Talk:In the South (Alassio)

Tennyson and Byron quotations in the manuscript

Ernest Newman, as early as 1906, said that in the manuscript Elgar quoted lines from Byron's Childe Harold (see here), and if I read Newman's book aright he implies that the Tennyson lines referred to in our article are also written in the manuscript. Michael Kennedy repeats this, and as recently as 2012 a work from the Cambridge University Press – British Music and Literary Context – has also done so. I accordingly added the quotes to the article when revising it over the last couple of days. But the manuscript is now online, courtesy of the Royal Academy of Music, and I'm blest if I can find any quotation from Byron or Tennyson in it. Has anyone got any thoughts on this, and perhaps a suggestion what to do about keeping or removing the quotations from the article? – Tim riley talk 16:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim, this looks to me like a typical example of droning repeat of an early inaccurate (or maybe inexact source). If Newman said it (subsequent writers will assume) it must be so. But in this case it clearly ain't. And the published score didn't contain quotes from either Byron or Tennyson.(see here). What Newman says is in fact ambiguous: he claims that Elgar took the Tennyson "for a general motto", and that might (or might not) be something that Elgar may have said to Newman in conversation (or could be Newman's own opinion). Imo one cannot clearly construe from Newman that the Tennyson was 'inscribed' anywhere. Newman then says "the manuscript of the score contains a quotation from Byron". TThere could be several explanations for the present situation -e.g. 1) THe score at the RAM seems rather neat to have been a first version, and great as I believe Elgar to have been, he couldn't have dashed off this ms. pat; the quote could have been in an earlier draft. As the copy indicates that it was these sheets that were sent to the publisher, that would explain why there are no quotes in the published version. 2) Newman may have been mistaken and written out something said in conversation. Whatever, this edition of the ms. clearly doesn't have any quotes and the text of the article should be be amended accordingly imo. And Michael Kennedy and others should check original sources, as you have rightly done in bringing this to light.--Smerus (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Smerus: Many thanks for that. I concur with everything you say, and have for now commented out the quotes, and unless anyone else adds convincing views here to the contrary I'll delete them permanently in a few days' time. – Tim riley talk 19:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And now done. I've added a short hidden explanation in case anyone is ever minded to put the quotations back again. Tim riley talk 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)