Which is the subject?

[nekocat]

Now fades the glimmering landscape on the sight,
And all the air a solemn stillness holds,
Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight,
And drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds;

"Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" (1751)

Which is the subject in the second line?

1. all the air
2. a solemn stillness

I guess 2 is the subject of the sentence.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I think the subject is 1. all the air.

The sentence could be reworded, "And all the air holds a solemn stillness."

 

[DoctorP]

I agree...air is the subject.

 

[pugtm]

when you are looking for the subject look at what is doing the action or being the adjective. In this case the "air" is "holding a solemn stillness" so air is the subject and "a solemn stillness" is the object.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

Guess I know why I flunked English in high school.

I would say the whole writing is to do with the stillness(quietness) of the surrounding area(air)? I would have picked "stillness" as the subject of the whole 4 lines.

Uncle Frank the dummy

 

[Sarapva]

At first I thought that "the air" was the subject, but now after reading through the replies I think that "solemn stillness" is the subject and what is holding the air. A more modern way to say it would be "a solemn stillness holds all the air". The subject and verb can be reversed in poems, especially the older ones. Here's an example - modern version: "The flowers covered all the field." Old version: "All the field the flowers covered."

 

[pugtm]

Sarapva i think you are mistaken. The modern way of saying it would be "the air holds a solemn stillness, Or the air has a solemn stillness.

 

[Sarapva]

I still think I'm right - the solemn stillness is doing the holding.

 

[DoctorP]

air + holds + stillness; air is the subject, no doubt about it.

 

[Sarapva]

I think it's stillness + holds + air as subject/verb/object.

 

[pugtm]

write it out. A solemn stillness holds the air. It doesn't make sense. A solemn stillness is a concept so it cant hold something. i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Geostigma]

I've gotta go with "air" being the subject also. It's just confusing because of the word order. It's the exact same thing as "All the air holds a solemn stillness."

 

[JimmySeal]

I think it could go either way. In this wording either could be the subject grammatically and either can make sense and produces the same result either way. I think only the poet knows for sure which one it's supposed to be.

 

[Kinsao]

I think it could be either or both, and it doesn't even matter too much... (but then again, I like these kinds of ambiguities, and poetry ;-) )

 

[Sarapva]

I can see how it could go either way, too. Yes, the poet is probably the only one who knows which it's supposed to be. In poetry, though, something that's not concrete could be doing something to something else, like the stillness holding the air. But I'll concede here since the majority thinks it's the other way.

 

[made of stone]

The sentence could be reworded, "And all the air holds a solemn stillness."

That would be equally poetic (imho) but is quite different from the original, Mikawa san!

At first I thought that "the air" was the subject, but now after reading through the replies I think that "solemn stillness" is the subject and what is holding the air. A more modern way to say it would be "a solemn stillness holds all the air". The subject and verb can be reversed in poems, especially the older ones. Here's an example - modern version: "The flowers covered all the field." Old version: "All the field the flowers covered."

You are absolutely correct, and seem to have an uncanny sense of the way English works Sarapva san - touche!

write it out. A solemn stillness holds the air. It doesn't make sense. A solemn stillness is a concept so it cant hold something. i think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

In poetry or prose anything is possible pugtm san!!

I think it could go either way.

It can't go either way - it's absolutely defined. 'Solemn stillness' is the subject Jimmy san, (if you think about it, 'the air' doesn't take a verb, which should remove any doubt).

made of back-on-the-pc-for-a-couple-of-hours-till-it-crashes-again-probably

 

[The7thSamurai]

"Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" (1751)
Which is the subject in the second line?
1. all the air
2. a solemn stillness
I guess 2 is the subject of the sentence.

The subject is "a solemn stillness". The object is "all the air".

Hmm, on second thought I think it could go either way too.

"All the air holds a solemn stillness"
"A solemn stillness holds all the air"

Only the poet would know.

 

[JimmySeal]

It can't go either way - it's absolutely defined. 'Solemn stillness' is the subject Jimmy san, (if you think about it, 'the air' doesn't take a verb, which should remove any doubt).

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the air doesn't take a verb" but word order doesn't tell us a lot here. With this kind of poetic order, it becomes ambiguous, as in

"And if I die before I wake I pray the Lord my soul to take."
Subject-Object-Verb

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Solemn stillness is the subject. The air isn't doing anything, the modern interpretation wouldn't be 'The air holds a solemn stillness', it'd be the opposite, 'A solemn stillness holds the air'. It can't go both ways either, there is only one meaning.

The solemn stillness is presumed to be encompassing or forcing its will on the air, the stillness is not something found within the air or as a part of the air. The stillness is meant to be greater than the air, this apriori meaning is what's emphasized through this passage.

 

[pugtm]

this is really confusing and annoying. Who is this poet anyways? Is he still alive? Maybe we can ask him.

 

[JimmySeal]

The solemn stillness is presumed to be encompassing or forcing its will on the air, the stillness is not something found within the air or as a part of the air. The stillness is meant to be greater than the air, this apriori meaning is what's emphasized through this passage.

Based on what? You're basically saying, "the air isn't holding a solemn stillness because it isn't."
I think "The air holds a solemn stillness." is perfectly equivalent to "There is a solemn stillness in the air."

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

This is great. If we all agreed, it wouldn't be poetry, would it?

 

[nekocat]

I never expected this question to get this many answers! It's really interesting. bakakanadajin's answer convinced me more than others.

Thanks a lot!

 

[bakaKanadajin]

Based on what? You're basically saying, "the air isn't holding a solemn stillness because it isn't."
I think "The air holds a solemn stillness." is perfectly equivalent to "There is a solemn stillness in the air."

Keep in mind I'm not arguing just articulating my personal interpretation

If we break down the original sentence we have:

"...a solemn stillness holds,"

To me the subject verb relationship is quite clear hear. The only difference is that in modern English we'd have the object last, but in this case it comes first. It remains (in my mind) that the object is 'all the air', again emphasizing that the stillness exists before the air.

I think if the verse was trying to say that a stillness "holds" where holds = remains, exists, stays, etc., and that the air is the subject that possesses the stillness as a quality or function of itself, we'd need some kind of preposition or something. For example:

"And in all the air a solemn stillness holds."

But I do not think the 'in' is meant to be there (obviously it's not there but I mean, it's not there in meaning or unspoken sentiment either), so the arrangement of the stillness pre-existing the air seems like the poetic meaning here.

 

[Supervin]

'A solemn stillness' is the subject.

It can be rewritten as:
'And a solemn stillness holds all the air'.

But since the poet wanted to emphasize the object, he moved 'all the air' to the front of the sentence.

That's all there is to it.