Ancient World of the Poet and Performance in 

Janika Päll*1 

Abstract: This paper studies the means by which Ants Oras, scholar and professor of 
English and world literature, literary critic and translator, recreates the poetic space of 
ancient Greek hymns in his translations. The paper analyses his use of deictics (local, 
personal and temporal) in his translations of three Homeric Hymns: the 1st part of 
Hymn No. 3, to Delian Apollo, the Hymn No. 19, to Pan, and especially Hymn No 5 
to Aphrodite. The special focus is on the initial and final parts of the hymns, where 
the Greek text reflects performance context, whereas Oras presents the poems in a 
more general, hymnal setting, leaving out the references which reveal the function of 
these hymns as epic prooemium. 

The analysis of the deictics within the Hymn to Aphrodite reveals that Oras does 
not adhere strictly to the third person viewpoint of the narrator (as opposed to first 
person in direct speeches of the characters), but enlivens his narration by frequent 
deictics which refer to narrator’s viewpoint, the poet’s ‘I’, or ‘here’ and ‘now’. This can 
only be occasionally explained with metrical reasons (preference to use monosyl-
labic deictics). This pattern of enlivening is in accordance to other practices, used by 
Oras in these translations: frequent personification of impersonalia (flight, mind) and 
multiplication of actors (objects of action becoming subjects, passive constructions 
turned active, and so on). 

Keywords: Ants Oras, translation, Ancient Greek poetry, Homeric Hymns, Sappho

Introduction

This paper studies the means by which Ants Oras in his translations recreates 
the poetic space of the performance of ancient Greek hymns, paying special 
attention to his use of deictics in the translation of the Homeric Hymn (No. 
5) to Aphrodite (Oras 1976).

Ants Oras has been important both for Estonian literary culture and the 
study of English literature world-wide. One of his biggest achievements was 
his translations of Virgil (Lange 2004, Lange 2007, Aunin, Lange eds. 2008). 

* Author’s address: Janika Päll, University of Tartu Library, W. Struve 1, Tartu 50091, Estonia, 
email: janika.pall@ut.ee. 

Studia Metrica et Poetica 2.2, 2015, 73–101

doi: dx.doi.org/10.12697/smp.2015.2.2.06

Translations by Ants Oras

http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/smp.2015.2.2.06


74 Janika Päll

As a literary critic Oras had been deeply interested in prosody, which finds 
a parallel in his essays of recreating the music of Virgilian hexameters.1 His 
translations of Virgil have been studied by a number of scholars.2 In the after-
word to the reprint of Oras’s translations of Virgil, Jaan Unt presents a short 
sketch of Estonian Virgiliana and also mentions his translation of the Homeric 
Hymn to Aphrodite.3 Although seemingly out of the more English- or Latin-
oriented focus of Oras, this translation is an appendix to his Virgiliana, as it 
tells the love-story of Venus and Anchises, which leads to the birth of the hero 
of the Aeneid.4 Belonging to the genre of epic prooemium (Kirk 1989: 69)5 and 
having common features with both the epic and lyric hymns,6 the hymn to 
Aphrodite offers excellent material for comparing the approaches of Oras in 
translations of works belonging to different genres.

I have followed the hypothesis that although deictic words have an extremely 
important role in the creation of poetic space, Oras translates them mostly 
intuitively, focusing on their sound and rhythm and not their referential or 
deictic functions.7 This implies that although the translator may be well aware 
of certain grammatical or lexical features (for example of different grades of 
deixis) in his source and target languages,8 such distinctions do not always 
appear in the translations. In case of deixis the possible result is that differ-

1 See Oras 1962, his prefaces to the translations of the Bucolics and Aeneid (in Vergilius 1992) 
and the letters where he tells: “The result is a new kind of music resembling in a way the Latin 
language and Virgil – the Virgil of nostalgias” (Oras in Olesk ed. 1997: 171, translation in Lange 
2007: 34).
2 Mägiste 1976, Unt 1992, Lange 2004: 377–394, Lotman 2012: 141–142.
3 For the complete list of works of ancient authors translated by Oras, see EAB 2014, cf. Lange 
2007: 42–47. 
4 In his youth Oras had presented verses 57–58 of this hymn as an illustration (inter alia) to 
his claim that Shelley is much more ‘graphic’ in his descriptions of love scenes than the Greeks 
(1938: 35–37).
5 On their genre as an autonomous type of hexameter epic, see Clay 2011.
6 See Gerber 1997: 1–2, 6–8 for the role of ‘I’ – correspondingly on the foreground or back-
ground – as the major distinction between lyric and epic poetry.
7 Vincent Leitsch (2008: 23) characterises Oras the critic as disinterested in imagery, rhetoric 
and textual unity, but the use of narratological devices and deixis could be easily added to this list.
8 Such as different grades of demonstrative pronouns ὅδε, οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος this here, that and 
that (the more remote) in ancient Greek; the distinction between direct deixis, deixis am Phan-
tasma and anaphora (Bühler 1990: 93–95, Latacz 1994: 313–321, and Felson ed. 2004). For the 
deictics in Estonian, see Pajusalu 1999.



75Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

ent types of deictic words (personal/demonstrative, local, temporal) become 
mutually interchangeable, especially when the perspective of narration and 
the deictic centre (singer/narrator, character) remain unchanged. This means, 
for example, that the ‘here’ in the source text can become ‘now’ in translation, 
‘I’ can be translated with ‘here’ etc. But the perspective itself and the deictic 
centre can be shifted as well, either completely or partially; for example direct 
speech can be replaced with indirect speech, active voice can become passive 
and the grammatical subject can become the object in the sentence.9

Oras has discussed the role of several monosyllabic deictics (for example 
nüüd, siis trans. ‘now’, ‘then’) in translation from the aspect of prosody, examin-
ing their stressed or unstressed position in the sentence and the possibilities of 
using them as so-called anceps syllables (used either for long or short syllables) 
in hexameter (Vergilius 1992: 59). Verse translation, especially quantitative 
translation into stress languages, has very compelling constraints, which must 
be taken into account: a choice of one word over another can result from a need 
to fill the available space in a verse. 10 However, a closer reading can reveal other 
tendencies, preferences and choices than only those resulting from prosody. 
For this, I begin with an analysis of typical epic prooemia: the beginnings of 
Homer’s and Virgil’s epic poems, aiming to explain the background for Oras’s 
recreation of the poetic space in his translations of Homeric hymns. 

Homeric hymns as epic prooemia between lyric and epic 
poetry

The world of ancient epic poetry with its boundaries in time and space is created 
by the words of a singer (or poet’s ‘I’) through clearly distinguished and well-
studied means.11 The longer Homeric hymns use the same narrative patterns 
(background third person narrator with character speeches) as the epic. The 
study of these patterns, based on the distinction between diegesis and mimesis, 
telling and showing or narrator’s text and character speech, has a long history, 

9 A series of student papers dedicated to the study of deictics in Estonian translations of 
Hesiod, Plato, Virgil and Euripides (correspondingly Baikov 2008, Pille 2008, Tuulmets 2008; 
Kärtna 2010, Parvits 2010; Kiss 2010; Rootsma 2011) has revealed all these tendencies which 
occur alongside strictly accurate translations.
10 See Brunet ed. 2014 for the discussion from the perspective of translators of quantitative 
verse in different languages (Päll 2014 for Estonian).
11 See, for example, Latacz 1994, 2000, Gerber ed. 1997, de Jong 2004.



76 Janika Päll

beginning with Plato (Rep. III book, 392c–395) and Aristotle (Poet. 1448a and 
1460a) and continuing with modern narratology (de Jong 2004: 5–8). 

Greek epic song often begins with a prooemium, the singer’s address to the 
Muse, whom he exhorts to tell the story. The passage from the prayer to the 
narration is usually unmarked (syntactically and/or lexically) and the singer, 
who in the beginning defined the boundaries of the performance space (his 
‘I’ and the Muse) disappears into the background, leaving only traces. The 
beginnings of Homeric hymns are similar to the epic, but not the ends, where 
the singer reappears and closes the circle, re-establishing his presence by an 
address to the god (Nünlist 2004: 35–36). This return to the prayer and poetic 
‘I’ makes Homeric hymns close to the hymns in archaic lyric.12

The central narration in the hymns, which has been authorised by the 
address to the Muse,13 follows the joint perspective of the singer and the 
Muse,14 as a rule without references to the deictic centre and corresponding 
to the narrator’s background role.15 In longer hymns, secondary perspectives 
appear in character speeches, which introduce their own deictic centres: thus 
the ‘I-You’ relationship of the singer and the divinity (the Muse, the god) can 
be replaced by the ‘I-You’ relationship of the characters. 

My first goal is to see whether these quite strict rules of presentation of 
performance space in Greek epic prooemia are also observed in Estonian 
translations.

The prooemia of ancient epic poems in Estonian translations 

The beginnings of Homer’s poems establish the performance situation from 
verse one. In the Odyssey, the address to the Muse is accompanied by unstressed 
deictic μοι (me), referring to the singer, whereas in the Iliad the address is 

12 See Fränkel 1955, Fowler 1987.
13 For the role of Muses as guardians of truth and memory, see Detienne 1990: 9–12.
14 Calame (1986 and 2005) studied Homeric hymns from the point of view of enunciation, 
extra-and intratextual relations. I prefer to speak of a joint perspective in places where he speaks 
of ‘dédoublement’ or projection of the role of the ‘I’ of the singer to the Muse (Calame 1986: 
20–23 or 40–41).
15 The deictic centre can be also marked by the first person verb forms or, in the case of 
address, by the use of second person verb forms, imperative or vocative; see Dickey 2003 (for 
vocatives), de Jong 2004: 54–60, 13 for focalisation, and 2004: 180–188 for deixis in messenger 
speeches.



77Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

presented without a deictic pronoun (although the use of vocative establishes the 
‘I-You’ relationship). August Annist,16 the author of the first and only complete 
Estonian translations of both Homeric epics, has maintained this difference: 

Homer, Odyssey, v.1 translations
Ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, Μοῦσα Tell me, o Muse, of this hero
Annist: Jutusta mulle, oh Muusa, sest 
sangarist 

Tell me, o Muse, of this hero

Bergmann: Meest mulle nimeta, muusa Name me the man, oh Muse 
Öpik: Meest mulle nimeta, muus Name me the man, oh Muse 

Annist used the strong, longer form of the first person pronoun, thus slightly 
underlining the reference to the deictic centre. Other, earlier translators of the 
first song of Odyssey, Jaan Bergmann and Anna Öpik used the first person 
pronoun in a similar way.17 

The beginning of the Iliad in Greek does not use the first person pro-
noun for an explicit reference to the deictic centre, and neither do most of its 
Estonian translators: 

Homer, Iliad, v.1 translations
Μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος Sing, o Goddess, the anger of Peleides, 

Achilleus 
Annist: Laula nüüd, oh, jumalanna, 
Peleides Achilleuse vimmast 

Sing now, o Goddess, the anger of 
Peleides, Achilleus

Ridala: Laula, oh jumalatar Peeleidi 
Achillese viha  

Sing, o Goddess, the wrath of Peleides 
Achilleus

Lõo: Laul jumaltar sa vihast Peleuspoja 
loo Akhileusi 

You, Goddess, compose a song about 
the wrath of the son of Peleus, Achilleus. 

Metslang: Kuuluta mulle, oh muusa, 
Peleides-Achilleuse vaenu

Announce me, oh Muse, the wrath of 
Peleid Achilleus

However, Annist added a temporal deictic adverb nüüd (‘now’), underlining 
the performance time (present) and poetic context, which in Homer is marked 

16 I refer to August Annist, who was the versifier. As Annist collaborated closely with his 
editor, Hellenist Karl Reitav, in newer bibliographies both have been named as authors of the 
translation (EAB 2014). All quotations from Homer and Homeric hymns are from the edition 
of Allen 1904, TLG version, translations, if not indicated otherwise, are my own.
17 For texts, see Eesti värss: http://www.ut.ee/verse/index.php?&m=authors&aid=2&obj=poe
ms&apid=861 and Antiigiveeb, http://www.fl.ut.ee/et/519342.

http://www.ut.ee/verse/index.php?&m=authors&aid=2&obj=poems&apid=861)
http://www.ut.ee/verse/index.php?&m=authors&aid=2&obj=poems&apid=861)


78 Janika Päll

only by the address.18 Other translators of Iliad’s beginning, Villem Ridala, Jaan 
Lõo and Linda Metslang have not changed the type of deictic.19 Lõo added the 
unstressed form of the second person pronoun, perhaps in order to fill a space 
of one short syllable in the hexameter, and Linda Metslang added first person 
pronoun mulle (‘to me’).20 In Estonian, the transitive use of the verb meenu-
tama, meelde tooma (‘to remember’) needs a complement which indicates to 
whom something is remembered. 

When we compare Homeric beginnings to the opening verse of Virgil’s 
Aeneid, we see that the focus on the poet’s self-consciousness is stronger in the 
Roman epic, as well as its translation. Virgil does not abandon the traditional 
appeal to the Muse, which occurs slightly later, in verse 8 with a stressed pro-
noun mihi in the phrase-initial position:21 

v. 1: Arma virumque cano The swords (I) sing and the man. 
Oras: Mõõku ma laulan ja meest The swords I sing and the man. 
v. 8: Musa, mihi causas memora Muse, remind me the reasons 
Oras: Meelde, oo Muusa, mul põhjused 
too

Muse, bring to me into mind the rea-
sons 

Anvelt: Meenuta mulle, oh muusa Remind me, Oh Muse.... 

The pronoun mul (‘for me’) is present both in Oras’s (who uses its weaker 
form) as Leo Anvelt’s translation,22 who uses the longer, more stressed form. 
In verse 1 Oras uses the first person pronoun in the role of the subject (as 
usual in Estonian). 

These examples demonstrate that in Estonian translations of Homeric and 
Virgilian epic prooemia, a tradition has been established to translate the deic-
tics occurring in Greek or Latin text by corresponding Estonian deictic words 
(although occasionally with a slight increase or reduction of the deictic centre, 

18 Nüüd (‘now’) in Estonian is slightly ambivalent, as it can be also used as hortative particle, 
similarly to corresponding particles νυν and nunc in Greek and Latin. 
19 For texts, see: Eesti värss, http://www.ut.ee/verse/index.php?&m=authors&aid=12&obj=p
oems&apid=1188 and Eesti värss, http://www.ut.ee/verse/index.php?&m=authors&aid=9&ob
j=poems&apid=1382. 
20 For texts, see: Antiigiveeb, http://www.fl.ut.ee/et/524324.
21 Here and later the words inserted by translators are presented in round brackets, for exam-
ple, personal pronouns in the role of subject, which are not needed (as the case ending indicates 
the person) in Greek and Latin. 
22 In: Kaalep, Torpats eds. 1971: 296. 



79Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

connected to the singer), thereby recreating the spatio-temporal field of the 
performance. Now it is time to study the approach of Ants Oras in the case of 
independent epic prooemia, the Homeric hymns. 

The performance context in Oras’s translations of Homeric 
hymns

Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite begins and ends traditionally, with framing 
prayers.23 The singer asks the Muse for inspiration and then steps into the 
background, telling the love-story of his divine addressee, Aphrodite, with a 
mortal man, Anchises, and introducing their speeches occasionally. 

The address to the Muse in verse 1 indicates the two participants of the 
performance situation (the singer and the Muse) as well as the story’s main 
character and addressee, Aphrodite. The presence of the poet is stressed by the 
first person pronoun μοι (‘me’). In his translation Oras omits the first person 
pronoun, but maintains the imperative ἔννεπε (‘narrate’, Estonian jutusta):24

Μοῦσά μοι ἔννεπε ἔργα πολυχρύσου 
Ἀφροδίτης 

EW: Muse, tell me the deeds of golden 
Aphrodite the Cyprian 

Oras: Laulutar, jutusta lood Aphroditest 
kuldkiharkaunist

Singer, tell the stories about Aphrodite 
with beautiful golden locks

Through this omission Oras reduces the references to the deictic centre and 
performance situation, although the second person imperative and address 
still indicate it. This might be explained by prosodic constraints,25 but not the 
next omission, which occurs in the end of the hymn. In the end of the Greek 
text (verses 292–293) the performance situation is re-established by the singer’s 
address to Aphrodite: 

23 For circular structures see Fränkel 1955: 97, van Groningen 1958: 51–56, Nünlist 2004, 
compare Norden 1913. 
24 Thus the imperative is left without a complement which it usually requires in Estonian. The 
translations of Hugh Evelyn-White (1914) are indicated with EW. 
25 It might be difficult to find an appropriate translation in Estonian hexameters for the 
genitive formula πολυχρύσου Ἀφροδίτης (‘very golden Aphrodite’), which typically for the 
appositive epic style occurs in the end of the verse, whereas in Estonian, (genitive) complements 
need to precede the noun, not follow it. It would be easy (and smoother from the point of view 
of quantitative verse) to replace the second word jutusta (  ∪), not quite fitting into the 
first foot) by Ütle mul ( ∪ ∪)’ (‘tell me’), but the result would sound too prosaic. 



80 Janika Päll

Χαῖρε θεὰ Κύπροιο ἐϋκτιμένης 
μεδέουσα· 

σεῦ δ’ ἐγὼ ἀρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι 
ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον. 

EW: Hail, goddess, queen of well-build-
ed Cyprus! 

with you have I begun; now (I) will turn 
(me) to another hymn 

The address in verse 292 alone is sufficient as a reference to the performance 
situation, but in v. 293 it is followed by explicit auto-reference of the singer 
with two stressed deictics in phrase- and verse-initial positions: σεῦ δ’ ἐγώ 
(‘with you I’). However, Oras finishes his translation before these two verses 
(in verse 211, corresponding to v. 291 in Greek) with the end of the speech of 
Aphrodite, foretelling the future.26

The relatively short Homeric hymn to Pan (Hymn No. 19) is similarly 
framed by the addresses to the divinities, establishing the performance situ-
ation. The first verse adhorts the Muse to tell the singer the story of Hermes: 

Ἀμφί μοι Ἑρμείαο φίλον γόνον ἔννεπε 
Μοῦσα 

EW: Muse, tell me about Pan, the dear 
son of Hermes 

Oras: Jutusta, Muusa, mis teeb [...] // 
Hermese poeg 

Tell, Muse, what does [...] the son of 
Hermes

Oras again omits the first person pronoun which refers to the deictic centre 
and the performer (the deictic centre is indicated only through the use of 
the imperative). In the end of the hymn he follows the same pattern as in the 
case of the hymn to Aphrodite and leaves the final verses with the poet’s auto-
reference (in verses 48–49 of the Greek text) untranslated:

26 Oras usually shortens and joins verses within a paragraph (see the table below) and even 
omits several passages (v. 48–52, 202–246 and 292–293). As a result the 293 verses of this hymn 
are reduced to 211 in his translation. 

Table 1. Correspondence of verse numbers in shortened passages in the hymn to Aphrodite and its 
translation.

“Homer” Oras “Homer” Oras “Homer” Oras “Homer” Oras “Homer” Oras
25–32 25–31 60–64 50–52 113–125 97–107 176–179 152–154 256–258 183–184
36–38 35–36 69–74 58–62 126–129 108–110 180–184 155–158 259–268 185–191
45–48,
53–55

43–47 75–83 63–69 150–154 130–133 192–195 166–168 269–272 192–194

56–59 48–49 95–99 81–83 157–166 136–142 249–254 177–181 273–275 195–196
280–283 201–203



81Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

Καὶ σὺ μὲν οὕτω χαῖρε ἄναξ, ἵλαμαι δέ 
σ’ ἀοιδῇ· 

αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ’ 
ἀοιδῆς. 

EW: And so hail to you, lord! I seek your 
favour with a song.

And now I will remember you and an-
other song also. 

These two translations follow an identical pattern: Oras addresses the Muse, 
but subdues the reference to the singer’s ‘I’ and omits the closure, where 
the poet addresses the god and promises to proceed to the next hymn. So it 
seems that Oras does not consider it important to present these hymns as epic 
prooemia. Moreover, his tendency to omit first person pronouns is contrary to 
the general practice of translating from ancient languages into Estonian where 
the number of personal pronouns (including first person) in target language 
is usually greater than in source language, because the grammatical subject 
normally needs to be expressed by a noun or pronoun.27 

The example of his Hymn to Delian Apollo is different. It is the translation 
of the first part of Homeric Hymn No. 3, which is exceptional among Homeric 
hymns because of its two-fold structure28 and the mixture of second and third 
person narrations in the middle part (Nünlist 2004: 36, esp. 40–42).29 The hymn 
begins with a first person statement of the singer who promises to remember 
Apollo, thus taking the role of the guardian of memory onto himself:

Μνήσομαι οὐδὲ λάθωμαι Ἀπόλλωνος 
ἑκάτοιο 

EW: (I) will remember and not be un-
mindful of Apollo who shoots afar 

Oras: Meeles on, meelest ei eal kao 
kaugelelaskja Apollon.

Apollo, the far-shooting is remembered 
and shall not be forgotten.

Murdvee: Meeles mul, vaikida ei Apol-
lonist saa 

 (He is) in my memory, (I) cannot be 
silent of Apollo 

Two Greek first person verb forms in phrase- and verse-initial position 
firmly establish the performance situation, drawing attention to the singer 
in the focus, but at the same time also pointing to the future, away from the 

27 Differently from ancient Greek and Latin, where the use of the third person personal pro-
noun is very rare and demonstrative pronouns are used, in Estonian the third person personal 
pronoun is usual, and demonstrative pronouns can only very rarely be used for referring to 
persons. 
28 So-called Delian and Pythian hymns, for the arguments in favour of unity, see Clay 2006, 
Steinrück 1992. 
29 The apostrophes can be connected to the divine, and third person narration to the human 
layer of the story, see Steinrück 1992: 255–256. 



82 Janika Päll

temporal centre.30 In the beginning of his translation, Oras omits any refer-
ences to singer’s ‘I’. He also changes the sentence so that that the god Apollo 
(the addressee and main character of the hymn), grammatical object in Greek 
sentence, becomes the grammatical subject in the translation. Apollo is thus 
clearly in focus, but presented outside the performance context. As a result 
of this change the transitive first person verb form ‘remember’ appears as a 
third person verb complement (Apollon on meeles [Apollo is remembered]), 
but without any first person pronoun, which would indicate the person who 
remembers (singer’s ‘I’). This does not result from prosodic constraints: it 
would have been easy to insert the first person pronoun (‘mul’), as was done 
by another translator, Mari Murdvee (Murdvee 2006: 71). 

The end of this hymn (verses 545–546) includes a finishing formula with 
a reference to the performance situation (similar to the hymn to Pan), but it 
cannot be taken into account in the analysis, because Oras did not translate 
the second part of the hymn. However, the end of the first part of the poem 
includes another auto-referential passage, which occurs in Oras’s translation 
as well. 

After the narration about the birth of Apollo, the narrator describes the 
choir of Delian girls who sing in the honour of the god (v. 156–178). The 
singer addresses the choir in direct speech, referring to himself in first person 
plural, asking to remember him in the future and to answer the questions of 
wondering stranger, who will ask: Whom think ye, girls, is the sweetest singer 
that comes here, and in whom do you most delight? (v. 169–170, translation by 
Evelyn-White) 

The short questions of stranger and the choir’s answer are similarly pre-
sented in direct speech. The choir’s answer to the singer’s exhortation functions 
as a kind of sphragis, author’s signature (Kirk 1989: 72), referring to the singer 
as a blind man from Chios, whose songs are supreme. Thus the narrator 
becomes a character in his own story (Steinrück 1992: 255) and the choir takes 
the role of the singer as praise-giver, but only briefly, as the singer takes his 
role back and promises to give in his turn the fame to the choir (see v. 173–178 
below). 

In the history of Greek literature this singer (and author) has been identi-
fied with Cynaithios from Chios, but the same passage has also supported the 

30 It occurs often in the beginnings of lyric songs, where song-initial verbs (and especially the 
first person forms) establish the spatio-temporal field at once (Päll 2005: 335–338, for general 
background, Devine, Stephens 1994: 381, 456–460, Dik 1995: 12–13).



83Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

legend about Homer as a blind singer.31 In this performance inside a perfor-
mance the main deictic centre is for a moment shifted from the singer to the 
stranger (in v. 169–170) and then to the choir (in v. 172–173, both without 
explicit references to a new deictic centre) and the back to the singer, whereas 
the shift in time is indicated by future verb forms (in v. 174, 176): 

v. 171–176: ὑμεῖς δ’ εὖ μάλα πᾶσαι 
ὑποκρίνασθ’ ἀμφ’ ἡμέων· 

τυφλὸς ἀνήρ, οἰκεῖ δὲ Χίῳ ἔνι 
παιπαλοέσσῃ, 

τοῦ πᾶσαι μετόπισθεν ἀριστεύουσιν 
ἀοιδαί. 

ἡμεῖς δ’ ὑμέτερον κλέος οἴσομεν ὅσσον 
ἐπ’ αἶαν 

ἀνθρώπων στρεφόμεσθα πόλεις εὖ 
ναιεταώσας· 

οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ δὴ πείσονται, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐτήτυμόν 
ἐστιν. 

EW (Then) answer [about us], each and 
all, with one voice:“He is a blind man, 
and dwells in rocky Chios: his lays are 
evermore supreme.” 

As for me [=us], (I) [=we] will carry 
your renown as far as (I) [=we] roam 
over the earth to the well-placed cities 
of man, and they will believe also; for 
indeed this thing is true. 

Oras, v. 147: Teie siis kõik ühes koos siis 
kostke ja vastake talle:

“Üks pime mees elab kaljusel Chiose 
saarel,

kõikidest teitest ta laul jääb kauneimaks 
iidigavesti.”

Siis teie kuulsuse viin maa viimsesse, 
kaugesse äärde, 

kõikjale kannan, kus linnad on püstitet 
kõrged ja kaunid,

kõikjal siis ustakse mind [=me], sest 
see, mis ma ütlen, on õige.

You all together answer and tell him: 

 “A blind man dwells in rocky island of 
Chios: 

his songs about you all will be forever 
supreme.” 

Then (I) will carry your renown to the 
far end of the earth, 

everywhere where high and beautiful 
cities have been built, 

then I’ll be believed everywhere, 
because what I say is true. 

The choir’s answer is in the Greek text framed by the singer’s autoreferences in 
the first person plural, which is uncharacteristic for Homeric hymns, but very 

31 See Allen and Sykes 1904 ad v. 172 and v. 169 (quoting Hesiod’s fr. 227). 



84 Janika Päll

typical in Greek lyric hymns (which are performed by choirs);32 the deictic 
centre is expanded from ‘I’ to ‘we’. In his translation of the singer’s exhorta-
tion (v. 171 in Greek text), Oras uses the second person plural pronoun and 
imperative, but omits the explicit reference (the ‘we’) to the deictic centre and 
indicates the new addressee (the stranger) with the third person pronoun. 
He twice uses the adverb siis (‘then’), referring to the future (Estonian does 
not have morphological future). In three verses following the choir’s answer, 
Oras returns to the local deictic centre (‘here’) of the singer, but renders the 
choir’s ‘we’ with the singular first person pronoun, clearly re-establishing the 
deictic centre of the singer in place and in person, but remaining in the future 
(indicated again by siis ‘then’). 

The end of the first part of the Greek text includes the singer’s shift to the 
initial, first person singular deictic centre without a direct address to the god; 
the singer himself is in the role of the guardian of memory and promises to 
sing about Apollo:

v. 177–178: αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν οὐ λήξω 
ἑκηβόλον Ἀπόλλωνα 

ὑμνέων ἀργυρότοξον ὃν ἠΰκομος τέκε 
Λητώ. 

EW: And I will never cease to praise far-
shooting Apollo, 

god of the silver bow, whom rich-haired 
Leto bare. 

Oras: Sind üha kiidan ma ent, hõbeam-
muga ambuv Apollon,

Sind, keda ilmale tõi kiharkaunis här-
randlik Leto!

You I’ll praise without ceasing, Apollo 
who shoots with silver bow,

you, whom imperious Leto with fair 
hair has brought into the world.

The stressed Greek personal pronoun ‘I’ in a strong, phrase-initial position is here 
translated with the unstressed ‘I’ in a weak position by Oras. But the reference 
to Apollo (which in Greek is in the third person, using his name and epithets 
and a relative clause) has been replaced in Estonian by a double apostrophe, 
addressing the god with two stressed second person pronouns in verse-initial 
positions (sind). Thus Oras changes the performance landscape where the singer 
is in the focus into another one, where the deictic centre of the singer becomes 
less important than his subject, the god, whom the poet addresses. 

In his short postscript to the translation, Oras mentions that these final 
verses are the basis for the legend that Homer was a blind singer from the 

32 For this fluctuation between ‘I’ in singular and the plural form, and the role of the choir in it, 
see Lefkowitz 1963, 1991: 9–11, 57–71. The underlined autoreference between the two parts of 
the hymn is in accordance with its transitional character between the stages of narration or parts 
of poems (see Lefkowitz 1991: 55–56). For framing in Homer’s epics see Bakker 1997: 86–122.



85Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

island of Chios. He also refers to Homeric hymns as epic prooemia (prologues) 
to the performance of longer epic poems. “All of them address one or another 
god in a hymnal tone, mostly very shortly, but in some of them the instinct of 
the singer has not managed to maintain them in the frames of the lyric, but 
it blossoms into epic, sometimes indeed excellently” (Oras 1976: 34). These 
words suggest that Oras regarded Homeric hymns foremost as hymns, which 
by register are closer to lyric poetry. While omitting the formulaic verses which 
refer to the performance of epic songs, the blind-man-verses were probably 
kept by him because of the legend which is famous in literary history.

If we suppose that Oras wanted to recreate the lyric, hymnal character of 
Homeric hymns, a comparison with his translations of Sappho’s lyric poems 
is appropriate.

Oras the translator of Sappho

Sappho’s Ode 1 To Aphrodite is a hymn framed by the singer-poet’s prayers 
to the goddess whereas the central part describes Aphrodite’s epiphany. In 
his translation Oras has retained the intimate and personal character of the 
ode. He included all references to the deictic centre with first person personal 
pronouns, which occur in the Greek text, and even added some.33 Oras also 
augmented the occurrences of the second person pronoun ‘you’: (10 times, in 
Greek 5 or 6).34 The majority of the second person pronouns in his translation 
(6) occur in Aphrodite’s words, spoken during her epiphany and addressing 
the singer (Sappho), especially in verses 21–24 (sixth stanza). 

This much discussed stanza offers two important ambiguities:35 firstly, the 
speaker and the time are not clear, as the references to the deictic centre are 
absent and the stanza itself is in a transitional position, occurring at the end 
of the narration about the epiphany of the goddess in the past and her address 
to Sappho just before the final, seventh stanza, where Sappho the poet returns 

33 Correspondingly 5 occurrences in Greek, v. 3, v. 6, v. 17, v. 25, 26, and 7 in Estonian: v. 3, 6, 
13, 15, 25 (twice), 28. Once, in v. 16 Oras slipped from direct speech into indirect for a moment 
and used the third person pronoun in Aphrodite’s words to Sappho (Miks teda hüüdsin? [‘Why 
did I call her?’]) in place of sg. sind (‘you’), probably because of metrical reasons (needing to 
use two short syllables in the adonion.)
34 Depending from the readings of the text in verse 19 (σάν or ϝάν), see Voigt 1971 ad loc.
35 For ambiguity intertwined with autoreferentiality, see Calame 2004 (especially p. 415–416, 
420–423).



86 Janika Päll

from narration to prayer and speaks again as her poetic self in the first per-
son.36 Secondly, it is not clear who are the desirer and desired in this stanza 
which speaks of love and rejection. 

The words can belong either to Aphrodite or Sappho and be understood 
either as a timeless example concerning two lovers (one of them is a reluctant 
girl) or as Sappho and the reluctant girl she desires:37 

v. 21–24: καὶ γὰρ αἰ φεύγει, ταχέως διώξει, 

αἰ δὲ δῶρα μὴ δέκετ’, ἀλλὰ δώσει, 

αἰ δὲ μὴ φίλει, ταχέως φιλήσει, 

κωὐκ ἐθέλοισα. 

If (she) runs away, soon (she) shall pur-
sue; 

if (she) does not accept gifts, why, (she) 
shall give (them) instead; 

and if (she) does not love, soon (she) 
shall love 

even against (her) will. (trans. David A. 
Campbell)

Oras: Väldib sind, küll pea on sul järjest 
kannul; 

tõrjub kinke sult – ise peatselt pakub, 

on su vastu külm – süda pea tal süttib, 

tahtku või mitte. 

If (she) avoids you, soon (she shall) be 
following you; 

if (she) sends back your gifts, soon (she 
will) offer (them) herself; 

if (she) is cold toward you – soon her 
heart will be in flames, 

be (she) wanting or not. 

Campbell has preserved this ambiguity in his translation.38 Oras, however, 
interprets the rejected lover as Sappho, who is addressed by Aphrodite with a 
fourfold repetition of the personal pronoun ‘you’ in direct speech. Although 
Oras’s translation remains ambiguous from the point of view of gender (which 
can be expressed in Estonian only with lexical means), he mentions Sappho’s 

36 For the analysis of narrative situation, see Steinrück 1992: 280–287, for transition charac-
ter, see Päll 2007: 44, 48. Tzamali (1996: 81) interpretes the addressee as Sappho, speaking of 
“brachylogische Ersparung von σέ as selbstverständlich”, her discussion of syntax in this stanza 
follows this interpretation (Tzamali 1996: 79–84). 
37 Translation in Campbell 1994: 53–55. 
38 Adding third person pronouns, which are needed in English; thus the result is seven pro-
nouns in translation, where Greek has none, although at least one of them is absolutely necessary 
to express the gender (feminine) of the reluctant lover (expressed by the feminine participle in 
the text of Voigt’s edition, v. 24).



87Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

passion for some of the girls in her group in his afterword to the translation, 
thus giving guidance for the interpretation of the love scene.39 

The same accumulation of personal pronouns occurs in his translation of 
Sappho’s fragment 31, where five first person pronouns occur in Greek and 
six in Estonian, and only two second person pronouns in Greek and six in 
Estonian.40 Nor does Oras avoid the references to the first person in his trans-
lation of Catullus’ version of the same poem (Carmen 51).41 The same claim 
can be made about his other translations of Catullus or Horace. 

So it appears that in the case of personal lyric poetry Oras does not avoid 
references to the deictic centre. Corresponding to the manner of deixis am 
Phantasma, as-if presence of the speaker and pointing at the listeners, he even 
adds such references and creates his poetic space with the help of abundant 
deictics (especially in addresses). 

Until now we have not seen how Oras uses the deictics connected to other 
perspectives than the singer’s. This can be seen in his translation of the Hymn 
to Aphrodite.

Deictic centres in Oras’s Hymn to Aphrodite 

Ancient narrative tradition requires that the singer remain in the background 
(even when occasionally the narrator’s focalisation leaves some traces). 
Accordingly, between the initial and final verses of the hymn no direct refer-
ences to the singer’s deictic centre occur.42 In the narrator’s text only such local 
and deictic adverbs can be found, which refer to places and times far away, 

39 Although Oras stresses the address to rejected lover (Sappho) in his translation, the gram-
matical subject (reluctant lover) is not expressed by third person personal pronouns, perhaps 
because there was not enough place in the hendecasyllable. 
40 Due to textual problems it is not easy to tell whether references in v. 2 and v. 7 in the Greek 
text are to second or third person. See Voigt 1971 ad loc. In the case of the demonstratives, there 
is balance: in Greek two different demonstrative and a relative pronoun, in Estonian also two 
demonstratives and a relative pronoun (although not always in same places).
41 In: Oras 1936. Four forms of first person pronoun against the three in Catullus, although 
Oras omits the first person pronoun in the beginning of Catullus’ Ille mi. The three ‘you’s of 
Catullus are all translated in corresponding places. The demonstrative ille is once rendered with 
demonstrative, once with a third person pronoun. 
42 Because of my focus on explicit reference by deictics, I am not taking into consideration 
examples like θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι in v. 90 and the use of τοι, which are markers of narrator’s focalisa-
tion (as in de Jong 2004). 



88 Janika Päll

local and time adverbs which point to the deictic centre are as a rule avoided.43 
The character speech, in contrast, often uses local and time adverbs and first 
person pronouns, which refer to new deictic centres (Anchises or Aphrodite) 
and define their space, although pointing away from these centres occurs as 
well when needed by the story. 

Verses 2–91 describe Aphrodite’s power and her falling in love. She is the 
main actor, the deictics (mostly demonstrative, occasionally third person pro-
nouns) refer to her or other characters. Shifts in time are marked by several 
particles (for example εἶτα, ἔπειτα ‘and then, thereafter’) and spatial shifts are 
indicated by ἔνθα ‘there’ (in verses 59, 60, 61, when Aphrodite starts to travel, 
in verse 80, where Anchises is described). 

The translation of Oras is much less straightforward. He is retaining 
refer ences to the secondary deictic centres of characters in his translation 
of speeches, but not always the same types of deictics and in the same places 
where these occur in the source text.44 For example, in Anchises’ welcome 
address to the goddess several deictics in Greek text point to his perspective:

v. 92: Χαῖρε ἄνασσ’, ἥ τις μακάρων τάδε 
δώμαθ’ ἱκάνεις

EW: Hail, lady, whoever of the blessed 
(you) are that come to this house [here]

Oras, v. 78: Tervitan sind, ülev naine, 
ükskõik mida õndsate tõugu

I greet you, noble lady, whoever of the 
family of the blessed

v. 95: ἤ πού τις Χαρίτων δεῦρ’ ἤλυθες ... EW: Or, maybe, (you) are one of the 
Graces come hither 

Oras, v. 94–95: olgu sa ... // või ka 
hariiti dest üks

be you.... // or one of the Graces

v. 97–99: ἤ τις νυμφάων αἵ τ’ ἄλσεα 
καλὰ νέμονται, 

ἢ νυμφῶν αἳ καλὸν ὄρος τόδε 
ναιετάουσι

καὶ πηγὰς ποταμῶν καὶ πίσεα ποιήεντα. 

EW: or else one of the Nymphs who 
haunt the pleasant woods, 

or of those who inhabit this lovely 
mountain

and the springs of rivers and grassy 
meads.

Oras, v. 82–83: .... või nümf siit metsast 
või kingult  

või neilt allikailt üks, neilt lokkavailt 
luhtavailt rohtmailt

or a nymph from here (this) wood or 
hill 

or one from these springs and from 
these lushy grassy meadows.

43 Except τότε ‘then’ in v. 54 (mentioning Anchises’ living on Ida), which can indicate the 
narrator’s focalisation. 
44 In case of speeches, he usually translates the first and second person pronouns and even 
increases their number.



89Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

In his translation of v. 92, Oras has omitted half of the verse and the deictics 
(τάδε ‘these here’) which accompany the nouns. However, he has used the 
compensatory method translators often recur to and inserted similar deictics 
into close-by verses, where Greek has none. Occasionally Oras becomes even 
more deictic than the Greek text, for example in Anchises speech where the 
mortal man expresses his wish to make love to Aphrodite:45

v. 147: ἐνθάδ’ ἱκάνεις; you have come here45

Oras, v. 127: Siia su juhtis Argosetapja the Argos-slayer has led you here1
v. 149–151: οὔ τις ἔπειτα θεῶν οὔτε 
θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων 

ἐνθάδε με σχήσει πρὶν σῇ φιλότητι 
μιγῆναι 

αὐτίκα νῦν· οὐδ’ εἴ κεν ἑκηβόλος αὐτὸς 
Ἀπόλλων 

τόξου ἀπ’ ἀργυρέου προϊῇ βέλεα 
στονόεντα. 

EW: then neither god nor mortal man 
shall restrain me here till I have lain 
with you in love right now, not even 
if far-shooting Apollo himself should 
launch grievous shafts,   

Oras, v. 129–131: Ärgu siis tuldagi  
häirima mind ei maalt ega taevast,

Heidan Su kõrvale siin, jalamaid siin 
süüvin su rüppe, 

rünnaku mind oma nooltega siis ise 
Phoibos Apollon  

Let then no-one from earth or heavens 
come to disturb me,

(I) lay down besides you here, at once 
here (I’ll) enter your bosom, 

let Phoebus Apollon himself then attack 
me with his shafts.

We can observe the presence of Greek text’s ‘here’ and ‘I’ (v. 149–151) in the 
translation (verses 129 and 130) of Oras, although the temporal ‘right now’ 
has been translated by jalamaid (‘at once’). Perhaps the synonym seemed to 
the translator more accurate for presenting the order of events (the love act 
has to start immediately) or more poetical, or more fitting into the verse after 
the penthemimeral caesura, where an anapaest-shaped space was available 
between two monosyllabic deictics (siin) and two second person pronouns 
(su). This verse (although exceptional in its high density of deictics) is typical 
for his character speeches, where deictic pronouns occur more frequently than 
in the Greek hymn.

45 The active has been replaced with the passive voice, thus bringing in another actor (Hermes, 
the Argos-slayer).



90 Janika Päll

These verses also offer a typical example of Oras’s approach to monosyl-
labic deictic adverb siis.46 Both in Evelyn-White’s English and Oras’s Estonian 
translations of v. 149 the adverbs then and siis point away from the deictic 
centre and refer to the future, which in Greek is indicated by morphological 
future forms and the adverb ἔπειτα (‘thereafter’). In Estonian the adverb is 
accompanied by impersonal and third person imperative forms in v. 129 and 
v. 131 (the translation of Greek verse 151, which uses the conditional). The 
adverb siis (‘then’) occurs a total of 18 times in Oras: in speeches it always 
refers to the events, which are going (or supposed or not supposed) to happen 
in the future from the character’s point of view (9 occurrences); in narrator’s 
text it indicates the next stage in the story-time (9 occurrences). Thus all these 
examples point away to the future. 

The use of nüüd (‘now’) by Oras is, on the contrary, not coherent. In 
Greek text, νῦν is used straightforwardly as a temporal deictic. For example 
in Aphrodite’s final speech (verses 247–254 in Homer, verses 175–179 in Oras), 
nüüd refers to the present time of the character.47 But nüüd is also used for 
accompanying exhortations by Oras (v. 112, v. 121, 153 and an appeal in v. 
161), where Greek uses other means (correspondingly verses 131, 141, 177 and 
187). However, in the case of exhortations the speaker’s point of view can still 
be felt, as for example in the one-word Estonian cohortative sentence Nüüd!, 
meaning something like: ‘I want you/us/me to do it NOW!’ 

Through the using of the adverb nüüd, Oras the translator-narrator not 
only enlivens his story, but becomes present in it by referring to the narrator’s 
temporal deictic centre. For example, Aphrodite’s falling in love is introduced 
with the temporal adverb nüüd in v. 45: 

v. 45: Τῇ δὲ καὶ αὐτῇ Ζεὺς γλυκὺν 
ἵμερον ἔμβαλε θυμῷ

EW: But upon Aphrodite herself Zeus cast 
sweet desire

Oras, v. 43: Kuid Kythereiatki nüüd, 
teda ennastki Zeus pani äkki ihkama 

But now, Zeus, made suddenly Kythereia 
herself desire.

The beginning of the story and the unexpectedness of the situation are under-
lined here by Oras with this insertion of a personal viewpoint and present time 

46 Oras does not use it for translation of Greek τότε ‘then’, which occurs in v. 54 (but translates 
it with ‘just’, ‘right now’ in v. 46). Several temporal adverbials and pronouns, as toona, tollal 
(‘that time’) have not been used by Oras. 
47 In Greek: v. 247: αὐτὰρ ἐμοί (‘but for me’), Oras: nüüd, v. 252 νῦν (‘now’), Oras: nüüd, as 
opposed to πρίν ‘before’ in v. 249 (not translated by Oras). 



91Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

deictic centre.48 Oras-narrator appears again in the next stage of the story, 
when Aphrodite meets Anchises. Here we can see not only the ‘now’, but also 
the ‘here’:49

v. 81: στῆ δ’ αὐτοῦ προπάροιθε Διὸς 
θυγάτηρ Ἀφροδίτη

EW: And Aphrodite, the daughter of 
Zeus stood before him. 

Oras, v. 68: Siin nagu neitsike-nooruke 
nüüd end ilmutas Kypris 

Here like a young maiden49 now Kypris 
revealed herself.

The epiphany of the goddess is thus (like in lyric hymns) suddenly presented 
as felt by the narrator-poet, but only by the Estonian one who also shifts the 
attention from him (Anchises) to her (Aphrodite). This use of deictics also has 
a secondary, textual function, to underline the peak of this part of the narra-
tion, Aphrodite’s arrival. This function becomes even clearer in the description 
of the love scene, where Oras-narrator starts to cumulate the adverbs: 

v. 164–167: λῦσε δέ οἱ ζώνην ἰδὲ εἵματα 
σιγαλόεντα 

ἔκδυε καὶ κατέθηκεν ἐπὶ θρόνου 
ἀργυροήλου

Ἀγχίσης· ὁ δ’ ἔπειτα θεῶν ἰότητι καὶ αἴσῃ 

ἀθανάτῃ παρέλεκτο θεᾷ βροτός, οὐ 
σάφα εἰδώς. 

EW: and ... Anchises ... loosened her 
girdle and stripped off (her) bright 
garments and laid them down upon a 
silver-studded seat. Then by the will of 
the gods and destiny he lay with (her), 
a mortal man with immortal goddess, 
not clearly knowing what (he) did 

Oras, v. 141–143: riisus siis ült särarüü, 
avas vöö, hõbenaastusel istmel,

siis pani kokku nad kõik – ning taeva ja 
saatuse tahtel

embaski põrmlane nüüd jumalannat – 
ei mõistnud, mis juhtus. 

[Anchises] then robbed (stripped off ) 
(her) bright garments, loosened (her) 
girdle and onto the silver-studded 
seat then put (them) all together. And 
according to the will of heaven and 
destiny, the mortal man embraced now 
the goddess – didn’t understand what 
happened. 

In the Greek text only the peak of the scene, the beginning of the love act is 
indicated by the particle ἔπειτα (‘then’), in v. 166. But when this final act of 
love is going to take place, the narrator Oras jumps again into the story, insert-
ing his nüüd (‘now’). This use of the adverb nüüd (‘now’) by the narrator as a 

48 It can also be interpreted as an insertion of the point of view of a character into the speech 
of the narrator (erlebte Rede or discours indirect libre). 
49 Cf. following in v. 81: παρθένῳ ἀδμήτῃ ‘like a pure maiden’.



92 Janika Päll

reference to a reached stage in the story, intertwined with a reference to the 
now-and-here of the moment occurs similarly twice more in his translation 
of speeches by Aphrodite.50

Thus it appears that differently from ‘then’, the ‘now’ has much more com-
plex functions, as a direct make-believe temporal or textual deictic, indicating 
the new stage in the story. Knowing that for Oras, the role of deictics was 
important because of their possible role as anceps syllables in hexameter verse, 
we could seek correspondences between different prosodic weights of these 
words in verse (see Table 2) and their different deictic values. However, there 
is none: the local adverbs siin and sääl (‘here’ and ‘there’) always occur only 
in stressed long position, whereas sääl always points away from the speaker’s 
point of view and siin can help to relive the past narration as being present. The 
temporal nüüd (‘now’) occurs also usually in the long position, but its usage is 
again quite incoherent, while siis (‘then’), which is used quite coherently from 
deictic point of view (as discussed above), is prosodically used as an anceps. 

Thus it appears that the choice of deictic adverbs and pronouns can only 
partly be explained with prosodic reasons (their use as anceps). In the case 
of the framing parts of the hymn the approach of Oras (reducing the number 
of deictics) seems to be consistent and following an interpretative approach 
of these poems as lyric hymns. In the case of narrative parts, the increase and 
variation of deictics and his use of the narrator’s perspective during the third 
person narration seems to serve the goal of presenting the story in a lively 
and colourful way. 

This interpretation will find support from a short analysis of actors in both 
texts, the Greek hymn and Oras’s translation.

50 See Oras, v. 100 and v. 209. In corresponding Greek verses (v. 116, v. 289) the deictics do not 
occur, although in Greek v. 289, there is an additional reference to the speaker by τοι: εἴρηταί 
τοι πάντα. (‘Everything has been told you’), cf. Now I have told you all in the translation of 
Evelyn-White and similar Nüüd olen ütelnud kõik (‘Now I’ve told all’) by Oras.



93Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

Table 2. Some temporal and local deictics and their positions51 52

siin ‘here’/

siit ‘from 
here’

δεῦρ(ο),

other:

ἐνθάδε

‘here (to 
this point)’ 

nüüd 
‘now’,

other: 
praegu

‘now’ 

νυ(ν), 
νῦν

‘now’

siis 

‘then’

τότ(ε)

‘then’

sääl 
‘there’/ 

säält 
‘from 
there’

ἔνθ(α)

‘hither’

short 
position

0 – 1 – 8 1 0 –

long 
position

4+2 1/1 12 4 10 – 2+3 1

other 
words

– 1/2 1 – – – – 3

other Greek words
ἥδε51

τόδε 

‘this here’

3 ἐκεῖ

‘there’

0

adverbs, particles pointing to the shift in narration
ἔπειτα

‘then’/

πρίν

‘earlier, 
then’

10/152 αὐτὰρ 
ἐπεί

‘and 
when’

3

The multiplication of agents in the Hymn to Aphrodite 

Another feature of epic diction in this Homeric hymn is the focus on its main 
addressee, Aphrodite. The initial part of the Greek hymn (verses 1–42) cele-
brates Aphrodite’s power, she is the actor, whose power is described through 
her deeds: she subdues everyone, except three virgin goddesses Athena, 
Artemis, and Hestia: 

51 V. 235: ἥδε δέ οἱ κατὰ θυμὸν ἀρίστη φαίνετο βουλή = This seemed to her in her heart the best 
counsel (Evelyn-White). It would be interesting to know what Oras would have done with this exam-
ple of secondary focalisation, but these verses belong to the part he omitted from his translation.
52 Only in v. 249 (πρὶν with infinitive in v. 150 can be excluded).



94 Janika Päll

v. 7–8: τρισσὰς δ’ οὐ δύναται πεπιθεῖν 
φρένας οὐδ’ ἀπατῆσαι·

κούρην τ’ αἰγιόχοιο Διὸς γλαυκῶπιν 
Ἀθήνην·

Yet (she) is unable to influence and de-
ceive three minds:

the daughter of aigis-bearing Zeus, 
glimmering-eyed Athene. 

Oras, v. 7–8: Kolm aga on, kel meelt ei 
ta pael ei ta püünised püüa:
aigise valduri tütar on üks neist, helk-
silm Athene 

Three are (these), whose mind neither 
her slings nor her snares can capture, 
one of them is the daughter of aigis-
bearer, bright-eyed Athene. 

While the Greek text presents a quite straightforward narration – Aphrodite is 
unable to deceive the minds of three goddesses – Oras accumulates different 
actors. At first, he creates a complex phrase with numeral three as a subject in 
the main clause: three are (those). In the relative clause he introduces other new 
actors: in the place of Aphrodite, whose powers are insufficient, the subduers 
are her slings and her snares. The next, formulaic name and epithet verse refer-
ring to Athena, is attached as explication to the word φρένας, ‘minds’, which 
occurred in the preceding verse, in accordance with epic appositive style. 
However, Oras stresses once more that Athena is part of the trio, introducing 
her as the new grammatical subject.53 Instead of a focus on one goddess, who 
is described in a hymnal style, we see four new actors: the triad, the slings, the 
snares, and the daughter of Aegis-bearer. 

The multiplication of actors (accompanied by nominalisation) continues in 
a similar manner. When Aphrodite has fallen in love with Anchises, she goes 
to Troy and takes the way through the clouds:

v. 66–67: σεύατ’ ἐπὶ Τροίης προλιποῦσ’ 
εὐώδεα Κύπρον 

ὕψι μετὰ νέφεσιν ῥίμφα πρήσσουσα 
κέλευθον. 

EW: (she) left sweet-smelling Cyprus 
and went in haste towards Troy, 

swiftly travelling high up among the 
clouds 

Oras, v. 55–56: Troojasse suundus ta 
tuuline tee, imekiirelt ja kergelt lend 
läbis pilvede vöö. 

To Troy went her windy path, won-
drously easily and swiftly flight pene-
trated the belt of clouds. 

53 Cf. Evelyn-White: Yet there are three hearts that she cannot bend nor yet ensnare. First is the 
daughter of Zeus who holds the aegis, bright-eyed Athena. Oras changes the voice very often, 
Greek passive can become active and Greek active can become impersonal in his translation 
(Estonian does not have morphological passive voice), whereas the grammatical objects more 
often become the subjects in his translation than the other way round. 



95Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

Oras draws a different picture, where new actors enter: it is Aphrodite’s 
windy way (tuuline tee) which goes to Troy, and her flight (lend), which passes 
through the belt (vöö) of clouds. Later in verses 70–72 the Greek narrator 
presents a short catalogue of numerous wild animals who come to greet the 
goddess, while in Estonian it is a pack of wolves, a crowd of lynches and 
a swarm of leopards (Oras, v. 58–60). In the end of the hymn, Aphrodite 
announces that she is pregnant and describes her feelings:54 

v. 253–254: ... ἐπεὶ μάλα πολλὸν ἀάσθην

σχέτλιον οὐκ ὀνοταστόν, ἀπεπλάγχθην 
δὲ νόοιο, 

for (I) had become very mad, 

miserably, without repair, and went 
astray of mind.

Oras, v. 180–181:  liig suur oli hullus, 
meeletu, pöörane kihm, mis viis minult 
taibu 

too great was the madness, mindless, 
crazy desire, which took my wit. 

The Aphrodite of the Estonian translation does not become mad straight-
forwardly, but the stress is on her folly’s greatness and her mind and desires which 
take power; thus the goddess becomes a toy in the hands of different actors. 

In Oras’s translation, the personification is connected to nominalisation 
and abstraction: different groups (three, pack) and personified impersonalia 
(flight, mind, desires) who move her around. If we compare the Greek text and 
Oras’s translation, we see that the number of acting personae (grammatical 
subjects) is much greater in Estonian. It can partly be the result of syntactic 
changes which arise from the differences of two languages (replacing pas-
sive constructions with the active or using personal verb forms in the place 
of infinitive and participle clauses), but in summary it is not the difference 
of syntax, but the translator’s view of the world of Homeric hymns. Oras is 
describing this world with much greater vividness and as much more colourful 
and active than it seems to be in Greek. 

Conclusions 

It appears that it is characteristic of Oras’s translation of Homeric hymns to 
omit or reduce these references to the deictic centre which are connected to 
the singer and the performance situation. By omitting the traditional formulas 

54 Cf.: For very great has been my madness, my miserable and dreadful madness, and I went 
astray of my mind (Evelyn-White).



96 Janika Päll

which refer to the poet and his intention to continue the song (in the ends of 
hymns to Aphrodite and Pan), he re-interprets these poems as hymnal compo-
sitions, not epic prooemia. However, he conforms to the tradition by keeping 
the initial addresses to the Muses which point weakly to the deictic centre. 

In his hymn to Apollo, Oras omits the initial auto-reference to the poet 
completely, also changing the grammatical subject and shifting the focus in 
the beginning from the singer to Apollo. The mythical story about the singer 
has been retained in the end, but with a strengthened addresses to the god and 
weakened references to the singer. 

This omission of deictics only characterises his recreation of the perfor-
mance situation. In character speeches his usage is close to lyric poetry with 
clear references to the deictic centres of the speakers. In the narrator’s part, 
Oras does not follow the norms of epic narrative, where the perspectives of the 
narrator and the characters are clearly distinguishable. Instead, he occasionally 
introduces the poet’s perspective and increases the numbers of acting subjects, 
which is supported by his insertion of the poet’s perspective. In this way, the 
picture becomes much more diverse and lively, and the narration which is set 
in the past, becomes actualised in the present (of the narrator, but also of the 
reader). In this way an ancient singer whose position is important as a giver of 
praise and glory yields to a modern translator, who is becoming more invis-
ible in his role of story-teller, but who reveals his presence even more during 
emotional moments.55 

55 I thank Anne Lange, Sirje Olesk and Maria-Kristiina Lotman for their advice and invitation 
5 years ago to the seminar dedicated to Ants Oras, which gave me the impulse to formulate and 
prepare for publication the results of several different analyses. The article has been written with 
the support of the Estonian Research Council grant PUT 132. I am grateful to Raili Marling for 
the revision of my English. The approach to the study of deixis through contrastive analysis of 
texts and their translations is partly a result of the training which every student of ancient Greek 
received in the classes of Jaan Unt (1947–2012, lecturer of ancient literature and Greek at the 
University of Tartu, scholar and translator of ancient literature), where text analysis and inter-
pretation were combined with the discussion of translation principles and possibilities; partly 
of seminars devoted to deixis at the university’s Department of French; see Monticelli, Pajusalu, 
Treikelder (eds.) 2005. This led to a series of student papers in the Department of Classics, quoted 
above (note 9). 



97Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

References

Allen, Thomas W.; Sikes, Edward E. (eds.) 1904. The Homeric Hymns. Edited, with 
preface, apparatus criticus, notes, and appendices. London: Macmillan. URL: 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.00
29%3Atext%3Dcomm%3Apoem%3D3%3Acommline%3D169

Antiigiveeb = Ivo Volt (ed.), Antiigiveeb. URL: http://www.fl.ut.ee/et/380160 (accessed 
September 15, 2015).

Aunin, Tiina; Lange, Anne (eds.) 2008. Widening circles: the critical heritage of Ants 
Oras. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. 

Baikov, Krista 2008. Osutussõnad ja nende tõlkimine Hesiodose “Tööde ja päevade” 
värssides 293–596. Seminaritöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar 
library of Classical Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the 
author].

Bakker, Egbert J. Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse. Ithaca and London: 
Cornell University Press.

Brunet, Philippe (ed.) 2014. Traditions du patrimoine antique  – “Homère en 
hexamètres” – Rencontre internationale de traducteurs, Paris, 26 mars 2012 – 
Réfectoire des Cordeliers, 7e édition des Dionysies. (Anabases 20). URL: https://
anabases.revues.org/4768.

Bühler, Karl 1990. Theory of Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Calame, Claude 1986. Le récit en Grèce Ancienne. Enonciations et représentations de 
poètes. Paris: Méridiens-Klincksieck.

Calame, Claude 2004. Deictic ambiguity and auto-referentiality: some examples from 
Greek poetics. In: Arethusa 37(3): 415–443.

Calame, Claude 2005. Masques d’autorité. Fiction et pragmatique dans la poétique 
grecque antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Campbell, David A. (trans.) 1994. Greek Lyric I. Sappho and Alcaeus. (Loeb Classical 
Library 142). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William 
Heinemann.

Clay, Jenny S. 2006. The Politics of Olympus. Form and meaning in the major Homeric 
Hymns. Second edition. Bristol Classical Press.

Clay, Jenny S. 2011. The Homeric Hymns as Genre. In: Faulkner, Andrew (ed.), The 
Homeric Hymns. Interpretative Essay. Oxford: University Press, 232–251.



98 Janika Päll

Detienne, Marcel 1990. Les maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque. Paris: Éditions 
La Découverte.

Devine, Andrew Mackay; Stephens, Laurence D. 1994. The Prosody of Greek Speech. 
New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dickey, Eleanor 2003. Greek Forms of Address. From Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford: 
Clarendon Press.

Dik, Helma Marietta Josine 1995. Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account 
of Word Order in Herodotus. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

EAB 2014 = Päll, Janika; Volt, Ivo; Näripä, Neeme; Kurs, Kristin (eds.) 2014. Eesti 
antiigitõlke bibliograafia (EAB). Versioon 1.0, 2014. 1–16. Võrguteavik. URL: 
http://philologic.ut.ee/EAB_1.0_2014.pdf (accessed September 15, 2015).

Eesti Värss 2004 = Lotman, Mihhail; Lotman, Maria-Kristiina; Sütiste, Elin (eds.) 2004. 
Eesti Värss. URL: http://www.ut.ee/verse (accessed September 15, 2015).

Evelyn-White, Hugh G. 1914. Homeric Hymns. (Loeb Classical Library 57). Cambridge, 
Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann. [Quoted from 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/]

Felson, Nancy (ed.) 2004. The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman, Pindar, and other Lyric. 
(Arethusa 37(3)).

Fowler, Robert Louis 1987. The Nature of Early Greek Lyric: Three Preliminary Studies. 
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Fränkel, Hermann 1955. Eine Stileigenheit der frühgriechischen Literatur. In his: Wege 
und Formen frühgriechischen Denkens. Literarische und philosophiegeschichtliche 
Studien, ed. by Tietze, Franz. München: C.H. Beck, 40–96.

Gerber, Douglas E. (ed.) 1997. A Companion to the Greek Lyric Poets. Leiden: Brill.

Groningen, Bernhard Abraham van 1958. La composition littéraire archaïque grecque. 
Amsterdam: Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg.

Homeros 1960. Ilias. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus (Estonian translation by August 
Annist and Karl Reitav). 

Homeros 1963. Odüsseia. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus (Estonian translation by 
August Annist and Karl Reitav). 

de Jong, Irene; Nünlist, René; Bowie, Angus (eds.) 2004. Narrators, Narratees, and 
Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1. Leiden, 
Boston: Brill. 



99Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

de Jong, Irene 2004. Narrators and Focalizers: the Presentation of the Story in the Iliad. 
London: Bristol Classical Press. 

Kaalep, Ain; Torpats, Ülo (eds.) 1971. Rooma kirjanduse antoloogia. Tallinn: Eesti 
Raamat.

Kärtna, Lis-Ann 2010. Osutussõnade tõlkimine Platoni “Pidusöögis” St. III p. 172 a1 – 
186 e1. Bakalaureusetöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar library 
of Classical Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the author].

Kirk, Geoffrey Stephen 1989. The epic tradition after Homer and Hesiod. In: Easterling, 
Patricia Elizabeth; Knox, Bernard M.W. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical 
Literature, Volume I Part I. Early Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 65–75.

Kiss, Kadi 2010. Osutussõnade tõlkimine Vergiliuse “Aeneises” 1. laulus värssides 1–350. 
Bakalaureusetöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar library of 
Classical Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the author].

Lange, Anne 2004. Ants Oras. Tartu: Ilmamaa.

Lange, Anne 2007. The poetics of translation of Ants Oras. Doktoritöö. Tallinn: Tallinna 
Ülikooli Kirjastus. URL: http://e-ait.tlulib.ee/115/ 

Latacz, Joachim 1994. Erschliessung der Antike. Kleine Schriften zur Literatur der 
Griechen und Römer. Stuttgart, Leipzig: Teubner = Latacz, Joachim 1985. Realität 
und Imagination: Eine neue Lyrik-Theorie und Sapphos φαίνεταί μοι κῆνος-Lied. 
In: Museum Helveticum 42: 67–94.

Latacz, Joachim 2000. Homers Ilias: Gesamtkommentar. Prolegomena. München-
Leipzig: Saur. 

Lefkowitz, Mary R. 1963. The First Person in Pindar. In: Harvard Studies in Philology 
67: 177–253.

Lefkowitz, Mary R. 1991. First-Person Fictions. Pindar’s Poetic “I”. Oxford: Clarendon 
Press.

Leitsch, Vincent B. 2008. Widening Circles: The Postwar Critical Work of Ants Oras. 
In: Aunin, Tiina; Lange, Anne (eds.), Widening circles: the critical heritage of Ants 
Oras. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press, 15–32.

Lotman, Maria-Kristiina 2012. Equimetrical Verse translation in Estonian Poetic 
Culture. In: Chalvin, A.; Lange, A.; Monticelli, D. eds. Between Cultures and Texts. 
Itineraries in Translation History. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 137–150.



100 Janika Päll

Mägiste, Julius 1976. Ants Orase “Aeneise-tõlke” keelelise kujunduse puhul. In: 
Tulimuld 1: 35–41. 

Monticelli, Daniele; Pajusalu, Renate; Treikelder, Anu (eds.) 2005. De l’énoncé à 
l’énonciation et vice-versa. Regards multidisciplinaires sur la deixis = Lausungist 
lausumiseni ja vastupidi. Multidistsiplinaarsed vaated deiksisele = From utterance to 
uttering and vice versa. Multidisciplinary views on deixis. 1–2. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli 
Kirjastus. 

Murdvee, Mari 2006. Homerose hümn Deelose Apollonile. In: Päll, Janika (ed.), 
Vanakreeka kirjanduse antoloogia. Tallinn: Varrak, 71–76.

Norden, Eduard 1913. Agnostos Theos. Berlin: B.G. Teubner.

Nünlist, René 2004. The Homeric Hymns. In: de Jong, Irene; Nünlist, René; Bowie, 
Angus (eds.), Narrators, Narratees, and Narratives in Ancient Greek Literature. 
Studies in Ancient Greek Narrative 1, 35–41.

Olesk, Sirje (ed.) 1997. AKADEEMIA kirjades. Ants Orase ja Ivar Ivaski kirjavahetus 
1957–1981. Tartu: Eesti Kirjandusmuuseum.

Oras, Ants (trans.) 1936. Catullus, Carmina. In: Looming 9: 1013–1016.

Oras, Ants 1938. On some aspects of Shelley’s poetic imagery. In: Acta et Commen-
tationes Universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis), B, Humaniora. XLIII, 4. Tartu: 
Mattiesen, 1–71. 

Oras, Ants 1962. Vergilius ja eesti heksameetri probleem. In: Tulimuld 4: 242–248.

Oras, Ants (trans.) 1976. Homeros. Hümn Aphroditele. In: Tulimuld 1: 29–35.

Oras, Ants (trans.) 1977a. Homerose hümn Apollonile. In: Tulimuld 1: 24–28.

Oras, Ants (trans.) 1977b. Homeros. Hümn Paanile. In: Tulimuld 2: 90–91.

Oras, Ants (trans.) 1977c. Sappho I, II. In: Tulimuld 3: 142.

Pajusalu, Renate 1999. Deiktikud Eesti keeles. Tartu: TÜ Kirjastus. URL: http://www.
folklore.ee/seminar/deiktikud/

Päll, Janika 2005. Deixis and word order in Greek lyric poetry. In: Monticelli, Daniele; 
Pajusalu, Renate; Treikelder, Anu (eds.), De l’énoncé à l’énonciation et vice-versa. 
Regards multidisciplinaires sur la deixis = Lausungist lausumiseni ja vastupidi. 
Multidistsiplinaarsed vaated deiksisele = From utterance to uttering and vice versa. 
Multidisciplinary views on deixis. 1–2, 329–345. 

Päll, Janika 2007. Translating ancient Greek aspect: Sappho’s Fr.1 Voigt (To Aphrodite). 
Monticelli, Daniele; Treikelder, Anu (eds.), Studia Romanica Tartuensia 6: 43–65.



101Ancient world of the poet and performance in translations by Ants Oras

Päll, Janika 2014. La traduction d’Homère en Estonie: une bataille pour ou contre 
l’hexamètre quantitatif. In: Anabases 20: 211–234.

Parvits, Triin 2010. Deiksise kasutamine Platoni “Pidusöögis” Stephanuse lehekülgedel 
186e 1 – 201c 3. Bakalaureusetöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar 
library of Classical Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the 
author].

Pille, Katri 2008. Osutussõnad ja nende tõlkimine Hesiodose “Tööde ja päevade” värssides 
597–828. Seminaritöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar library 
of Classical Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the author].

Rootsma, Ruth 2011. Deiksis ja selle tõlkimine Euripidese Bakhantides (värsid 1–214). 
Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar library of Classical Philology, 
University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the author].

Steinrück, Martin 1992. Rede und Kontext. Zum Verhältnis von Person und Erzähler 
in frühgriechischen Texten. Bonn: Habelt.

Tuulmets, Kristen 2008. Osutavad sõnad Hesiodose “Töödes ja päevades”, värsid 1–292. 
Seminaritöö. Tartu [unpublished seminar paper in the seminar library of Classical 
Philology, University of Tartu; pdf in the possession of the author].

Tzamali, Eleni 1996. Syntax und Stil bei Sappho. Dettelbach: J.H. Röll. 

Unt, Jaan 1992. Saatesõna. In: Vergilius. Bucolica. Aeneis, Tallinn: Hortus Litterarum, 
314–325.

Vergilius 1992. Bucolica. Aeneis. Tõlkinud Ants Oras. Tallinn: Hortus Litterarum.

Voigt, Eva-Maria (ed.) 1971. Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta. Amsterdam: Athenaeum – 
Polak & Van Gennep.

file:///C:/D%20ketas/Kirjastus/S/Studia%20Metrica%20et%20Poetica/2_2%20joonised/javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$PortaalIsikuPublikatsioonid1$GridView1$ctl02$LinkButton1','')
file:///C:/D%20ketas/Kirjastus/S/Studia%20Metrica%20et%20Poetica/2_2%20joonised/javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$ContentPlaceHolder1$PortaalIsikuPublikatsioonid1$GridView1$ctl02$LinkButton1','')