In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling


Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.

The beehives buzzing quietly in the boot, I drove up the motorway. The bees thrived in the Ashdown Forest in late summer. Transplanted to East London, perhaps they would feel hemmed in by tarmac and buildings. But the next morning when I opened the hives, it took them no time to find the lime trees on London Fields and they filled the frames with a clear, sharp-tasting liquor. Later in the season, they created dark swathes of almost bitter honey (a speciality in some parts of the world) by harvesting honeydew from aphids. Londoners fill their gardens with exotic plants that flower even in winter and these plus the countless roadside cherries and crab apples keep bees in forage all year round. In cold weather they huddle in quiet, rustling balls, eating honey for heating fuel, regulating each other’s body temperature until the spring warms them and the flowers back into production. On milder winter days, they go out into the garden to crap out the indigestible matter in their food. The sight of them ambling around reassures me.

In their first London summer, the hives suffered a catastrophic outbreak of varroa. This parasitic mite invaded from Asia on the backs of imported bees and the virus it spread devastated our ill-adapted European populations. Bees crawled out of my hives with mutilated wings, attracting the interest of some carnivorous wasps which swooped down, biting the flightless bees in half, chewing off their legs and wings, carrying away their abdomens and coming back for the head and thorax. After I’d watched a wasp settle on my chest to perform the task of snipping off a bee’s legs, leaving its macabre deposit under my chin, I was convinced that it was time to take action. This is the only time I have used varroacide, though I know many beekeepers regarded my failure to treat the bees regularly as foolhardy. ‘I don’t understand why they’re not all dead,’ one said to me, bemused by the thriving colonies.

Varroa is just one of the plagues affecting bees in Europe and across the world. Asian hornets, neonicotinoid pesticides, mobile phone signals, climate change and the little understood Colony Collapse Disorder, which does with fearful rapidity what it says on the tin, have each been blamed for contributing to the decline in bee populations. Without any consensus on ultimate causes, some fear we may end up following the example of commercial fruit growers in the Hindu Kush, who resorted to pollinating fruit tree flowers individually by hand more than a decade ago when native pollinators were temporarily exterminated. It didn’t take them long to grasp how much work bees do for us besides making honey.

I never intended to keep bees. It happened by chance. It was a hot spring day and I saw a bee swarm hanging from an oak bough near my home in Sussex. I phoned the local beekeeper with the intention of suggesting he come and retrieve the swarm. His wife answered and I found myself asking instead what rules there were about the ownership of a swarm. ‘Whoever catches it,’ she said.

I had just read Far from the Madding Crowd in which Bathsheba Everdene dons a ‘straw hat, and large gauze veil’ to catch a swarm. Her opportunism inspired me. I put a jelly-straining cloth over a sun hat, tucked my trousers into my socks, tied rubber bands around the wrists of my gardening gloves, and shimmied up the tree on which the rugby-ball-size blob of twenty thousand or so bees had settled, with a queen in their midst.

The rest flowed as if a re-enactment of a swarm-catching miracle I’d witnessed as a mesmerised six-year-old. Badger Kirby (so named for the streak of white in his hair) came over from the nearby village of Nutley – I too came from the Ashdown Forest – to scoop his liquid trophy from the maples in front of our house. He seemed to me god-like in bravery and grace. So intense was the experience that I found my memory had preserved every detail; clearest of all was the crucial moment when he gave the branch a sudden, firm tug – the apiculturist’s equivalent of the karate chop – and delivered the entire mass of bees into a cardboard box. Jerking the branch too feebly risks leaving the queen attached, impelling the dislodged bees to fly back to her. Failure to control the flex in the branch could result in a cluster-missile fired in any direction, including one’s own.

Bees swarm when their colony has produced a new queen. This triggers a palace revolution that sees one of the queens, usually the old one, buzzing off into exile with a band of loyal bees, sometimes up to half the colony. Swarming is thus a form of reproduction for bee colonies. The departed bees gather on a nearby object – a staging post while they scout for a new home. At this point, they are entirely focused on the queen. They soak up as much honey as their stomachs can carry before leaving the hive – they have around three days’ supply, three days in which to find a new home – and are as soporific as we would be after a big meal, and so quite docile.

The bees dropped obligingly into my box, which I then upturned on the ground by the tree, leaving a gap for any stragglers to rejoin the queen. I called the beekeeper again for further instructions, but when he told me to tip the bees onto a ramp made of ply-board in front of an empty hive and leave them to make up their own mind, I took it for mumbo-jumbo akin to the other Rudolf Steiner-inspired anthroposophist practices I knew him to favour, such as planting beans at an auspicious moment in the orbit of the planets. It surprised me to discover – on checking with a more conventional beekeeper whose number was printed on the pot of Sussex honey in my kitchen – that this is the standard method of hiving bees.

So the following day, having hurled tens of thousands of stinging insects onto the ramp, I watched as they sent out scouts to find somewhere safe to live. I saw a few exploring the roof of an adjacent barn, others investigating the crevices of an oak, some scanning a brick wall for openings. One buzzed its way up the ramp and into the hive’s entrance hole. Another soon followed, and then both re-emerged facing backwards, abdomens erect, wings fanning their scented message of discovery: indoors lay an empty palace, ripe for colonisation. More bees came, checked out the hive and then joined their comrades, until a tight knot of bees surrounded the entrance, all wafting pheromones to the swarm below. With a single mind, the swarm crept towards my hive. I caught sight of the queen, black and subtly elongated, crowd-surfing her way to the entrance. In she plunged, through the portal of guards.

My laissez-faire approach contrasts with the near-paranoid fulminations of the average beekeeper on the subject of swarming, the most festive moment in the bee lifecycle. I recognise that I’m a novice, but I’m suspicious of swarm control, which usually involves massacring queen cells. No new queens: no swarm. Ever since I was a boy I’ve been happy to wring the necks of chickens, slaughter my own pigs, or drop fallow deer with a rifle, but when it comes to ‘pinching out’ queen cells to prevent swarming, I recoil.

A queen cell is an elongated polyp that the workers construct in their comb, deposit an egg into and stuff full of royal jelly, a creamy white fondant laced with royalactin, the protein responsible for transforming the hatching grub into a queen. The presence of multiple queen cells indicates that the colony may be about to swarm.

The main reason beekeepers don’t like their bees to swarm is that it deprives them of half the colony and they end up with less honey. In unusual circumstances, the original colony can be so depopulated it won’t survive. Received wisdom also states that without human intervention ‘feral’ colonies are usually destroyed by the varroa mite within a few seasons. This isn’t always the case, and besides as long as they have swarmed at least once, these bees have contributed to the repopulation of their species.

When I lived in the Ashdown Forest, I allowed my bees to swarm naturally and would chase them across the valley. I was worried about doing this in London, but my new neighbour didn’t seem to mind when I jumped into her garden last year to scoop a swarm off her paling, although that may only be thanks to the honey I gave her as a bribe to sweeten neighbourly relations. Such lack of control over the swarming bees is considered by many to be irresponsible, damaging to the reputation of beekeepers, and potentially dangerous.

Am I going to have to get used to reginacide? In nature, some queens are killed off in the battle that ensues when they hatch. Some are pre-emptively destroyed by the workers. When a beekeeper intervenes, the decision is, genetically speaking, arbitrary. As for which male drones get to pass on their genes, we have no control over that either. The queen selects several sperm capsules from the lucky drones that have flown high enough to reach her on her one orgiastic mating flight, and they supply her with enough sperm for the million or so eggs she’ll lay in her three to five-year lifespan. Beekeepers nowadays often randomly kill drones in their cells because the varroa mite thrives on the male larvae, and anyway male bees are not productive members of the colony (they eat honey but don’t produce it). This reduces the gene pool, which seems to me a bad thing.

If bees aren’t allowed to swarm, a hive’s population can grow until you end up with metropolises of more than a hundred thousand adults. I wondered whether this contributed to disease in bee populations and asked a geneticist what she thought would happen in the long term. ‘I would expect an outbreak of parasites and diseases,’ she told me. Pesticides, foreign diseases, intensive farming: all have been blamed for the demise of the bees. But I can’t help wondering whether the main problem bees have is the beekeepers.

It’s easy to tell if a pig is sick – its symptoms are very like ours – but bees’ symptoms are alien to us. An individual bee can be perfectly healthy, even when its colony is on the verge of collapse. Indeed, a bee isn’t really an individual: the colony is the individual and it’s extremely difficult to read. So far, I’ve been lucky. The two hives I took to London yielded 30 lb of honey each last year. I could have taken a lot more, but I left them with an extra-full honey box, or ‘super’, because I don’t feed my bees with sugar syrup. It may make economic sense to force bees to eat manufactured sugar rather than the honey they’ve produced because honey has a higher retail price, but it doesn’t make any other kind of sense.

I was dismayed last summer to read that beekeeping had become so fashionable in London that ‘there is simply not enough forage to go around.’ That at any rate was what the secretary of the London Beekeepers’ Association said. I was intrigued by this Malthusian theory of bee populations outgrowing their resources. It seemed theoretically plausible, even if my own experience didn’t match it. I wrote asking for actual figures but it turned out that there weren’t any. Indeed, the scant figures they sent me suggested that total honey production in London had increased substantially with the wave of new beekeepers.

When I met the secretary of the LBKA she said they simply wanted to start a debate. Well, here’s my contribution. According to the information the LBKA sent me, average honey yield per hive in the South-East was 36 lb in 2009, 46 lb in 2010 and 31 lb in 2011 – a fluctuation you would expect from weather conditions and other variables. At the same time, the number of registered hives in Greater London rose from 1740 in 2007 to 2225 in 2009, 3120 in 2011 and 3337 in 2012, with an extra 25 per cent or more unregistered apiaries and an unknown number of registeredbut defunct colonies. According to these data, total honey production in London was nearly 80,000 lb in 2009, going up to 100,000 lb in 2011. In 2012 London’s yield seems to have been even lower than that of the rest of the country. But we can always blame the weather or, as the LBKA would, novice beekeepers like me.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 35 No. 24 · 19 December 2013

‘A swarm which has flown away from our hive is still considered ours,’ the Roman jurist Gaius wrote in the second century CE, ‘so long as it remains in sight and its pursuit is not difficult; otherwise it becomes the property of the first taker.’ This was repeated three centuries later by the Emperor Justinian in his Institutes, from which it entered the common currency of law in Europe. However Gaius also said: ‘someone entering another’s land may lawfully be prevented from entering by the owner of the land, if he sees him coming.’ I don’t think the practice of the English common law can be different despite Roger Gregory’s assumption that he could chase his bees without hindrance (Letters, 21 November).

Andrew Lewis
Camelford, Cornwall

Vol. 35 No. 22 · 21 November 2013

Tristram Stuart’s piece brought back memories of my father’s beekeeping in the 1950s (LRB, 24 October). Our aunt also kept bees in her garden in West Hampstead and would drive them to Kent for the summer. Our first colony arrived in a buzzy metal mesh box courtesy of Carter Patterson. We had two swarms – one onto a pear tree in our garden in Woodford and another into a neighbour’s garden. We retrieved both and added them to our growing collection of hives. As we understood it at the time, ancient common law allowed pursuit of a swarm over private land, and no prosecution for trespass could be brought against a beekeeper keeping his swarm in sight.

Roger Gregory

Vol. 36 No. 2 · 23 January 2014

Roger Gregory may well refer to ancient rights of swarm collection but the Court of Appeal decided such rights in 1939 (Letters, 21 November 2013). The case can be found in Beekeeping and the Law: Swarms and Neighbours (1993) by David Frimston and David Smith. An issue before the court was to decide on the correct meaning of Blackstone’s Commentaries when discussing ferae naturae, and bees in particular. The passage stated: ‘Though a swarm lights upon my tree, I have no more property in them till I have hived them … and therefore if another hives them, he shall be their proprietor.’ Blackstone goes on to say that a swarm that flies out from my hive is mine so long as I have the power to pursue it. L.J. Goddard holds that ‘the power to pursue’ does not extend to pursuing the swarm that has rested on the land of another. The ratio of the case: ‘Bees are ferae naturae but when hived they become the qualified property of the person who hives them. The owner of a swarm of bees has no legal right to follow the bees on another man’s land. When a swarm of bees settles on another person’s land, the former owner of the bees loses his right in them, which again become ferae naturae.’

Howard Gilbert
Colchester, Essex

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.