XIMENES CROSSWORD No. 700

SOLOMON

1.  T. N. Nesbitt (Newcastle-on-Tyne): Wise family man takes lone Whitsun hol. (solo Mon.).

2.  T. L. Strange (Colwyn Bay): Having 300 mistresses, no wonder I was sued for an affiliation order! (cryptic def.; ref. 1 Kings 11:3 and 3:16ff).

3.  R. R. Greenfield (Ickenham): One who laid down the law about the first essentials of motherhood (mo(therhood) in Solon, & lit.; ref. 1 Kings 3:16ff, and lawgiver of Athens).

H.C.

C. Allen Baker (Milnathort): Individual appearing to have married continuously! (solo m. on, & lit.; 700 wives).

F. D. H. Atkinson (Claygate): “Divide the son”—see the mother’s start comprehended. This order reveals the sage (lo mo(ther) in son, & lit.; ref. 1 Kings 3:16ff).

R. T. Baxter (Wallington): I commenced sagacious living—majestic, noble—interrupted regularly by love (0,0,0 between s,l,m,n & lit.).

C. O. Butcher (E4): Individual married to a back number? A long way back, yes—but what a number! (solo m. + no. (rev.); 700 wives).

K. Gibson (Hucknall): Ruler whose seal is star-shaped or moon-shaped (sol (= or, heraldic) + anag.).

S. B. Green (NW10): Solution of a difficulty? Nothing to it! The king has cunning to spare! (sol + 0 + mon(arch), & lit.).

F. G. Illingworth (Worcester): A man for women: alone, set up with a thousand willing to participate! (solo M on, & lit.; wives and concubines).

L. Joyce (Twickenham): Though he was outshone in the field, he wisely umpired the parents’ match (cryptic def.; ref. Matt. 6:29 (lilies) and 1 Kings 3:16ff).

A. Lawrie (Cheltenham): He might have used Davidson as a second name (for one must have a second name) (solo mo n.; son of D.).

J. D. H. Mackintosh (West Wickham): A game of cards in progress? He was no fool, and even got married during that! (m. in solo on).

Dr T. J. R. Maguire (Dublin): As has been stated, wanton, bedding a thousand (so + M in loon, & lit.; wives and concubines).

D. P. M. Michael (Newport): For one thousand, forward! 700 gave me legitimate pleasure; 300 more were undoubtedly enjoyable! (solo M on; wives and concubines).

W. L. Miron (Nottingham): Of a very high order among the sage (OM in Solon, & lit.; S. of Athens).

C. J. Morse (SW10): Single at first, he ended by getting married continually! (solo m on, & lit.; 700 wives).

M. Newman (Hove): Singular songster—or pianist—married continually (solo m. on, & lit.; 700 wives, Song of S., and 20c. pianist S.).

R. Postill (Jersey): Alone with a thousand willing to participate—no wonder he was sick of love! (solo M on, & lit.; wives and concubines, and Song of S. 2:5).

R. E. Scraton (Hayes): Send back lawyers who miss the point: I’ll pronounce judgement! (nomolo(gist)s (rev.); judgement of S.).

RUNNERS-UP

Lt Col P. S. Baines, J. W. Bates, T. E. Bell, J. M. Bennett, R. Brain, Rev C. M. Broun, E. Clark, C. R. Dean, Cdr H. H. L. Dickson, Mrs N. Fisher, F. H. W. Hawes, D. Hawson, Mrs L. Jarman, V. Jennings, M. J. Lanchester, Miss J. S. Lumsden, H. Lyon, Mrs S. M. Macpherson, Mrs E. McFee, E. L. Mellersh, T. W. Melluish, F. E. Newlove, K. Perry, E. J. Rackham, A. Robins, W. Rodgers, E. O. Seymour, F. G. Simms, F. B. Stubbs, Miss D. W. Taylor, D. H. Tompsett, J. F. N. Wedge.
 

COMMENTS:—A very select entry of 153, with 129 correct. The puzzle proved much more difficult than I expected: perhaps I set too much store by the extra help offered by the acrostic and didn‘t provide as many clues as usual of the kind likely to give a start, without which this extra help couldn‘t begin to function. The struggle seems to have been enjoyed by those who could cope with it, and I must thank you for many kindly tributes and also for messages of congratulation on another milestone. Quite a few solvers have asked whether I think I’ve been getting more difficult lately or whether their brains are getting addled. I dare say the former is true: I may, perhaps be saying to myself more often than I used to, when writing clues, “No, that’s rather dull and too easy.” The elusive results no doubt find favour with the most tigerish experts, but I may have been getting a bit hard on the very good but slightly less tigerish solver. I think I must remember this, on and off, if not all the time. Reactions to any such resolve on my part are apt to be delayed, because I keep so far ahead in composing (I’m in November at the moment); but a change or two on the proof at the eleventh hour can make quite a difference—perhaps I‘ll make some. However, I hasten to reassure tigers of the more ravening kind that I have no intention of making the clues much easier and of thus robbing them of the sort of prey that is worthy of their fangs. Salutations to all.