Hi Phil - help me to understand this better. I will ask a question that I don't know the answer to; then I will state what I think I know/learned from your updated essay; and then I will ask a second question. (Of course, if I've gotten something wrong in the statements I gleaned from your essay, please correct that as well).
Question: At what point/month in 1901 do you believe Tilly visited St Andrews?
Statements:
1. Tilly was not at the May 11 1901 dinner with Scott-Taylor, Old Tom and Dr. Mac.
2. Tilly had earlier in 1901 sent Scott-Taylor a set of 4 golf hole drawings, including one of the Road Hole, which Tilly had signed and dated 1901.
3. Scott-Taylor notes in his journal that he received these drawings on or about May 4, along with some of Tilly's writing about cricket and golf, and news that Tilly would likely be there in July.
4. Scott-Taylor brought the Road Hole drawing to his May 11th dinner, which is when Old Tom, Dr Mac and Scott-Taylor signed it.
5. On May 28, Scott-Taylor writes in his journal that he has received a note from Tilly (written on May 12? On scores letterhead?) thanking him for his hospitality in St Andrews.
Question: if Tilly was not there on May 11, and wouldn't be there until July, what "hospitality in St Andrews" was Tilly thanking Scott-Taylor for?
In other words, and to repeat my first question: When do you believe that Tilly was in St Andrews in 1901? Do you believe Tilly had been there between January-late April 1901?
Because if Tilly had not been there during those early months, and if he was only in St Andrews in/after July, the only way I can see for Scott-Taylor to bring a Tilly Road Hole drawing (dated 1901) to a May 11 1901 dinner was for the Tilly to have seen/photographed the hole prior to 1901 but to have only set pen to paper that year, 1901, and dated it as such.
But if that is the case, i.e. if Tilly wasn't in St Andrews until July 1901, again I find myself wondering what "hospitality in St Andrews" Tilly could've been thanking Scott-Taylor for (in the letter received on May 28, 1901)? Was it for a visit the year before?
Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Hope i haven't added to the confusion.
Peter