Garskova was most austere. Densely quantitative and restricted in its immediate subject matter, it is particularly far-reaching in its implications. The authors themselves underline one of these implications when they emphasize their finding that patrimonial estates (votchiny) proved to be more vigorous and viable in 1630s than estates held on service tenure (pomest'ia). Historians have long conceived votchiny to be losing out to pomest'e form, and particularly in period in question, during period of recovery from Time of Troubles. The supposed superiority of pomest'e form is closely linked to rise of absolutism, development of serfdom, and other major issues of Russian political, social and economic life. On two other counts, Milov's and Garskova's findings confound our expectations. One is major contribution that bobyli made to restoration of manorial economy after devastating calamities of late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. A bobyl' was a pauperized, ruined peasant (in usage of time, he did not even count as a peasant) who was granted relief from taxes and dues in recognition of his economic incapacity. It would appear-at least, in area to southwest of Moscow that authors studied-that although today term connotes helplessness and hopelessness, bobyli were by no means a burden on estates where they lived and that presence on an estate of workers not subject to taxation gave landowner a crucial advantage. Even more remarkable is relative advantage that Milov and Garskova show accrued to smaller estates, especially votchiny. The second quarter of seventeenth century was a period of painfully slow recovery from economic and political collapse. Commerce was seriously disrupted, and effective authority of new government in Moscow was limited. To judge by political documents of period, country was dominated by the powerful-politically well-connected holders of large pomest'ia. Lesser pomeshchiki, votchinniki, and townspeople were (or so they complained) unable to resist depredations of powerful. The victims beseeched central government for help, by and large in vain, until 1649. The Law Code issued in that year represented a significant attempt by government to interpose itself between powerful and rest of population in interests of securing flow of tax revenue and maintaining service system. The form of serfdom and rigid system of estates of realm (sosloviia) that derive from code and would dominate Russian life for more than two hundred years represent, so to speak, recognition of power of powerful. Yet Milov and Garskova show that larger estates were comparatively sluggish in their economic recovery and that smaller units were more flexible and more viable-at least, in circumstances of 1630s. The few dense pages that follow, therefore, constitute a restrained but well-grounded appeal for a reappraisal of Russian economy-and, by extension, of political and social institutions-in seventeenth century and beyond. Those who dislike quantitative methods in history usually motivate their dislike either by saying that findings of quantifiers must be wrong or that they confirm what we already knew. Garskova's and Milov's work will have its critics, but none of them, it is safe to say, will offer latter objection. The article also presents a challenge to humble translator. The variables authors analyze are derived from cadastral books and often employ a terminology that is distinctive to seventeenth-century Russia. Rather than conjure up archaic and imperfect English equivalents for