While we have to thank Dr. Chatley for his explanation of tue breaking of our editorial inkstan', we have also to record a number of other statements regarding the subject. One explanation for the breakage is exceedingly interesting and deserves prominence. It is as follows The side of the inkstand facing the windows of the room would naturally receive more heat than the other side which is turned away from the light. Accordingly the side receiving this heat would expand, the other half remaining practically normal.. At the approximate point where the expansion ceases, the glass would become very delicate and susceptible to any shock or jar, and such shock could readily be accounted for by any: thing in the nature of a musical note. It is well-known how crystal will respond to the music of orchestra, for instance, every piece apparently having a particular note ith which it is in sympathy. responds with vibrations, an' should these be sufficiently violent. the glass, or whatever it is, will be smashed. Now it is not necessary that a musical instrument should strike this note: the hooting of a steam-launch, the opening of a safe-door, the creaking of a drawer might prove sufficient. This is the explanation offered for the inkstand, and it is certainly feasible.
It is interesting to note that Bishop Graves had a glass inkstand broken in exactly the same manner. In his case it was kept in a locked desk, so that there could have been no shock through its being struck or dropped.
Another correspondent _mentioas that he likewise had a similar experience with his inkstand. He also sends us the photograph of a gudgeon key, 14 ft. long by 5 ft. 'n diameter, which shows a crack along three-quarters of its, length going clean through its depth. He points out that the article took days to make, and "went bang of its own accord when no one was near."
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.