[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by Carl Copeland

- “you wert thou”—The subject is “you,” so the verb should be “were,” regardless of period.

I dunno. "wert" is second person singular, so would have been used with "thou", and the point being made, I think, is that "thou" has become "you". You who I now call "you", I would have called "thou". So my take is that the N has substituted the modern "you" and kept the archaic verb, intentionally mixing modern and archaic for effect. For me, that works.

But, a different issue: should it be "wert" or "wast"?

Many online sources give "wert" as subjunctive and "wast" for the indicative. This seems to be the case for Shakespeare and the King James Bible (which is usefully searchable by word), at least:

Thus Romeo says:

"Thou wast never with me for anything ..."

Ezequiel, King James Bible:

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways ..."

Whereas Falstaff, using the subjunctive, says

"I would thou wert a man's tailor ..."

ditto Job, King James Bible:

"If thou wert pure and upright ..."

So, maybe it should be "When you wast thou" rather than "wert"?

That said, no doubt exceptions to the above occurred at different times and in different regional dialects. Still, I guess that raises the question: Exactly when and where is the N wishing to have born? Or maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe any inaccuracies (assuming this even is one) are permissible on the grounds that they'd bear out the poem's conceit that he wasn't!

-Matt

[Glenn Wright]

Hi, N—

Nice callback to Horace in the last line!
Glenn

[Carl Copeland]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I dunno. "wert" is second person singular, so would have been used with "thou", and the point being made, I think, is that "thou" has become "you". You who I now call "you", I would have called "thou". So my take is that the N has substituted the modern "you" and kept the archaic verb, intentionally mixing modern and archaic for effect. For me, that works.

Ok, if it’s intentionally ungrammatical, I guess I can accept that, though I personally don’t think the effect, whatever it is, is enough to compensate.

[Joe Crocker]

Or as Shelley said in To a Skylark "Hail to thee blithe spirit! Bird thou never wert". Should that be wertn't or wastn't?

I think Joyce Grenfell had it about right

[Christine P'legion]

Hi N.M.,

I won't ding you for wanting to write in an anachronistic idiom; there is a time and place for poetic pastiche/mimicry and I've seen it used to very powerful effect. One of my all-time favourite novels is A. S. Byatt's Possession, which won the Booker prize in the mid-90s and is absolutely full of this sort of thing, albeit imitating a more modern period than you are here.

To really pull it off, however, will probably require you to (a) choose a distinct time period -- people have noted that your expressions seem to be ranging between the centuries a bit -- and then (b) really deeply immerse yourself in the language and literature of that period. So if you want to write in Elizabethan/Shakespearean English, for example, that means reading not just Shakespeare for drama but also Marlowe, Dekker, Kyd, Middleton, Fletcher, Jonson, etc.; for prose, probably a lot of the English reformers, the Book of Common Prayer, and the King James Bible; for poetry (besides Shakespeare), Spencer, Sidney, Jonson, and Campion.

In the meantime, as you're doing this deep reading, I echo Matt's earlier suggestion that writing poetry in your own contemporary idiom will also be helpful in terms of increasing your general poetic skill; the tools you will gain this way will, of course, be available to you regardless of which era or style you write in.

[N. Matheson]

I think it's become apparent what I desire is simply impossible. If I'd been born 400 years ago maybe, but what I want is to be as skilled and versatile as those poets were. But I do not think I have that talent, nor is it even achievable.

[R. Nemo Hill]

N, it is easy, in the present, to imagine that poets, in the distant past, sprang fully formed from the womb. But, though there may be some magic involved, that magic was only realized through hard labor, and frustrations lived through. The gilding of language you seem to long for so earnestly is more a quality of time, the buff and polish of years and years passing: I suspect it's the distance from the present moment that supplies the light that gleams and glitters so.

If your task seems unachievable, I don't think that is due to any lack of talent, only to an unwillingness to face the tasks at hand rather than taking refuge in tasks long-since accomplished.

Nemo

[N. Matheson]

Up to a point, yes. But I find it hard to believe any amount of skill can make one rival the likes of Shakespeare.

[Carl Copeland]

N., I remember you saying that if you couldn’t rival Shakespeare, you should give up writing. If all writers felt that way, English literature would have ended with Shakespeare—or Chaucer—or the Beowulf poet. Virgil would have put his stylus away after reading Homer.

In the Middle Ages, some thought of it this way:

“Who sees further a dwarf or a giant? Surely a giant for his eyes are situated at a higher level than those of the dwarf. But if the dwarf is placed on the shoulders of the giant who sees further? ... So too we are dwarfs astride the shoulders of giants. We master their wisdom and move beyond it.”

To Nemo’s advice, let me add that most people born 400 years ago had very limited horizons. Judging from my family tree, I probably would have been an illiterate farmer with no room in my head for anything poetic. Be glad that you live in a time when you can grow in so many directions—including back to Elizabethan poetry.

[Roger Slater]

Carl, I think the "on the shoulders of giants" metaphor is usually attributed to Isaac Newton. At any rate, he wrote in a letter to Robert Hooke in 1675: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”.

Years ago I read a book that explored the origin of this phrase/metaphor, though I've forgotten much that I learned. I do recall that it was a fabulous book that I enjoyed quite a bit. This is it.

Stephen Hawking and Umberto Echo also wrote books with the same title.