that related facts have been suggest- 

 ed, and knowledge driven home, to no slight 

 degree, by disapproval as well as by approv- 

 al of what I have read ; and I conclude that 

 that ideal of bee-literature which would in- 

 clude nothing but what is so perfect that 

 no one thinksof opening his mouth to oppose 

 it, is an impractical one. 



Fourthly, we want to increase the number 

 of facts. There are some things we don't 

 know, which are important to know, which 

 can probably be decided one way or the 

 other. This can only be done by propound- 

 ing theories, testing them in the light of the 

 experience of all to see whether they are facts 

 or not. Where in the name of common 

 sense is this to be done if not in the bee- 

 papers ? "Fact instead of fancies " is in- 



conaplete. 



There is room here for any amount of 

 cautions upraisings of the forefinger and 

 wise shakes of the head. But let us imagine 

 all that and get down to bed rock. Do you 

 mean to abolish theories or not ? If so, say 

 nothing more about the prevention of 

 swarming ; don't mention overstocking ; etc., 

 etc. Batif not, then no sensible person is 

 ^oing to object to your saying, and repeat- 

 ing aa of ten as you like, " Don't bring up 



trifling theories; don't occupy more than 

 one fourth of the time in theorizing ; don't 

 call opinions facts ; don't fokget to keep 



RESISTING THE INHERENT TENDENCY OF THEO- 

 KIZING TO BECOME IMPBACTIOAL. " 



" But " says some one " why should not 

 each individual do his own theorizing and 

 only impart his ideas when they become 

 facts ? " No doubt, many cases can be point- 

 ed to where it would have been better to have 

 done so. But we are here investigating gen- 

 eral principles, not particular instances. As 

 long as one thinks he can do good work 

 unaided, by all means let him wait until his 

 theories become facts, but when theories 

 are really important, and when it would 

 need a great deal of experience to decide 

 them, it seems like a rash undertaking to 

 tackle them alone. Even if the question 

 makes it probable that many others are 

 working independently on it, it can scarcely 

 be doubted that such work is done at a dis- 

 advantage. ( )ue man will see at once the 

 uselessness of following out certain sides 

 of the question, which others will only dis- 

 cover after losing valuable time. Another 

 will see valuable possibilities, and perhaps 

 do no more than see them ; while a third 

 may suggest how to carry them out, though 

 he had not thought of them himself. A the- 

 oretical discussion is a council of war. 



The great trouble with those who so fran- 

 tically oppose theory, whether good or bad, 

 is that they think that other people think 

 theory an end in itself, just the same as 

 fact, whereas no one would or does support 

 so foolish a claim in practical apiculture. 

 There is such a thing as study for study's 

 sake, but with that we have nothing to do. 

 There is more 6ee-truth in Mr. Heddon's 

 writings than in those of half a dozen 

 ordinary men. My debt to the Bee Keepers' 

 Quarterly in strictly apicultural matters is 

 great. I do not say that it ought not to 

 have a legitimate field, and supply a want, 

 in furnishing plain non-personal criticism 

 (sarcastic smile), and in the undoubtedly 

 valuable and desirable department of point- 

 ing out the best that appears in the journals, 

 and in performing no more ot the four 

 very necessary functions pointed out from 

 above ; but just as soon as it begins to arro- 

 gate for itself any superiority for its choice 

 of that particular field ( rather than for the 

 excellence with which it fills that field, which 

 no one will begrudge it ), then it should be 



