Each flower the dews have lightly wet

[Alexey86]

It is the hour when from the boughs
The nightingale's high note is heard.
It is the hour when lover's vows
Seem sweet in every whispered word.
And gentle winds and waters near
Make music to the lovely ear.
Each flower the dews have lightly wet
and in the sky the stars are met.
And on the wave is deeper blue
And on the leaf a browner hue.
And in the heaven that clear obscure
So softy dark, and darkly pure
Which follows the decline of day
As twilight melts beneath the moon away.

(Twilight J.G. Byron)

Questions:

1) As I see it, the line in bold can be reworded as The flowers are covered with light dew or The flowers are slightly covered with dew. Is that correct?
2) If each flower (singular) is the subject, why have?
3) Are the dews plural because each flower has its own dew?
4) Does the dews mean the dews that the flowers have?

 

[GoesStation]

Each flower the dews have lightly wet

1) As I see it, the line in bold can be reworded as The flowers are covered with light dew or The flowers are slightly covered with dew. Is that correct? Not exactly. Your sentence makes a logical conclusion but it doesn't say the same thing as the original.
2) If each flower (singular) is the subject, why have? The subject is "the dews".
3) [STRIKE]Are[/STRIKE] Is the dews plural because each flower has its own dew? No. We sometimes refer to watery things in the plural.
4) Does the dews mean the dews that the flowers have? No. It means "the dew".

GoesStation

 

[Alexey86]

it doesn't say the same thing as the original.

What exactly does the original say?

The subject is "the dews".

What do the dews have, then? Lightly wet? It doesn't make sense to me. Or, maybe have should be read as are.

And what is the syntactic role of each flower?

 

[GoesStation]

Each flower the dews have lightly wet

What do the dews have, then?

They don't have anything. They've wet — that is, dampened — the flowers, lightly.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

What exactly does the original say?

The original says, "Each flower the dews have lightly wet."

You can rephrase it this way: The dew has moistened every flower.

What do the dews have, then?

They don't have anything. Have wet is the past perfect of the verb wet.

Lightly wet? It doesn't make sense to me.

The dew didn't drench the flowers. It just wet them lightly.

Or, maybe have should be read as are.

That would not make sense.

And what is the syntactic role of each flower?

It tells us what the dew is lightly making wet: the flowers.

In American English, dew is uncountable. I don't know whether dews is still used in British English.

 

[Alexey86]

They don't have anything. They've wet — that is, dampened — the flowers, lightly.

Shame on me! I thought have was a main verb and wet was a poetic form of wetness. That's why I couldn't understand why it was preceded by the adverb lightly.

 

[GoesStation]

They don't have anything. Have wet is the [STRIKE]past[/STRIKE] present perfect of the verb "wet".

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Aha! Glad I showed up for class today!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Shame on me! I thought have was a main verb and wet was a poetic form of wetness. That's why I couldn't understand why it was preceded by the adverb lightly.

When poets rearrange the order of words, it can confuse anyone! It was a good question.

 

[Alexey86]

I thought have was a main verb

I see now why I thought so. It's because all the other verbs are in the present simple.