Among the mismatches between individual forms in Russian and Lithuanian, the Lithuanian compound verb forms that Russian no longer has should be mentioned. For this reason, these forms are not treated separately in the book as an independent category of the Lithuanian verb. They are, admittedly, touched upon briefly in discussions of aspect, participles, and moods. However, the full specificity of these forms (their meaning, formation, and use) remains undisclosed. On the other hand, it is questionable whether it is correct to translate the forms skaityčiau and būčiau skaitęs with the same хотел бы. In our opinion, the latter translation suits only the form skaityčiau; to bring out the specific character of būčiau skaitęs, would not the literal translation я был бы читавший have been better? After all, in Lithuanian skaityčiau and būčiau skaitęs are not at all the same thing. Among compound forms of the subjunctive, Lithuanian also has the forms būčiau beskaitęs, būčiau buvęs beskaitęs, and būčiau buvęs skaitęs, but none of them is mentioned in the chapter on moods either.

In the book, the Lithuanian būdinys is classified as an adverb, without further explanation (pp. 239–240). Alongside examples of it, the book also gives several remnants of the Russian būdinys, e.g., стоямя стоям (p. 239), cf. stovėte stovi, but they are not compared with one another.

On pp. 129 and 134, it is stated that the Lithuanian verb pranešti means сообщить, but this is not entirely accurate, since it can also mean пронести (мимо).

On p. 189, it is written that būti can have only the synthetic permissive form teesie, whereas the analytical form tegul būna is in fact also widely used in literary Lithuanian.

In some cases, the author relies on examples from only one language. In such instances, the book’s comparative character seems to disappear. This applies to passive participle forms derived from intransitive verbs (p. 174), the Russian творительный агентивного дополнения (p. 175), Russian imperative forms мерзни, получай (p. 188), and so on.

Although the book also has quite a few shortcomings, it nevertheless provides a fairly successful, nearly comprehensive picture of comparative Russian and Lithuanian morphology. In reading and studying it, one cannot fail to see and appreciate the fruits of the author’s work, which are significant for comparative Slavic and Baltic linguistics. In fact, this is a very good beginning to a major, important undertaking that will lay the foundations for further research in this field. Students, translators, press workers, and all those concerned with the comparison and use of Russian and Lithuanian morphology will undoubtedly be grateful to K. Musteikis for this book.

E. Grinaveckienė

Балто-славянский сборник, Москва, 1972, 424 р. (отв. ред. В. Н. Топоров).

The Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences has published a substantial volume, “The Baltic-Slavic Collection.” It contains fifteen articles and three reviews. Baltic studies predominate in most of the articles, and a considerable number are directly Lithuanian studies. The volume’s interlinguistic character is determined by the fact that more than half (eight of the fifteen) of its articles are devoted to the relations and contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

The book opens with Z. Zinkevičius’s article “On the Development of Baltic Vocalism” (pp. 5–14). In this article, the author seeks new arguments supporting the view that the Baltic “proto-language” had a short and a long vowel a (*a, ā). For instance, it was argued that the Baltic short vowel *o was best preserved in mixed diphthongs

320

ŏn, ōm, from which only later, in some dialects, an, am developed, and in others un, um, etc. Z. Zinkevičius presents arguments against this hypothesis. For example, the fact that eastern Aukštaitian un, um did not derive from ŏn, ōm is shown by facts such as Lithuanian Antānas and Ańdrius, borrowed from Slavic Antón, Andrzej, or eastern Aukštaitian luntà, derived from *lanta < lentà, but not from *lonta.

The next four articles, printed consecutively, deal with the phonology of the Baltic and Slavic languages. They are: T. Sudnik, Lazūnai: The Phonological Systems of Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Polish (pp. 15–155); M. Lekomceva, On the Interaction of the Phonological Systems of the Baltic-Slavic Borderland (pp. 116–134); S. Tolstaja, Word-Final Phonology in a Samogitian Dialect [examining the reduction of final vowels in the dialects of the villages of Elkiškės, Sablauskiai, Menčiai, and Kanteikiai in Akmenė District] (pp. 135–139); I. Toporova, The Distribution of Lithuanian Phonemes (pp. 140–173).

The first two articles address contacts between the Baltic and Slavic languages.

Relations between the Baltic and Slavic languages are also examined in several other articles, but from aspects other than phonology. In her article “The System of Meanings of Verbal Grammatemes in Baltic-Slavic Borderland Dialects” (pp. 174–185), M. Lekomceva discusses the influence exerted by the Lithuanian verb in the villages of Dainava, Dainiškės, Stasylai, and Pūšyniškės (Sosenkiškės) in Šalčininkai District on the local Slavic languages, and how the latter affected the Lithuanian verbal system. The work by E. Grinaveckienė, I. Kovalčiuk, J. Mackevič, and E. Romanovič, “The Northwestern Belarusian Dialects of the Lithuanian Borderland” (pp. 377–393), is devoted to contacts in phonetics, vocabulary, and word formation between the languages of the Lithuanian SSR’s Trakai, Vilnius, and Šalčininkai districts and those of the neighboring Belarusian (and, in part, Polish) population. The mutual influence of Lithuanian and Slavic in some localities of these same districts is examined in E. Grinaveckienė’s article “Some Phenomena of Contact between Lithuanian and Slavic (Based on Material from Linguistic Contacts in Southeastern Lithuania)” (pp. 394–408). J. Otrembski’s article “On Word Formation in Slavic and Baltic (OChurch Slavonic mėsec and Lithuanian mėnuo)” (pp. 186–192) argues that Lithuanian mėnuo and Old Church Slavonic mėsec are variants, or derivational variants, of the same Balto-Slavic word. This is said to be another argument for the unity of the Baltic and Slavic languages. R. Ekertas reaches interesting conclusions in his article “On Certain Differences between Baltic and Slavic Thematic Nouns in -i” (pp. 206–216). First of all, the author maintains that the material examined confirms his earlier view that the Baltic languages are more archaic than Proto-Slavic, regardless of how this archaism is interpreted. Old Russian occupies what seems to be an intermediate position between Proto-Slavic and the eastern Baltic languages. Thus, R. Ekertas’s conclusion does not agree with J. Otrembski’s.

In his article “On the Baltic Cognate of Slavic *pasti” (pp. 281–288), S. Karaliūnas shows that Slavic *pasti ‘to herd, feed; to drive away, protect’ corresponds to Lithuanian póšėti ‘to worship (idols)’, póšelėti, pūoselėti ‘to feed carefully, take good care of, pamper’, Latvian pašēt ‘to pamper, care for, spare, protect’, and pàst ‘to care for, look after’.

A distinctive place in this collection is occupied by L. Nevska-ja’s substantial (sixty-page) work “Dictionary of Baltic Geographical Appellatives,” which presents about 1,180 geographical terms from Lithuanian and Latvian. The terms are listed alphabetically, with their meanings and sources indicated. No etymological or other explanations are provided.

A dictionary of geographical terms of this kind and scope is being published in Baltic linguistic literature for the first time. Its importance is manifold. First of all, it will serve as a ba-

321

sis for comparative studies of geographical terminology, of which Slavic countries have recently seen fairly comprehensive¹. Baltic material in this field was difficult to access. Second, the dictionary in question will be of great use to place-name researchers.

Naturally, a first work of this kind contains inaccuracies and shortcomings; in our view, the most important is its incompleteness. Since the author provided neither introductory remarks nor conclusions, the criteria for selecting terms remain unclear to the reader or must be guessed. Only the list of abbreviations makes it possible to determine that the author used perhaps the three most important sources: published works, the card indexes of the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language and the Atlas of the Lithuanian Language, and her own data collected from Lithuanian dialects. It would therefore seem that the dictionary should have been quite comprehensive. Yet a considerable number of terms are still missing. Most importantly, the dictionary omits even some geographical terms published in the Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language (LKŽ) or included in its card index (LKŽK). For example, it is difficult to understand why the dictionary lacks even the following terms: aptaką, apteką ‘river overflow’ (LKŽ I 272, 273), bėdrė ‘pit; road pothole, puddle, quagmire, valley’ (LKŽ I 711), galvis, gálvis ‘a pond formed naturally in an old riverbed or backwater; the steep bank of an excavated pond’ (LKŽ III 85), gerklė ‘an inlet of the sea (river)’ (LKŽ III 258), įgerklis ‘a narrow place; a narrow strip of land projecting into a forest or between bodies of water, a peninsula’ (LKŽ IV 21), intapas ‘a deep place in water’ (LKŽ IV 122); išplėša ‘a gap or ditch washed out and widened by water’ (LKŽ IV 226) kliurkė ‘watery mud, mire’ (LKŽ VI 128), krūšis ‘pear tree, pear-tree hollow’ (LKŽ VI 726), pólymas ‘marsh, bog; a large area of forest or field; small woods’ (LKŽK), smėltė ‘sand, sandy area’ (LKŽK) (although smėlis, smėlynas are included), šilia ‘marsh, peaty ground; pine forest, woodland’ (LKŽK), šimša ‘wet meadow, marsh’ (LKŽK), šlapókšnis ‘wet meadow’ (LKŽK), and so on.

A second factor diminishing the scholarly value of this article is the occurrence of various minor inaccuracies, for example: ákis ‘eye’, akmenynė ‘stony ground’, apačia ‘bottom’, burliūngė ‘burliūngė’, dūmbrės ‘dūmbrės’, galūkalnė ‘galūkalnė’, gelminė ‘deep place’, įplėša ‘įplėša’, kalnūgubris ‘kalnūgubris’, kalniūkštis ‘kalniūkštis’, kriaukšlynė ‘shell-covered ground’, muõla ‘muõlas’, perejá ‘péréja’, saušbalė ‘dry marsh’, užūžilė ‘užūžilė’, vagá ‘vagà’, vidūgiriai ‘vidūgiriai’, vodėlė ‘vodėlė’, and so on.

The terms are given with stress marks. However, some are listed without stress marks, even though the sources from which they were taken indicate their stress and intonation: bliūdas ‘bliūdas’, duobija ‘duobija’, ežeras ‘lake’, kem(s)as ‘kėmsas’, kemzras ‘kėmzras’, kiešynas ‘kiešynas’, liūgnas ‘liūgnas’, pabalė ‘pabalė’, etc.

These inaccuracies, oversights, and errors show that the article in question was prepared and printed without due care.

The collection includes two articles on Baltic mythology.

In his article “Reflections of Indo-European Twin-Cult Terminology in the Baltic Languages” (pp. 193–205), the renowned specialist in this field Več. Ivanov, continuing the research of the American scholar D. Ward² and others, shows that

¹ Н. И. Толстой, Славянская географическая терминология, Москва, 1969; Я. Яш- кія, Беларускія геаграфічныя назвы, Мінск, 1971; M. Jurkowski, Ukraińska terminologia hydrograficzna, Wrocław-Warszawa-Kraków-Gdańsk, 1971; P. Nitsche, Geographische Terminologie des Polnischen, Köln, 1964.

² D. Ward, The Divine Twins. An Indo-European myth in Germanic tradition, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968.

322

Reflections of the cult of the divine twins are also found in the Baltic languages, especially in Latvian folk songs. Lithuanian Dievo sūneliai, Latvian Dieva dēli (cf. Latvian Ābelkoka laivu daru / Abi gali pazelīti / Dieva dēli jūrējin̄ / Saules meitu vizina), in V. Ivanov’s view, are counterparts of Indo-European terminology for the cult of the twins (cf. Vedic Divó nāpātā ‘sons of the god or of Dyauh—heaven’, Greek Dioskūrai — Διόσκουροι ‘sons of Zeus’). D. Ward’s research makes it possible to reconstruct an Indo-European myth about divine twins—the sons of the Sun god—who court their sister, whose name means sun: Vedic Sūryā ‘Sun’ or Duhitā Sūryasya ‘Daughter of the Sun’. V. Ivanov believes that in the Baltic languages the counterparts of this part of the myth about the divine twins are Lithuanian Saulės duktė, Latvian Saules meita.

V. Ivanov returns once again to the question of what the Latvian folklore word jumis means. The word’s origin has been explained in many different ways (cf., for example, Finnish jumala, Livonian jumal ‘god’). On the basis of the reconstructible Indo-European myth about divine twins, whose plot is founded on incest, and the indisputable fact that in the ancient Indo-European tradition the divine twins could be designated by a single word—Vedic Yama, Avestan Yima—the author concludes that the Latvian word jumis belongs to Indo-European terminology for the divine twins, although Finnic languages of the eastern Baltic may have exerted some influence on its later usage.

In his article “Notes on Baltic Mythology” (pp. 289–314), V. Toporov continues the research in this field begun earlier³. The aim of the article, as the author writes, is “to reconstruct certain features of the hierarchical structure of the Baltic pantheon (or, more precisely, pantheons), on the basis of the distribution of theonyms in the surviving lists of gods” (pp. 289–290).

The first (and larger) part of the article is devoted to the Prussian gods. At the outset, the author provides a list of the names of Prussian pagan gods, painstakingly compiled from various sources. The explanations of the origins of the gods’ names presented in the article will be of interest to specialists in many fields. On the basis of observations concerning distribution recorded in historical sources, or indeed of the lists of gods themselves, V. Toporov presents two archetypal schemes for the hierarchy of Prussian gods. In the author’s view, one such scheme could be as follows:

The subsequent evolution of this scheme was as follows: 1) Deivs acquired the epithet Okopirms, which later became the basis of a name; 2) Trimps split into Potrimps and Autrimps (in some versions also Natrimpe); 3) the epithet Bardoits, formerly attached to the name Patols, separated off

³ V. N. Toporov, On the Old Indian Usas (Usas) and Its Baltic Correspondence (Оѕінѕ), in: India in Antiquity, Moscow, 1964, pp. 66—84; On a Certain “Yatvingian” Mythologeme in Connection with a Slavic Parallel, “Acta Baltico-Slavica”, III, 1966, pp. 143—149; On Balto-Scandinavian Mythological Connections, Donum Balticum, Stokholm, 1970, p. 534—543.

323

became independent of this name; 4) Patols was given the name Pekols; 5) Pekols split into Pekols and Pokols; 6) Svaitix was incorporated into the pantheon.

In the second part of the article, V. Toporov summarizes the information in historical sources about the Lithuanian pantheon in the 13th century. The sources are indeed scarce (the Volhynian Chronicle and an interpolation made in 1261 in Joannes Malalas’ “Chronicle”), yet even this relatively meagre information enabled V. Toporov to reach interesting conclusions. Among other things, V. Toporov returns⁴ to the idea that the name of a god mentioned in the Volhynian Chronicle, Diviriksa (Диверикъзу, Дивирика), should be interpreted not as ‘God’s prince’ but as ‘God’s rod’.

V. Toporov’s study “Baltica” near Moscow (pp. 217–280) occupies a distinctive place in the collection under review. In this work, V. Toporov systematically continues the series of studies⁵ by many earlier researchers (A. Kochubinsky, A. Pogodin, K. Būga, A. Shakhmatov, A. Sobolevsky, M. Vasmer, B. Serebrennikov, and others) and by authors of the past decade, above all V. Toporov and O. Trubachev, on the spread of Baltic toponymy east of the present-day Baltic territories. Earlier works had established the southeastern boundary of the area of Baltic place names. The eastern boundary remained unclear.

The aim of the study “Baltica” near Moscow is to establish the eastern boundary of Baltic toponymy.

It should be noted that the term “Baltic” is used here in a somewhat different sense than before.

As is well known, V. Toporov is one of the leading proponents of the theory that the Slavic languages developed from peripheral Baltic dialects. This view is set out quite explicitly in V. Toporov’s article “On Toponymic Correspondences in the Baltic Territories and West of the Vistula”⁶, which states that the “Baltic-Slavic” period was geographically associated with areas bordering the historical Baltic lands to the west, south, and southeast, and that chronologically it extended from the existence of the ancient Baltic dialects until the separation from them of those peripheral groups from which the Slavic languages later developed”⁷. One of the main aims of the study “Baltica” near Moscow is apparently to establish this hypothesis on the basis not of the western, but of the eastern “periphery”⁸. Hence the term “Baltic” is given a very distinctive, one might say special, meaning. Here, “Baltic” is contrasted with “Slavic” not ethnically, or even linguistically, but rather historically and typologically. Just as the article speaks of “Baltica” near Moscow, it could supposedly also speak of

⁴ Žr. В. Н. Топоров, К балто-славянским мифологическим связям, Donum Baltic um, стр. 535.

⁵ В. Н. Топоров и О. Н. Трубачев, Лингвистический анализ гидронимов Верхнего Поднепровья, Москва, 1962; О. Н. Трубачёв, Названия рек Правобережной Украины, Москва, 1968 ir kt.

⁶ V. N. Toporov, On the Question of Toponymic Correspondences in the Baltic Territories and West of the Vistula, “Baltistica” I(1), 1966, p. 103—111. Cf. also: V. N. Toporov, On Baltic Elements in Hydronymy and Toponymy West of the Vistula, “Slavica Pragensia”, VIII, 1966, pp. 255—263.

⁷ Ibid., p. 104.

⁸ Recently, a new work by V. Toporov has appeared, in which this hypothesis is substantiated by appellative vocabulary: В. Н. Топоров, Балтизмы в русских говорах, кн.: Балтийские языки и их взаимосвязи со славянскими, финно-угорскими и германскими языками. Тезисы докладов научной конференции, посвященной 100-летию со дня рождения акад. Я. Эндзелина, Рига, 1973, стр. 43—46; В. Н. Топоров, К вопросу о балтизмах в славянских языках (теоретический взгляд), „Известия Академии Наук Латвийской ССР“, 1973, № 2, стр. 90—96.

324

“Slavica” of the Baltics, referring to forms of undeniably Baltic origin that have evolved considerably further than most others⁹. Such territories, whose place names can be interpreted in two entirely different ways (as Slavic and as Baltic), formed areas in which Baltic and Slavic elements underwent (and sometimes still undergo) differentiation, or, more precisely, the former’s transformation into the latter.

This conception of the term “Baltic” gives the researcher considerable latitude; consequently, it is usually very difficult to debate the “Baltic” or “Slavic” character of the place names mentioned in the article—to do so, one would have to question the very conception, which, in our view, is both interesting and original.

Whatever the meaning attributed to the term “Baltic,” the author presents in the article a considerable number of hydronyms from the Moscow region that he regards as unequivocal Baltisms.

The presence of place names of Baltic origin in the Moscow region is not unexpected. First of all, a considerable number of historical facts are known indicating that Balts once lived in the Moscow region. Perhaps the most important is the testimony of Russian chronicles that as late as the beginning of the second millennium a Baltic tribe—the Galindians—lived near the Protva River¹⁰. The article also contains other historical information confirming the supposition that Balts certainly inhabited the territories of the Moscow region. It is also worth recalling the remarkable results obtained through the study of the settlement of Troitskaya (Mozhaisk District) in the Moscow region. Two books were published on the basis of these investigations¹¹, and their conclusion entirely accords with the historical testimony: Troitskaya was inhabited by Balts for a long time¹². Incidentally, the second of these books contains an article by the well-known archaeologist V. Sedov, “Baltic Hydronymy of the Volga-Oka Interfluve,” in which the author presents 180 hydronyms from this region that he considers Baltic¹³. Thus, we have two studies that examine hydronyms from essentially the same places and find many of them to be Baltic. It is difficult to believe that this could be a coincidence.

However, these two articles also prompt other thoughts. Although they chose essentially the same territory as their subject, the two authors by no means regard the same hydronyms as Baltic: the number of hydronyms deemed Baltic in both articles is only about 70. This means that V. Toporov does not consider more than half of the hydronyms that V. Sedov regards as Baltic to be so. Conversely, only less than a third of V. Toporov’s “Baltisms” received a similar interpretation in V. Sedov’s article. This fact alone shows that the interpretation of Baltisms involves a certain degree of subjectivity, and that definitive conclusions have yet to be reached regarding the origin of many hydronyms in the Volga-Oka interfluve.

V. Toporov also establishes a fairly strict eastern boundary for the distribution of Baltic place names, which, in his opinion, runs approximately from Kalinin along the Moskva River to its confluence with the Oka. It is interesting that V. Toporov’s view of the eastern boundary of Baltic place names almost entirely coincides with V. Sedov’s¹⁴.

In analyzing more than 300 place names in the Moscow region, V. Toporov makes extensive use of Baltic onomastics. This is quite understandable, since Baltic

⁹ В. Н. Топоров, „Балтика“ Подмосковья, стр. 263.

¹⁰ Теп рат, 270.

¹¹ Ancient Settlement in the Moscow Region, Moscow, 1970; Ancient Settlement in the Moscow Region, Moscow, 1971.

¹² Ancient Settlement in the Moscow Region, 1970, p. 94, etc.

¹³ Древнее поселение в Подмосковье, 1971, стр. 99–119.

¹⁴ V. Sedov, cited work, p. 108.

325

Correspondences determine the etymology of many place names; without them, the very concept of Baltisms would be impossible.

As is well known, Baltic onomastics has been researched and published relatively little, so its authors, especially those from other countries, always face difficulties, which are sometimes so considerable that they affect the scholarly quality of their works. This is true, in part, of the article under discussion, whose perhaps most important shortcoming is its insufficiently differentiated approach to Baltic onomastics. What is meant is this: alongside its archaic elements—Baltic and Indo-European—the Baltic name stock contains many more innovations that arose relatively recently. In addressing further problems concerning the Baltic past, it is important to separate what is new and work only with its old elements. We must acknowledge that this was not always achieved in the article under discussion, which is therefore replete with comparisons and etymologies that, once the above-mentioned selection of Baltic names has been made, prove inaccurate or incomplete. Most importantly, the author often compares hydronyms of the Moscow region with Baltic oikonyms, many of which are derived from personal names. For example, the river name Ворча cannot be linked with Lithuanian Varkaliai village, Varkališkiai village, and the like, because both these village names derive from the personal name Varkalys, which in turn comes from the name of an occupation, varkalys ‘coppersmith.’ Житойка cannot be compared with Lithuanian Getaučiai village, Getautiškiai village, since these oikonyms derive from the compound Lithuanian personal names Gė-tautas, Ge-taūtis.

The same can be said, for example, of the comparison of the river name Мошонка with Lithuanian Mastautai village, which derives from the compound personal name Mãs-tautas. This river name cannot be linked either with Lithuanian Masiai village, Masionys village, since these village names derive from the surnames Masys, Masionis, and these surnames come from the baptismal name Motiejus.

There are further cases in which the Baltic character of hydronyms in the Moscow region is supported by Baltic place names derived from personal names, themselves formed from baptismal names or surnames based on baptismal names. For instance, the ‘Baltic’ origin of the river name Юшинка is argued by linking it with Lithuanian Jusėnai village, Jusiškis village, Jusiai village, Latvian Jusi, Juši, and so on. In fact, all these place names derive from personal names such as Lithuanian Jusys, Latvian Jusis, and so on, which in turn are adaptations of the baptismal name Justinas. The linking of the river name Микажель with Lithuanian Mikėnai village, Mikašiūnai village, Latvian Mikis, Mikīši, and the like is also erroneous, because these place names derive from personal names such as Lithuanian Mikėnas, Mikašius, Latvian Mikis, and so on. The latter personal names come from the baptismal name Mýkolas, Latvian Mikēlis.

Such cases are particularly undesirable when a hydronym from the Moscow region is compared with numerous Baltic place names that are themselves of diverse origins. For example, what is the point of listing the Lithuanian names Ūla river, Uličėlė village (it should be Ūlyčėlė) and Ulitėlė village (it should be Ūlytėlė), Uliūnai village, and so on, alongside the river name Улупинка, when the village names Ūlyčėlė and Ūlytėlė derive from the Slavicism ulýčia ‘village, hamlet,’ the village name Ūliūnai derives from the surname Uliūnas, while the river name Ūla is possibly an ancient Baltic hydronym that may legitimately be linked to the river name under discussion.

There are quite a few suspect and doubtful comparisons and etymologies. Nevertheless, most seem sufficiently reliable, so these critical remarks do not undermine the article’s general conception.

At the end of the collection, three reviews are published: E. Grinaveckienė, J. Senkus: Z. Zinkevičius, Lietuvių dialektologija, Vilnius, 1966; S. Karaliū-

326

nas: А. П. Непокупный, Ареальные аспекты балто-славянских языковых отношений, Киев, 1964; Б. Л. Огибенин: A. Dundes, The Binary Structure of „Unsuccessful Repetition“ in Lithuanian Folk Tales, „Western Folklore“, 1962, V, XXI, N 3.

Before us is an important work in Baltic studies, of a kind published very rarely outside the Baltic countries. The breadth of its subject matter and its appropriate scholarly standard will undoubtedly make this collection a reference work for specialists in many fields.

A. Vanagas