XIMENES CROSSWORD No. 343

EPIGONI

1.  Maj P. S. Baines (Ripon): Ptolemy, Seleucus and Co. have a feast on dividing the crowns of Egypt and India (pig on in E, I; successors to Alexander).

2.  F. H. W. Hawes (Dagenham): Homers? No! Greatly inferior offspring of pigeon I let loose (anag.).

3.  W. K. M. Slimmings (New Malden): Progeny of such as the Empress of Blandings in old age, I should conclude (pig in eon + I, & lit.; ref. P. G. Wodehouse).

H.C.

I. B. Evans (Merthyr Tydfil): The pigeon I shot on the outermost branch of the tree (anag.; family tree).

Mrs N. Fisher (Stroud): Sons of the heroic age, now without metal, one concludes (pig (iron) in eon + I, & lit.).

C. E. Gates (Kettering): In the East I find a rough bar, getting half-seas-over. There’s the younger generation for you! (pig on in E, I; on = getting drunk).

S. B. Green (NW10): A hot-water bottle against one—that’s a necessary adjunct to the English, but our fathers were made of sterner stuff! (E + pig on I; see pig² in C.).

J. Hardie Keir (Galashiels): A short peignoir fashioned for the younger generation—the “A line” has gone! (anag. less r).

C. Koop (Ferring): No “Queen” to appear in an improper peignoir! (In the contest those who succeeded triumphed with a vengeance!) (anag. less R; ref. Sophocles, ‘Epigoni’).

P. H. Morgan (Basingstoke): In the ragtime Pig on Ivories we appear relatively uninspired after Alexander (hidden; A.’s Ragtime Band).

T. E. Sanders (Walsall): Having dropped the two openers in the deep I go back in the slips ((de)ep I go + in (rev.); slip = descendant).

E. O. Seymour (Gerrards Cross): We have not the capacity of our fathers. I should be laid out after pigeon pie (anag. + I; pie²).

J. W. Taylor (Stoke on-Trent): Ordinary issue of famous stock—but one pigeon’s been shaken down! (anag. incl. I; pigeon = dupe).

J. F. N. Wedge (Carshalton): The pigeon pie I served up did for the King after another seven had had a go! (anag. + I; pie²; ref. Aeschylus, ‘Seven Against Thebes’ and Sophocles, ‘Epigoni’).

RUNNERS-UP

J. W. Bates, E. C. Bingham, A. Borshell, C. O. Butcher, D. L. L. Clarke, R. M. S. Cork, W. J. Duffin, W. J. Emerson, S. Goldie, E. G. Illingworth, L. Johnson, W. I. N. Kessel, A. F. Lerrigo, Dr D. S. M. lmrie, E. L. Mellersh, J. G. Milner, C. J. Morse, A. J. Nelson, E. G. Phillips, J. H. Quincey, J. M. Sharman, D. H. Tompsett, H. S. Tribe, G. H. Willett, S. E. Wilson.
 

COMMENTS:—285 entries, 252 correct. Few mistakes, but those there were surprised me: “torn net” seemed to me to fix the spelling of Ermentrude (C., incidentally, gives no other version of the 5th letter), and how anyone could write “cooperage,” after even reading the clue to 2 cursorily, I cannot fathom! The lists above were much shortened by the fact that many of the more attractive clues sent were suspect as regards soundness, while the obviously sound ones tended to be dull. I didn’t think a “straight” clue was really adequate for this word: some additional help was called for, and preferably. I think, there should be some suggestion of the word’s classical connection; but I haven’t adhered strictly to this latter demand.
 
The question of indirect anagrams has cropped up again. I will state my principle once more, therefore. I use them very sparingly, only when I think a direct anagram would be too easy and when the indirect form used leaves a very restricted choice, Thus I used “Cutty bewitched” the other day to lead to a mixture of the letters of “Sark”: to anyone who has heard of Cutty Sark this one can hardly fail to be helpful. Again, I used “soldiers” for “military” in my clue to “limitary”: here the choice is wider, but the case is a special one in that the change is a very slight one. I expressly said “very little change” in the clue: with “military given direct, the clue would obviously be too easy. But the practice must be firmly controlled, I think, or the subsidiary help will be useless to a solver. One attractive entry this time was regretfully passed over for this reason:—“Dutiful sons of the ancients gone to pot?” (pii gone anag, & lit.). An indirect anagram should certainly not demand translation from Latin, or any other foreign tongue! I hope this makes my views clear—not my rule: I have no fixed rule on the subject.
 
On “hidden” clues (this also arises out of this entry) my principle does almost amount to a rule: t definitely dislike redundant words (except for a “the” or “a”) in the hiding place. This is not a difficult rule to observe, and it seems to me to be demanded both by neatness and fairness. A good holiday to all!