I wish to thank the International Research and Exchanges Board, the United States Department of Education, and the Research Council of the University of Massachusetts/Amherst for their support of my research.

1. The important modern studies of water transport between the Volga and St. Petersburg are the following: Bernshtein-Kogan, S. V., Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put’ (Moscow, 1946)Google Scholar, Gorelev, V. A.,Rechnye kanaly v Rossii (Moscow and Leningrad, 1953)Google Scholar, which corrects and adds detail to Bernshtein-Kogan's book, especially for the period up to 1764, and E. G. Istomina, “Vyshnevolotskii vodnyiput’ vo vtoroi polovine XVIII-nachale XIX v.” in Narochnitskii, A. L. et al., eds., Istoricheskaia geografiia Rossii XH-nachalo XX v. Sbornik statei k 70 letiiu professora Liubomira Grigor'evicha Beskrovnogo (Moscow, 1975)Google Scholar, which carries Gorelev's detailed presentation forward to the early nineteenth century. All three are highly specialized works that deal almost exclusively with the physical and technical aspects of the waterways leading to St. Petersburg in isolation from the larger issues of commerce, commercial policy, and regional development. Conversely, the important essays on the commerce of St. Petersburg by Suknovalov and Makarov in volume 1 of Ocherki istorii Leningrada (Moscow and Leningrad, 1955) (hereafter OIL) make only passing reference to the difficulties of transporting goods to St. Petersburg without explaining those difficulties or their consequences. Those subjects are likewise ignored in Kafengauz, B. B., Ocherki vnutrennego rynka Rossii pervoi poloviny XVIII veka (Moscow, 1958)Google Scholar. One of the very few attempts to relate those difficulties to other issues is Kafengauz, , Istoriia khoziaistva Demidovykh v XVIII-XIX vv. (Moscow, 1949)Google Scholar, which deals at considerable length with the problems of transporting iron from the Urals to St. Petersburg.

2. Details on the consumption of Russian goods in St. Petersburg, especially in connection with the activities of the admiralty and various industries, are given in OIL, 1:52–86 and 255–85.

3. According to Ryndziunskii, P. G. and Sivkov, K. V., “Izmeneniia v sostave naseleniia,” Istoriia Moskvy, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1953), p. 307 Google Scholar, the population of Moscow between 1788 and 1795 was only 175,000 persons of both sexes. According to G. E. Kochin, “Naselenie Peterburga v 60–90 godakh XVIII v.,” OIL, 1:294, the population of St. Petersburg in 1784 was 192,000 persons of both sexes. Although he gives much greater estimates of the populations of both cities, Rozman, Gilbert, Urban Networks in Russia 1750–1800 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 182 Google Scholar says that the population of St. Petersburg had surpassed that of Moscow by 1782. The statement that St. Petersburg's shipping had surpassed that of Riga by the 1790s is taken from Knoppers, Jake V T. ,Dutch Trade with Russia from the Time of Peter I to Alexander I. A Quantitative Study in Eighteenth Century Russian Shipping (Montreal: Inter-university Centre for European Studies Occasional Papers, 1976), 1:178.Google Scholar

4. Kochin in OIL, 1:102–103 and 294–95. Rashin, A. G., Naselenie Rossii za slo let 1811–1913 (Moscow, 1956), p. 90 Google Scholar. None of the figures given include the large number of seasonal and transient residents that could always be found in St. Petersburg. Kochin, OIL, 1:101–104, discusses the problems involved in determining the population of St. Petersburg, especially in the first half of the eighteenth century.

5. OIL, 1:86 and 288.

6. Blanc, Simone, “The Economic Policy of Peter the Great,” in Blackwell, William L., ed.,Russian Economic Development from Peter the Great to Stalin (New York: New Viewpoints, 1974),p. 30 Google Scholar. This essay was first published in Cahiers du monde russe etsoviitique, 3 (1962): 122–39. OIL, 1:86.

7. According to Istomina, E. G., Granitsy, naselenie, goroda novgorodskoi gubernii (1727–1917) (Moscow, 1972, pp. 61–63)Google Scholar, population density in the post-1776 guberniia of Novgorod ranged from a high of eight persons per square kilometer in the southwest around Staraia Russa through five to six per square kilometer in the area around the city of Novgorod, to two persons per square kilometerin the northeast around Tikhvin and Beloozero. According to the General Survey, Novgorod guberniia in the boundaries of 1776 contained 1,276 rivers and streams and 1,020 lakes. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia vo vtoroi polovine XVIII veka. Opyt istoriko-geograficheskogo issledovaniia” (Candidate diss., Moscow University, 1969), p. 215. According to N. L. Rubinshtein's computations from the Economic Observations of the General Survey and from the Fifth Revision of 1795, 66.8 percent of Novgorod guberniia consisted of forests. Sel'skoe khoziaistvo Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. (Moscow, 1957), p. 209.

8. Istomina, , Novgorodskaia guberniia vo vtoroi polovine XV111 v. Opyt istoriko-geograficheskogo issledovaniia (Moscow, 1969), pp. 14,17–18Google Scholar. This is the published referat of the author's dissertation. Kafengauz, Ocherki provides a valuable discussion of the goods shipped to St. Petersburg from thecity of Novgorod before the abolition of internal tariffs.

9. Exports of iron (in puds) increased from 55,149 in 1726 to 738,638 in 1751 to 2,458,000 in 1795. Exports of hemp (in puds) in the same years rose from 494,362 to 1,175,604 to 1,690,000. OIL, 1:88, 289. One pud equals 36.1 pounds.

10. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia,” p. 284. L. V Milov, Issledovanie ob “ Ekonomicheskikh primechaniiakh” k general'nomu mezhevaniiu (Moscow, 1965), p. 256. On pp. 176–97 Milovargues that barshchina showed a strong tendency to increase, as compared to obrok, in conjunctionwith the profitability of agriculture.

11. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia,” pp. 265, 284–88. Perry, John, The State of Russia Under the Present Czar (London, 1716), pp. 261–62Google Scholar, wrote that “all manner of Provisions are usuallythree or four times as dear, and Forage for their Horses, etc. at least six or eight times as dear as itis at Moscow; which happens from the great Expense of it at Petersburgh, and the small quantitywhich the Countrey thereabouts produces, being more than two thirds Woods and Bogs. “

12. Kabuzan, B. M., Izmeneniia v razmeshchenii naseleniia Rossii v XVIII-pervoi polovine XIX v. (Moscow, 1971), p. 85.Google Scholar In their nakaz to the Legislative Commission of 1767 the peasants of Kargopol’ asked permission to hunt birds and game throughout the year. Cited in Wilson Augustine, “The Economic Attitudes and Opinions Expressed by the Russian Nobility in the Great Commission of 1767 (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1969), p. 160.

13. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia,” pp. 274–75.

14. Rubinshtein, Sel'skoe khoziaistvo Rossii, p. 364.

15. Ibid.

16. Augustine, Wilson, “Notes toward a Portrait of the Eighteenth Century Russian Nobility,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 4, no. 3 (Fall 1970): 412 Google Scholar.

17. See my study Provincial Development in Russia (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1984), chapter IV, for detailed information on commodities to St. Petersburg from its hinterland.

18. OIL, 1:83. On January 31, 1724 a special decree allowed the importation of grain during that year to alleviate famine. It imposed a duty of 5 percent. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii (hereafter PSZ), no. 4454.

19. Mironov, B. N., “Eksport russkogo khleba vo vtoroi polovine XVIII-nachale XIX v.,” Istoricheskie zapiski, 93 (1974): 179.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., p. 174.

21. On the need to supply St. Petersburg by water see Perry, State of Russia, pp. 40–41. Perry explains that one significant limitation on overland transport was “the very great Scarcity and Dearnessof Forage for Horses. “

22. Gorelev, Rechnye kanaly, pp. 19-37.

23. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 9. This decree is not included in the PSZ.

24. Gorelev, Rechnye kanaly, pp. 12–15.

25. Perry, State of Russia, pp. 41–44. According to Gorelev, p. 81, the most important complaint came from Iakov Korsakov, who had brought a cargo of ship timber from Kazan’ through Vyshnii Volochek to St. Petersburg for the admiralty in 1718.

26. Gorelev, Rechnye kanaly, pp. 83–85. Very little is known about Serdiukov's background. Peter had met him in Astrakhan', where he had worked in the warehouse of a merchant named Evreinikov. Around 1700 he had built a distillery in Novgorod. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 15 says that some contemporaries identified Serdiukov as a Kalmuck and others as a Siberian Jew.

27. PSZ, no. 3397 (June 26, 1719).

28. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', pp. 21–26.

29. PSZ, no. 4018 (May 25, 1722).

30. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', pp. 21–26.

31. Ibid., p. 53,

32. Ibid,, p. 48. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (hereafter TsGIA), fond 1487(Kolektsiia planov i chertezhei shossenykh i vodianykh soobshchenii), dela 657–58 (Reka Tvertsa).

33. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 50.

34. Blum, Karl, Ein russischer Staatsmann. Des Grafen Jakob Johann Sievers Denkwürdigkeiten zur Geschichte Russlands, 4 vols. (Leipzig and Heidelberg, 1857), 2:71 Google Scholar. Blum's source is a letterfrom Governor Sievers to Catherine written in 1775. No explanation is given for the difference in the number of workers required for different kinds of cargo.

35. Istomina, “Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put',” p. 194. TsGIA, fond 1487, delo 544 (Reka Msta).

36. Istomina, “Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put',” p. 195.

37. Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva (hereafter SIRIO), 108:444.

38. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 50.

39. Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 2:71. See n. 34. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 28. Larger dimensions for the barka are given in Gibson, James R., Feeding the Russian Fur Trade (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), p. 74 Google Scholar, and Crosby, Alfred W., America, Russia, Hemp, and Napoleon (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1965), pp. 34–35 Google Scholar, but Gibson is discussing its use on other rivers and Crosby is referring to the early nineteenth century after a number of improvements had been made to the Vyshnii Volochek System. In the letter to Catherine quoted by Blum, Sievers noted that the length of most barki was slightly in excess of the legal limit and that vessels wider than 25 feet could not pass through the Ladoga Canal.

40. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 30.

41. The grain merchant I. A. Tolchenov describes the following occurrence at Vyshnii Volochekin 1775: “The Governor of Novgorod, Iakov Efimovich Sievers, was in Vyshnii Volochek at that time and gave the order not to pay more than three rubles, twenty-five kopecks to any man. On the morning of the second day, the governor, convening all the merchants, gave the order that the line of barges that included mine was to hire workers only on the float at Gorodka and take those from the uezd of Vyshnii Volochek and no others.” Pavlenko, N. I., ed., Zhurnal Hi zapiski zhizni i prikliuchenii 1. A. Tolchenova (Moscow, 1974), pp. 60–61 Google Scholar.

42. PSZ, nos. 2946 (October 28, 1715), 3451 (November 11, 1719), and 5540 (June 20, 1730) .A decree of June 23, 1735 stated that the Gzhatsk wharf had been created in 1719 “for the benefit of the port of St. Petersburg.” PSZ, no. 6752.

43. In 1768 Governor Sievers of Novgorod informed the empress that the merchants of Rzhev had recently raised 200,000 rubles to purchase Ukrainian hemp and grain. Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 1:268. In the previous year Sievers had passed along to the Senate a petition from the merchants of Rzhev and Zubtsov protesting a proposal to transfer those towns from the Tver’ provintsiia of Novgorod guberniia to the Viaz'ma provintsiia of Smolensk guberniia. Among their arguments the merchants pointed out that “all their trade and commerce [pass] down that one river to Tver’ and Novgorod and the port of St. Petersburg.” Sievers to the Senate, November 16, 1767. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (hereafter TsGADA), fond 248 (Dela Senata), delo 3716 (Pervyi departament za 1765–1767), I. 224.

44. Zhurnal …LA. Tolchenova, pp. 34–48, 59–65. On the movement of Ukrainian grain from the Desna to the Volga see M. D. Chulkov, Istoricheskoe opisanie rossiiskoi komertsii, vol. 4 (St. Petersburg, 1785), part 2, p. 37.

45. Report from the Commerce Commission to the Senate dated December 2,1764, TsGADA, fond 397 (Komissiia o hommertsii), dela 445/55 (Komissia o kommertsii po tverskoi provintsii), 11. 3–3ob.

46. In the 1760s the voevoda of Tambov reported to the Senate that each year a fleet of 100 boatspurchased some 300,000 chetverts of grain for shipment to towns on the upper Volga. Augustine, “Attitudes,” p. 166. One chetvert equals 5.77 bushels. In the mid-1760s the provintsiia chancery of Alatyr, a town on the Sura River, which empties into the Volga between Nizhnii Novgorod and Kazan', listed seven merchants who purchased grain on the local wharf during August 1765. Of the seven, two—Kirilov and Sobolev—were identified as merchants from Tver'. TsGADA, fond 248, delo 6444 (1766 g.), II. 777–777ob.

47. Zhurnal…LA. Tolchenova, p. 36.

48. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia,” pp. 359–360.

49. Ibid.

50. PSZ, no. 11489 (March 28, 1762). Archangel alone had been allowed to export Russiangrain prior to 1762. Riga exported large quantities of Livonian and Polish grain, but until 1762 itwas prohibited from exporting Russian grain.

51. Ransel, David L., The Politics of Catherinian Russia. The Panin Party (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), pp. 147–48Google Scholar. For the memorandum that Ransel attributes to Panin see N. N.Firsov, Pravitel'stvo i obshchestvo v ikh otnosheniiakh k vneshnei torgovli Rossii v tsarstvovanie imperatritsy Ekateriny II (Kazan', 1902), pp. 52–56.

52. PSZ, no. 11985.

53. Lodyshenskii, K. N., Istoriia russkago tamozhnago tarifa (St. Petersburg, 1886), pp. 113 Google Scholar—

16. The actual export of grain from St. Petersburg started slowly but increased from 16,750 chetverts in 1768 to 90,157 chetverts in 1769. For complete figures see Mironov, “Eksport russkogo khleba,” p. 157.

54. Knoppers, Dutch Trade, 1:154, 177–78, 191.

55. John T. Alexander, “Catherine II, Bubonic Plague, and the Problem of Industry in Moscow,” American Historical Review, 79, no. 3 (June 1974): 643. The reports of Chief of Police Chicherin in TsGADA, fond 16, delo 481, chast’ 3 show his compliance with Catherine's directive.

56. George E. Munro, “The Development of St. Petersburg as an Urban Center During the Reign of Catherine II (1762–1796),” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1973), pp. 189–90.

58 Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 1:26

59 Mironov, "Eksport russkogo khleba," p. 175

60 Iu. R. Klokman, Ocherki sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii gorodov severozapada Rossii v seredine XVIII v. (Moscow, 1960), p. 33

61 Ibid

62 M. D. Chulkov, Istoricheskoe opisanie rossiiskoi kommertsii, vol. 4, part 5 (Moscow, 1786), table 2.

63 Klokman, Ocherki, pp. 72-120. Klokman is concerned principally with the development of industries in the towns, but most of the industries he describes processed hides, tallow, linen, and so forth from the surrounding countryside

64 Sievers to Catherine, November 12, 1779. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 788, chast' 2, /. 20.

65. PSZ, no. 12624 (April 14, 1766). Sievers's reply to the Senate is quoted in D. I. Ilovaiskii,Sochineniia D. 1. Ilovaiskago (Moscow, 1884), pp. 480–81.

66. Sievers to Catherine, December 1764. TsGADA, fond 16, deb 785, l. 20.

67. TsGADA, fond 168, deb 153, l. 8ob.

68. Blum, Ein rus'sischer Staatsmann, 2:213.

69. Brius to Catherine, undated. TsGADA, fond 16, deb 91A (Doneseniia Grafa Iakova Briusa o guberniiakh novgorodskoi i tverskoi), 11. 148–51.

70. PSZ, no. 14070 (November 22, 1773).

71. Istomina, “Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put',” p. 195.

72. Catherine's decree of October 9, 1778 provided a formal organization and a staffing chart for the Directorate of Water Communications. PSZ, no. 14809. See also the staffing chart under that same number in the Kniga Shtatov appended to the PSZ.

73. Sievers to Catherine, September 15, 1781. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 788, chast’ 3, ll. 250–50ob. Sievers to Brius, June 29, 1782, quoted in Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 2:428–33.

74. Istomina, “Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put',” p. 200.

75. This calculation is based on the data provided by Chulkov in Istoricheskoe opisanie, vol. 4, part 5, table 2. Of the 5997 vessels arriving in St. Petersburg in 1777, 2,624 carried cargoes from the far side of the continental divide. Chulkov does not specify, however, whether these were barki or vessels of all kinds. In the latter case, which is the most probable, the number of barki would fall somewhere within the range I have given.

76. Sievers to Catherine, September 15, 1781. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 788, chast’ 3, l. 250–51ob. Sievers told the empress that if the 844 boats of the autumn caravan that were on their wayup the Tvertsa cleared Vyshnii Volochek before winter, it would bring the total for the year to 3,000.

77. Arkhanov to Catherine, November 28, 1785. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 975, l. 27.

78. Arkhanov to Catherine, November 6, 1786. Ibid., 190–90ob.

79. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 28.

80. Jepson Oddy, J., European Commerce Showing New and Secure Channels of Trade with the Continent of Europe (London, 1805), pp. 67–70 Google Scholar.

81. Except for Chulkov all of the sources cited in the preceding seven notes identify barki clearly, but the terms used to identify other craft are inconsistent from one source to another, and in somecases the data they provide on other craft appear to be incomplete. The clearest is Oddy, who says that 382 half-barges, 248 smaller boats, and 1,676 “floats” passed through Vyshnii Volochek in 1797. Ibid. I assume that “floats” are rafts, but if that is true, it is the only reference to rafts using the canals at Vyshnii Volochek. Either “floats” does not mean “rafts,” or rafts only began to cross thecontinental divide in the 1790s, or they had been in use before that and other sources ignored them.

82. D. Bakhturin, Kratkoe opisanie vnutrenniago rossiiskoi imperii vodokhodstva (St. Petersburg, 1802), p. 6. This work is an official history and status report on water transport in Russia published by the Department of Water Communications at a very critical point in its history. The many canals authorized by Paul had not been completed, and Alexander's attitude toward them was uncertain. Bernshtein-Kogan, Vyshnevolotskii vodnyi put', p. 30 says that traffic through the canals at Vyshnii Volochek remained constant at 4,000 to 4,600 boats per year between 1800 and 1836.

83. PSZ, no. 16406 (June 22, 1786). Mironov, “Eksport russkogo khleba,” p. 174, states inaccuratelythat this prohibition on exports occurred in 1788–1789.

84. PSZ, no. 16444 (October 25, 1786).

85. Mironov, “Eksport russkogo khleba,” p. 157.

86. Ransel, Politics of Catherinian Russia, p. 150.

87. Istomina, “Novgorodskaia guberniia,” p. 367.

88. Sievers to Catherine, December 9, 1764. TsGADA,/ond 16, delo 785, l. 11.

89. The Senate's report of October 9, 1774 cites Catherine's order of March 24, 1765, but it is not included in the PSZ. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 299 (O novom vodianom soobshchenii chrez Lidskoe Ozero po proektu Senatora Mikhaila Dedeneva), I. 1.

90. Ibid., ll. 11–1 lob. Dedenev's plan accompanied by twenty-two maps was submitted on January 16, 1767 and now constitutes TsGADA, forid 16, delo 290. Dedenev had previously drawn hydrographic maps of the Msta and the Tvertsa and had submitted plans for improving the Vyshnii Volochek System. He and Sievers clashed repeatedly over improvements to the waterways.

91. Sievers to Catherine, December 9, 1764. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 785, l. 11.

92. Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 1:267

93. For example, Sievers had informed Catherine as early as November 19, 1772 that the locks of the Tveretskii Canal needed to be constructed with stone instead of wood. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 785, l. 242. Although he raised the issue many times in the nine years that followed, he had not received the necessary authorization and funding by the time he left office in 1781. Finally, after seeing the locks for herself, Catherine appropriated the money on January 7, 1785. Arkharov to Catherine, undated. TsGADA, fond 16, delo 975, l. 106.

94. Blum, Ein russischer Staatsmann, 1:269.

95. Ibid., pp. 352–53, 371. Also Sievers to Catherine, October 29, 1769, TsGADA, fond 16,delo 110, l. 1.

96. Extensive documentation of the latter point is provided in Patricia Herlihy, “Russian Grain and Mediterranean Markets, 1774–1861” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1963). According to Mironov, “Eksport russkogo khleba,” pp. 161–62, 167, grain exports from the Black Sea ports began in 1774, but they did not equal those of St. Petersburg until the 1790s. The major physical obstacle to navigation on the Dnieper was the series of cataracts. These were described as a very serious impediment to commerce in Bakhturin's published report of 1802, pp. 78–80.

97. Herlihy, “Russian Grain,” p. 83.

98. PSZ, no. 17848 (February 2,1797) appointed Sievers director of water communications and described his authority. Arkharov, who had been serving as director of water communications in Novgorod and Tver’ guberniias since 1784, resigned in protest. To prevent interference and institutionalizehis control over internal navigation, Sievers persuaded Paul to create the Department of Water Communications. Its creation and authority are described in PSZ, no. 18403 (February 28,1798).

99. “Remarques sur l'organisation du Département de Navigation par Général-Lieutenant François Devolant,” April 29, 1809. TsGADA, fond 155 (Vodnye kommunikatsii), opis’ 1, delo 1, l. 68.Devolant was an engineer from Brabant, who had worked on forts in the Black Sea region beforeSievers hired him to be the chief engineer of the Department of Water Communications.

100. Paul to Procurator-General Kurakin, January 20, 1798. TsGIA, fond 156, (Departament vodianykh kommunikatsii), opis’ 1, delo 1, l. 27.

101. Dubenskii, Dmitrii, Razsuzhdenie o vodianykh soobshcheniiakh v Rossii (Moscow, 1825) ,p. 56 Google Scholar.

102. TsGIA, fond 156, opis’ 1, delo 1, l. 90–105.

103. Russia. Ministerstvo Soobshcheniia, Putei, Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk razvitiia i deiatel'nosti vedomstva putei soobshcheniia za sto let ego sushchestvovaniia 1798–1898 (St. Petersburg,1898), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

104. Haywood, Richard, The Beginnings of Railway Development in Russia in the Reign of Nicholas I, 1835–1842 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1969), pp. 180, 218–21.Google Scholar

105. In 1802 Bakhturin, Kratkoe opisanie, pp. 8–9, estimated the value of foreign goods being portaged across the continental divide between Tikhvin and Sominskii Wharf along the route of the Tikhvin Canal to be 2,000,000 rubles. See also n. 89.