Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s would have had to have been a doctor

[username65]

I cannot understand the tenses in headlines. I have taken the paragraph from the Economist, 3rd July 2021. The paragraph has told a story about a notable doctor, Joseph Lister, a British surgeon. He trained as a doctor and a surgeon, he learned about the microscopy, then he became a microscopist in 1850s. The following phrase mention about this:

Lister was thus able to bridge the gap between science and medicine. ... Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s would have had to have been a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist- seperate groups at the time.

Let's assume that the second sentence is "Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s would have had to be a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist- seperate groups at the time." What will be the meaning difference between original sentence and this revised sentence?

Thanks in advance.

 

[teechar]

I cannot understand the tense in the thread title. headlines. I have taken the paragraph The following excerpt is from the Economist, 3rd July 2021. The paragraph has told It tells a story about a notable doctor, Joseph Lister, a British surgeon. He trained as a doctor and a surgeon, and he learned about the studied microscopy. Then he became a microscopist in 1850s. The following phrase mention talks about this:

Let's assume that the second sentence is "Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s would have had to be a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist- seperate groups at the time." What will be the meaning difference in meaning between the original sentence and this revised sentence?

Thanks in advance.

Let's change the verb slightly, from "be" to "become". We get: " ... would have had to become". Do you see the change in meaning now? In other words, "be" can mean "become". Thus, "would have had to be" can imply "would have had to become" or "would have had to train as".
The original is different. It means "anyone ... would have had to have (already) trained as ...".
Do you get it now?

 

[Ostap]

Let's change the verb slightly, from "be" to "become". We get: " ... would have had to become". Do you see the change in meaning now? In other words, "be" can mean "become". Thus, "would have had to be" can imply "would have had to become" or "would have had to train as".
The original is different. It means "anyone ... would have had to have (already) trained as ...".
Do you get it now?

But why can't "to be" here just describe a state, as opposed to an action (become, train, etc) as it usually does?

Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s would have had to have been a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist.

Let's change it to a more affirmative statement implying there indeed were such cases:

Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s had to be a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist.

If it's correct without having to change it to:

Anyone trying to do the same in the 1680s had to have been a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist.

... then would would have had to be in the original sentence be possible too?

(My idea was that both versions were possible.)

 

[jutfrank]

But why can't "to be" here just describe a state, as opposed to an action (become, train, etc) as it usually does?

I think it does describe a state. I think the intended idea is that in order to bridge the gap between science and medicine, you have to be a doctor, a surgeon and a microscopist—three preconditions required for fulfilment of the task.

What will be the meaning difference between original sentence and this revised sentence?

I don't think there is a significant difference, in the mind of the writer, at least. The aspect delivered by have been (as opposed to the aspectless be) adds nothing of importance. I consider this is a case of overuse of the perfect aspect, which is quite common among native speakers. The aspect is already there in would have had to.

 

[teechar]

... then would would have had to be in the original sentence be possible too?

(My idea was that both versions were possible.)

That's certainly possible, of course. I was just showing another possibility too.