160 SZLACHTA
within the bounds of their jurisdiction. Their commerical activities were gov-
erned by the guilds and confraternities. After the sixteenth century, when the
cities' former prosperity declined, an urban proletariat devoid of full civic rights
multiplied rapidly. (See Chapter 9.) The foundations of the Jewish estate were
laid in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, although the institutions of
Jewish autonomy were not fully developed until the mid-sixteenth century.
Their rivalry with the Burghers, and their alliance with the Nobility, remained
constant.
The Peasantry, of course, represented by far the most numerous estate,
accounting for perhaps 60 per cent of the population in 1569. Given that a con-
siderable proportion of the people enjoying the legal rights of burghers actu-
ally lived as peasants, this percentage might be raised accordingly. Although
the process of enserfment was far advanced, there always remained both a
class of hired labourers, and in certain districts a sturdy class of free peasant
farmers.
The szlachta or 'nobility',* therefore, whilst inventing the most fanciful leg-
ends of its ancient origins, was in fact the most recent estate to emerge. In the
sixteenth century, they were still perfecting the laws and institutions which were
to characterize their supremacy in the subsequent period. Yet no one could seri-
ously dispute the fact that in the lifetime of the Polish-Lithuanian Republic its
members played a preponderant role in political, social, and cultural life. It
organized the state in its own interest, and harnessed the other elements of soci-
ety to its own purposes. If, as a result of religious toleration, Poland-Lithuania
was sometimes dubbed 'The Paradise of the Jews', it might better deserve the
label 'The Paradise of the Nobility'. Its critics added that this implied Purgatory
for the Burghers, and Hell for the Peasants.
* As usual in social history, terminology presents a serious problem. As often as not, local
terms refer to specific local conditions, and are not translatable. In Polish historiography,
the term szlachta itself is much used, and much abused. Even among those historians who
weigh their words with discrimination, usages and translations differ considerably in
accordance with varying criteria. Many modern historians insist on the antithesis of
szlachta: magnateria, whereby the szlachta becomes 'the mass of the nobility', as opposed
to a 'magnatial oligarchy' distinguished by disproportionate power and wealth. Anglo-
Saxon historians, beguiled perhaps by the English distinction between 'gentleman' and
'peer', have tended to concur in this fashion, and szlachta is habitually translated as 'gen-
try'. However, it is important to stress that the Polish Nobility was not divided into separ-
ate legal sub-categories as in England or Germany, and that the term szlachta referred to
the whole of the Noble Estate, not just to part of it. It was not characterized by socio-
economic criteria, but by its corporate privileges and obligations, and by the body of law
and tradition which controlled them. It certainly did not exclude the magnates. For the sake
of precision, therefore, it is essential that szlachta should be translated as 'Nobility', szlach-
cic as 'nobleman', and Stan szlachecki as 'the noble estate'.^3