XIMENES CROSSWORD No. 50
1. P. H. Taylor (Bromley): No wooden spoon for the champion! (2 mngs.).
2. C. Koop (Ferring): Having cause to prop a gate that’s closed he upholds it: see holder (crytic def.; i.e. propagate, bishop’s see).
3. A. J. C. Saunders (Sanderstead): The sort of spoon to make you slop tea all over the place (anag.).
D. Ashcroft (Fleetwood): One of a touring company who acted before the Romans (cryptic def.; ref. NT books Acts, Romans).
H. P. Chubb (Winkleigh): He stood up to the XI and was bowled! Broke slap on his toe! (anag. of slap, toe; bowled = put in bowl; ref. 12 Apostles).
C. G. C. Farmer (SW18): The preacher is a holy man even in an extremity (a + St in pole).
S. B. Green (NW10): Kind of spoon to stir up weak spirits? (2 mngs.).
S. Holgate (Durham): If such a disciple were to lapse it would clearly be his undoing (anag.).
C. R. Howard (Hampton): He backs up well, but is apt to make a stir when he is bowled (2 mngs.; bowled = put in bowl).
C. B. Joyner (Ringwood): Half filling a post letter bag—fan male perhaps! (hidden; apostles usu. men).
Rev W. McEntegart (St. Asaph): The sort of spoon for use at St. Andrews? (2 mngs.; golf club).
D. A. Nicholls (Prescot): One Simon (pre-Stylite) sat spread-eagled on a broken pole (anag. of sat, pole).
Rev E. B. Peel (Fleetwood): The St. Andrews type of spoon? (2 mngs.; golf club).
Miss D. W. Taylor (W5): One who has cause to act before the Romans? (cryptic def.; ref. NT books Acts, Romans).
A. L. Tilley (Cambridge): He is not necessarily a publican. but his job is in beer (post in ale; ref. St Matthew).
Capt C. Tyers, RN (Elstead): Often finds the course difficult and has had to accept strokes. Sometimes takes a spoon, especially in 16th and 17th (cryptic defs.; i.e. centuries; ref. golf).
FO R. A. Walker (SW1): A light carrier, he believes, engaged in late ops (anag.).
Comments—193 correct: a little harder than usual, perhaps. It may be helpful—at the risk of a volley of tu quoques!—to fill this space for a change with a few unsuccessful clues and the reasons why they failed, though their ideas were good.
(1) Of the order of preachers, and least was Paul (anag. OP-least: see Chamb. p. 1169). This fails to indicate that an anag. is meant: “of” is required as part of the mng. of OP. and cannot do double duty.
(2) Sort of missing link between simian and Simon? (ap-lost-e). This—attractive at first reading—is really too hard. It also strains the mng. of “between.”
(3) A pole-squatting saint. (A po-St.-le). But could one squat in a pole? This just spoils it, whereas Mr. Nicholls above just gets away with it; a-po-st-le can be seen as sat spread-eagled on a broken pole, but here the St. is definitely in a pole, not on it.
(4) St. Simeon Stylites? Possibly, but here the saint is not on a pole. Avoids the fault of (3) but lets in another by positively implying that S.’s pillar was a pole, which is surely unjustifiable: the other two merely hint at S. without positive implications.
The fault illustrated in (1) is particularly common: a further example is “due to lapse perhaps.” “Due to” might indicate the anag., but “to” is part of the anag.: “perhaps” might also do so, but then what about “due”? (The rest of tha clue was sound).
A good clue must be sound in all its parts besides embodying a good idea.