This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Szlachta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Szlachta was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 13 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Polish nobility. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I looked a bit at the upper part of the article and noticed that Exxess very liberally treats the source cited, incuding outright misinterpretations and delving into [[WP:NOR|original research]. I don't have much time; someone has to review the article carefully. The most glaring misinterpretation is to call szlachta atristocracy. Not. As the very source cited by Exxess themselves say. [1]. @ Nihil novi:, @ Volunteer Marek: : please review. Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
... the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of Two Nations (from 1385 until the Third Partition of 1795) paralleled the Roman Empire in that -- whether we like it or not -- full rights of citizenship were limited to the governing elite, called szlachta in Polish ... It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
...Świętochowski, on the other hand, wrote as follows: 'If from the deeds of the Polish nobility we took away excesses and the exclusiveness of caste, ...'
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
A deep division between enserfed peasants and gentry landowners had developed in the early modern Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The noble estate, the szlachta, monopolized the political rights and consequently only the szlachta, as constituted by the Commonwealth's sovereign, according to the early modern understanding of the concept, as well as the Polish nation and its members, were considered to be citizens.
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
This discussion is redundant, but the bastardization of feudal concepts and terms with the szlachta and Polish history is so egregious, the refutation bears repeating in its own section.
Polish history, from its beginning was divided into the two castes that mattered: szlachta/aristocratic/patrician clans and plebian/commoner/peasant/serf paralleling ancient Rome. There were poor patrician/aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Polish kings would align themselves with varying Polish szlachta clans/patricians, depending on the king's political objectives, despite these szlachta clans/patricians at times being insignificant compared to other szlachta/patrician clans. From Radwan coat of arms: "From Little Poland, the Śreniawa family/gens was insignificant and financially modest; however, King Kazimierz the Great (1310–1370) supported them in Little Poland."
Strictly speaking, review the following very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord." [1]
This caused Polish kings problems. Quoting the Szlachta article: "Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority." [2]: 75, 76
Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
Undoing my edits evidences an extremely superficial and ill-conceived notion of nobility. Nobility means subordinate to the king, per other countries, per feudalism, which the szlachta never had under any Polish king. [4] The szlachta were not subordinate to the Polish king, nor was the Polish king the overlord of the szlachta. Consider the quote very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."
Extremely superficial, knee-jerk, and ill-conceived edits, considering this: "... All of them were equal before the king; ..." Understand what that meant in law: "But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe." [5]
The patricians/szlachta composed the local Diets/Sejmiki, not the plebeian peasants/serfs, and those patricians/szlachta could undo all legislation, if they opposed. Think hard for another word for that kind of power. Was szlachta wealth a consideration, or was being szlachta/patrician enough to exercise that kind of power? Then ask yourself where the basis for that power came from.
Consider the above, in light of this: "The resistance to the royal policy [Polish kings attempting to impose feudalism] was so strong however that by far the greater part of the land was held by the knights as allodial, not as feudal property, which is in striking contrast to the land conditions in England." [6]
Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily." [4]
Obviously, since my edits were undone, they need to be stressed very heavily here.
It was a mistake to remove the following, which is more precise and more accurate:
This is my conclusion - whoever undid my edits does not understand land, does not understand landholding, does not understand lordship, does not understand law, does not understand nobility, does not understand aristocracy, does not understand feudalism or its basis, does not understand citizenship, does not understand Polish history, and does not understand why the Polish aristocracy paralleled the republicanism of ancient Rome, why the szlachta fought the autocracy of the Russian Tsar, and why the szlachta allowed Confederations against Polish kings, which the szlachta regarded as constitutional weapons against tyranny.
Conclusion, the edits were knee-jerk based upon a knee-jerk, superficial understanding of nobility and aristocracy, and Poland's history, resulting in an ill-conceived, horrifying, bastardized monstrosity of concepts and terms of feudalism with the szlachta, a feudalism which never existed in Poland. [3]
Adam Zamoyski states the szlachta were not a class, but a warrior caste. [8]
Quoting Adam Zamoyski and read it very carefully: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
But there it is, after undoing my edits, right in the beginning of the Szlachta article: "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ..." And now the world gets to enjoy a complete misunderstanding of Polish history and society.
Szlachta = patrician = always paralleled ancient Rome. Quote: "Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself." [13]
Extremely slopping thinking, zero rigor, extremely sloppy editing, knee-jerk editing, propagation of ill-conceived ideas based on huge misconceptions. Quoting Korzeniowski: "The horror! The horror!"
OPPOSE MOST STRENUOUSLY.
It does NOT get more clearer than this - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
Once more - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
The disdain for titles was not a matter of szlachta personal preference. It was a matter of law, embedded in the constitution [1], based upon szlachta land tenure, which made the szlachta equal before the king. The szlachta rejected feudalism and never had it under any Polish king. [4] [16]
I am going to presume the best of Wikipedia editors, and hope this bastardized mess of feudalistic embarrassment of the szlachta and Polish history will not remain the current notorious monstrosity the reading public is now subjected to. What we have here is an article heralding black is white, for all intents and purposes, but the editor(s) that undid my edits, i'm sure will pick themselves up after stumbling upon these facts, and plow forward like bulls in a china shop.
Yet again - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
As Zamoyski writes and cannot stress too heavily feudalism never took hold in Poland, and as Zamoyski writes one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta, understand what aristocracy means and patrician means, particularly as their were poor patrician, aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Poland maintained the division between patrician/szlachta and plebeian/serf. This article should avoid incessant attempts at hammering square pegs in round holes.
Whoever is undoing my edits needs to do a complete re-think. - Exxess ( talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe.
The resistance to the royal policy was so strong however that by far the greater part of the land was held by the knights as allodial, not as feudal property, which is in striking contrast to the land conditions in England.
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
... the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of Two Nations (from 1385 until the Third Partition of 1795) paralleled the Roman Empire in that -- whether we like it or not -- full rights of citizenship were limited to the governing elite, called szlachta in Polish ... It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
...Świętochowski, on the other hand, wrote as follows: 'If from the deeds of the Polish nobility we took away excesses and the exclusiveness of caste, ...'
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
A deep division between enserfed peasants and gentry landowners had developed in the early modern Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The noble estate, the szlachta, monopolized the political rights and consequently only the szlachta, as constituted by the Commonwealth's sovereign, according to the early modern understanding of the concept, as well as the Polish nation and its members, were considered to be citizens.
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
.... there we find an exact counterpart of Polish society: the dominant settlers establishing themselves as an upper caste, all politically equal among themselves, and holding the lands (or more frequently, simply drawing the rents) of the country.
All races, however republican in practice at home, tend to develop this Meerassee system of tenure - this aristocracy of equality - when they settle as conquerors among another race. It is especially characteristic of the Indo-Teutonic peoples, into whatever country they have entered as conquerors. The so-called democracy of Athens was in reality a republican aristocracy resting upon a basis of slavery.
These remark exactly express the view which we entertain in regard to the population of Poland. There we find an aristocracy of equals resting upon a basis of serfage, an upper caste drawing the rents of the land, monopolising the government, and composing the army of the country, and who, in the course of long centuries, have imparted much of their own spirit and ideas, and, with the license of a gay aristocracy, not a little of their blood also, to the subordinate population.
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
The boundaries between nobility and peasants (and other social groups) persisted well into the 19th and 20th centuries. A shocking proof of how terribly effective this Sarmatian ideology was, can be found in a personal letter of Zygmunt Krasiński, one of the three greatest Polish Romantic poets in the 19th century (and a descendant of an aristocratic family). In the mid-19th century Krasiński wrote to his English friend Henry Reeve: 'Believe me and rest assured that apart from aristocracy there's nothing in Poland: no talent, no bright minds, nor sense of sacrifice. Our third state [bourgeoisie] is nonsense; our peasants are machines. Only we [nobles] are Poland.'
In the past the nobility in Poland constituted the nation itself. It ruled the country without competition on the part of any other class, the middle class being small in numbers and wealth, and the peasants being serfs.
The Polish peasant in the past was a very humble member of the Polish community – in fact he scarcely belonged to it at all. He had for 350 years no civic rights whatever. He was the serf of his master. It was only the easy-going and patriarchal relations between squire and peasant that made life tolerable for the latter.
The peasants feared the reestablishment of a Polish state because they expected it to be the state of their landlords. Their memory of independent Poland, conveyed from one generation to the next, was one of landlord wilfulness and a lack of rights.
The editor clearly does not understand our roles about original research and WP:SYNTH, not to say about disrespect to fellow wikipedians. He calls my edits " knee-jerk deletions " without considering the concern expressed in edit summaries. Well, here you go:
I invite a third party to evaluate my edits. Lembit Staan ( talk) 01:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Obviously, in that regard, Rome and Poland were similar- That's what your sentence says, but sources cited do not. Please read and comprehend the policy WP:SYNTH, which specifically says exactly for such cases:
"If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research". Lembit Staan ( talk) 04:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am done bickering here. I am waiting for a third opinion. If nobody else wants to work on the article, I am out of here. Lembit Staan ( talk) 04:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
The peasants of Poland, as in all feudal countries, were serfs, or slaves; and the value of an estate was not estimated from its extent, but from the number of peasants, who were transferred, like cattle, from one master to another.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The Romans were a people that originally gave their almost exclusive attention to agriculture and stock-raising. The surnames of the most illustrious families, as Piso (miller), Porcius (swine-raiser), Lactucinius (lettuce-raiser), Stolo (a shoot), etc., prove this. To say that a man was a good farmer was, at one time, to bestow upon him the highest praise.
Poland was formerly a purely agricultural country and produced large quantities of food not only for herself, but for export. ... Poland is still pre-eminently an agricultural country, ...
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The article does say something in this respect, but does this in a sloppy way. IMO this issue deserves a separate section.
Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe.
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
It was replaced with "petite" There is no such term. The term is petty nobility. I restored the correct term, which was reverted with edit summary "Who cares? Petty is the wrong word. It is Petite, not Petty. Petty is the wrong in English."
I do not think a personal opinion about words is a valid reason for revert. We have established terminology which must be followed. Lembit Staan ( talk) 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
We should use the term 'petty', not petite, it's much more common in English. If anyone disagrees, please first get consensus to rename petty nobility to petite nobility, then we will follow suit here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid using obsolete sources for potentially controversial or disputed claims. Let's focus on modern scholarship, defined as post-WWII. I am not saying old works are always wrong, but often they use obsolete terminology and claims that are no longer considered accurate. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus and Exxess. Sorry, but I'm not really around that much for the next little while to be able to take something like this on. Hope matters get resolved amicably. Regards to you both, El_C 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here, monitor this, please, if you have time. Find the flaws in the logic. I do not claim infallibility, nor ownership of this article, but some things seem obvious to me, and I could be missing something (besides sanity) in my thinking. Please stop accusing me of a wall-of-text, when I anticipate a dispute, and I am trying to produce evidence of an extended discussion. I am trying to be precise and rigorous, not annoying or dominating. Wikipedia-wide, I get concerned when what I consider reliable secondary sources get dismissed.
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
In 1459 Ostroróg presented a memorandum to the Sejm (Senate), submitting palatines, or Voivodes of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, receive the title of prince. Sons of the prince were to receive titles of counts and barons. Castellans of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were to receive the title of count. All these submissions were rejected.[26]"
SOURCE: Skwarczyński, Paweł (June 1956). "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century". The Slavonic and East European Review. Salisbury House, Station Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire county, ENGLAND: Modern Humanities Research Association. 34 (83): 302. JSTOR 4204744. "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted. The composition of the king's council provides another distinction between the system in Poland and regular feudal systems elsewhere."
Wikipedia:No original research - "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;"
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - That is not original research, nor is that reaching or implying a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source. The source is not the quote - "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors,".
That cited quote is part of the source. The source is "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - The sentence is a summarization of the many pages in the source. That conclusion is directly and explicitly supported by the source. Not LITERALLY, with that statement spelled out EXACTLY, with just the words rearranged on Wikipedia. The idea is supported. The quote is one example in support of the summarization that is the sentence and its idea.
Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary
The ENTIRE source needs to be read - "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".
In that source, it is stated the szlachta resisted royal feudal policy, amongst many other statements along those lines. I think that supports, "The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - directly and explicitly. The idea is supported.
Is there some bit of obscure Wikipedia minutiae that's corrupting the logic above? - Exxess ( talk) 11:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Szlachta article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Szlachta was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 13 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Polish nobility. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I looked a bit at the upper part of the article and noticed that Exxess very liberally treats the source cited, incuding outright misinterpretations and delving into [[WP:NOR|original research]. I don't have much time; someone has to review the article carefully. The most glaring misinterpretation is to call szlachta atristocracy. Not. As the very source cited by Exxess themselves say. [1]. @ Nihil novi:, @ Volunteer Marek: : please review. Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
... the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of Two Nations (from 1385 until the Third Partition of 1795) paralleled the Roman Empire in that -- whether we like it or not -- full rights of citizenship were limited to the governing elite, called szlachta in Polish ... It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
...Świętochowski, on the other hand, wrote as follows: 'If from the deeds of the Polish nobility we took away excesses and the exclusiveness of caste, ...'
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
A deep division between enserfed peasants and gentry landowners had developed in the early modern Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The noble estate, the szlachta, monopolized the political rights and consequently only the szlachta, as constituted by the Commonwealth's sovereign, according to the early modern understanding of the concept, as well as the Polish nation and its members, were considered to be citizens.
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
This discussion is redundant, but the bastardization of feudal concepts and terms with the szlachta and Polish history is so egregious, the refutation bears repeating in its own section.
Polish history, from its beginning was divided into the two castes that mattered: szlachta/aristocratic/patrician clans and plebian/commoner/peasant/serf paralleling ancient Rome. There were poor patrician/aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Polish kings would align themselves with varying Polish szlachta clans/patricians, depending on the king's political objectives, despite these szlachta clans/patricians at times being insignificant compared to other szlachta/patrician clans. From Radwan coat of arms: "From Little Poland, the Śreniawa family/gens was insignificant and financially modest; however, King Kazimierz the Great (1310–1370) supported them in Little Poland."
Strictly speaking, review the following very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord." [1]
This caused Polish kings problems. Quoting the Szlachta article: "Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority." [2]: 75, 76
Read what Adam Zamoyski writes and comprehend: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
Undoing my edits evidences an extremely superficial and ill-conceived notion of nobility. Nobility means subordinate to the king, per other countries, per feudalism, which the szlachta never had under any Polish king. [4] The szlachta were not subordinate to the Polish king, nor was the Polish king the overlord of the szlachta. Consider the quote very carefully: "As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord."
Extremely superficial, knee-jerk, and ill-conceived edits, considering this: "... All of them were equal before the king; ..." Understand what that meant in law: "But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe." [5]
The patricians/szlachta composed the local Diets/Sejmiki, not the plebeian peasants/serfs, and those patricians/szlachta could undo all legislation, if they opposed. Think hard for another word for that kind of power. Was szlachta wealth a consideration, or was being szlachta/patrician enough to exercise that kind of power? Then ask yourself where the basis for that power came from.
Consider the above, in light of this: "The resistance to the royal policy [Polish kings attempting to impose feudalism] was so strong however that by far the greater part of the land was held by the knights as allodial, not as feudal property, which is in striking contrast to the land conditions in England." [6]
Adam Zamoyski: "Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily." [4]
Obviously, since my edits were undone, they need to be stressed very heavily here.
It was a mistake to remove the following, which is more precise and more accurate:
This is my conclusion - whoever undid my edits does not understand land, does not understand landholding, does not understand lordship, does not understand law, does not understand nobility, does not understand aristocracy, does not understand feudalism or its basis, does not understand citizenship, does not understand Polish history, and does not understand why the Polish aristocracy paralleled the republicanism of ancient Rome, why the szlachta fought the autocracy of the Russian Tsar, and why the szlachta allowed Confederations against Polish kings, which the szlachta regarded as constitutional weapons against tyranny.
Conclusion, the edits were knee-jerk based upon a knee-jerk, superficial understanding of nobility and aristocracy, and Poland's history, resulting in an ill-conceived, horrifying, bastardized monstrosity of concepts and terms of feudalism with the szlachta, a feudalism which never existed in Poland. [3]
Adam Zamoyski states the szlachta were not a class, but a warrior caste. [8]
Quoting Adam Zamoyski and read it very carefully: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
But there it is, after undoing my edits, right in the beginning of the Szlachta article: "The szlachta was a legally privileged noble class ..." And now the world gets to enjoy a complete misunderstanding of Polish history and society.
Szlachta = patrician = always paralleled ancient Rome. Quote: "Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself." [13]
Extremely slopping thinking, zero rigor, extremely sloppy editing, knee-jerk editing, propagation of ill-conceived ideas based on huge misconceptions. Quoting Korzeniowski: "The horror! The horror!"
OPPOSE MOST STRENUOUSLY.
It does NOT get more clearer than this - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
Once more - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
The disdain for titles was not a matter of szlachta personal preference. It was a matter of law, embedded in the constitution [1], based upon szlachta land tenure, which made the szlachta equal before the king. The szlachta rejected feudalism and never had it under any Polish king. [4] [16]
I am going to presume the best of Wikipedia editors, and hope this bastardized mess of feudalistic embarrassment of the szlachta and Polish history will not remain the current notorious monstrosity the reading public is now subjected to. What we have here is an article heralding black is white, for all intents and purposes, but the editor(s) that undid my edits, i'm sure will pick themselves up after stumbling upon these facts, and plow forward like bulls in a china shop.
Yet again - Adam Zamoyski: "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook." [3]
As Zamoyski writes and cannot stress too heavily feudalism never took hold in Poland, and as Zamoyski writes one cannot substitute the terms "nobility" or "gentry" for szlachta, understand what aristocracy means and patrician means, particularly as their were poor patrician, aristocratic families in ancient Rome. Poland maintained the division between patrician/szlachta and plebeian/serf. This article should avoid incessant attempts at hammering square pegs in round holes.
Whoever is undoing my edits needs to do a complete re-think. - Exxess ( talk) 08:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
References
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe.
The resistance to the royal policy was so strong however that by far the greater part of the land was held by the knights as allodial, not as feudal property, which is in striking contrast to the land conditions in England.
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
A more apt analogy might perhaps be made with the Rajputs of northern India. ... unlike any other gentry in Europe, the szlachta was not limited by nor did it depend for its status on either wealth, or land, or royal writ. It was defined by its function, that of a warrior caste.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
... the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of Two Nations (from 1385 until the Third Partition of 1795) paralleled the Roman Empire in that -- whether we like it or not -- full rights of citizenship were limited to the governing elite, called szlachta in Polish ... It is not truly correct to consider the szlachta a class; they actually were more like a caste, the military caste, as in Hindu society.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
...Świętochowski, on the other hand, wrote as follows: 'If from the deeds of the Polish nobility we took away excesses and the exclusiveness of caste, ...'
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
A deep division between enserfed peasants and gentry landowners had developed in the early modern Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The noble estate, the szlachta, monopolized the political rights and consequently only the szlachta, as constituted by the Commonwealth's sovereign, according to the early modern understanding of the concept, as well as the Polish nation and its members, were considered to be citizens.
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
.... there we find an exact counterpart of Polish society: the dominant settlers establishing themselves as an upper caste, all politically equal among themselves, and holding the lands (or more frequently, simply drawing the rents) of the country.
All races, however republican in practice at home, tend to develop this Meerassee system of tenure - this aristocracy of equality - when they settle as conquerors among another race. It is especially characteristic of the Indo-Teutonic peoples, into whatever country they have entered as conquerors. The so-called democracy of Athens was in reality a republican aristocracy resting upon a basis of slavery.
These remark exactly express the view which we entertain in regard to the population of Poland. There we find an aristocracy of equals resting upon a basis of serfage, an upper caste drawing the rents of the land, monopolising the government, and composing the army of the country, and who, in the course of long centuries, have imparted much of their own spirit and ideas, and, with the license of a gay aristocracy, not a little of their blood also, to the subordinate population.
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
The boundaries between nobility and peasants (and other social groups) persisted well into the 19th and 20th centuries. A shocking proof of how terribly effective this Sarmatian ideology was, can be found in a personal letter of Zygmunt Krasiński, one of the three greatest Polish Romantic poets in the 19th century (and a descendant of an aristocratic family). In the mid-19th century Krasiński wrote to his English friend Henry Reeve: 'Believe me and rest assured that apart from aristocracy there's nothing in Poland: no talent, no bright minds, nor sense of sacrifice. Our third state [bourgeoisie] is nonsense; our peasants are machines. Only we [nobles] are Poland.'
In the past the nobility in Poland constituted the nation itself. It ruled the country without competition on the part of any other class, the middle class being small in numbers and wealth, and the peasants being serfs.
The Polish peasant in the past was a very humble member of the Polish community – in fact he scarcely belonged to it at all. He had for 350 years no civic rights whatever. He was the serf of his master. It was only the easy-going and patriarchal relations between squire and peasant that made life tolerable for the latter.
The peasants feared the reestablishment of a Polish state because they expected it to be the state of their landlords. Their memory of independent Poland, conveyed from one generation to the next, was one of landlord wilfulness and a lack of rights.
The editor clearly does not understand our roles about original research and WP:SYNTH, not to say about disrespect to fellow wikipedians. He calls my edits " knee-jerk deletions " without considering the concern expressed in edit summaries. Well, here you go:
I invite a third party to evaluate my edits. Lembit Staan ( talk) 01:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Obviously, in that regard, Rome and Poland were similar- That's what your sentence says, but sources cited do not. Please read and comprehend the policy WP:SYNTH, which specifically says exactly for such cases:
"If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research". Lembit Staan ( talk) 04:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am done bickering here. I am waiting for a third opinion. If nobody else wants to work on the article, I am out of here. Lembit Staan ( talk) 04:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Their ideal was that of a Greek city State—a body of citizens, a small trading class, and a mass of labourers.
The peasants of Poland, as in all feudal countries, were serfs, or slaves; and the value of an estate was not estimated from its extent, but from the number of peasants, who were transferred, like cattle, from one master to another.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The Romans were a people that originally gave their almost exclusive attention to agriculture and stock-raising. The surnames of the most illustrious families, as Piso (miller), Porcius (swine-raiser), Lactucinius (lettuce-raiser), Stolo (a shoot), etc., prove this. To say that a man was a good farmer was, at one time, to bestow upon him the highest praise.
Poland was formerly a purely agricultural country and produced large quantities of food not only for herself, but for export. ... Poland is still pre-eminently an agricultural country, ...
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
The article does say something in this respect, but does this in a sloppy way. IMO this issue deserves a separate section.
Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
But the Parliament was at best a clumsy body, as the deputies were not free agents, but were bound by their mandates from the real sovereign bodies, the local Diets or Sejmiki. The representative of a Sejmik had the right of vetoing all legislation in the Sejm, since he spoke for a whole province or tribe.
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
"Over time, membership in szlachta grew to encompass close to 10% of the Polish-Lithuanian society, which made that class several times larger than most comparable noble classes in other countries."
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
Polish society had evolved from clannish structures, and the introduction of Christianity and all that went with it did not alter these significantly. The feudal system which regulated society all over Europe was never introduced into Poland, and this fact cannot be stressed too heavily.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn.
... through all modern Polish history it was Roman republicanism that formed the ideal of the republican gentry. The Roman precedent was even quoted to justify serfdom, which was a modified form of Roman slavery.
Poland was the great power of East Central Europe, and the Polish Sejm dictated to the East as despotically as the Roman Senate itself.
The article highlights the role of Latin as the language of communication of the nobility living in Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. At the beginning discusses the concept 'latinitas', which meant not only the correct Latin, but also pointed to the ideological content of antiquity passed through the language of the ancient Romans. ... We studied Latin armorial 'Orbis Polonus' by Simon Okolski (Cracow 1641-1645). ... It concludes that Okolski consciously wrote his work in the language of the ancient Romans.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted.
As the knights owned their land, there was no room or need for any intermediaries between them and the king. All of them were equal before the king; but they were not king's tenants, and the king was not their overlord. Their relationship to the king was not feudal, i.e., based on feudal dependence, but rather it was regulated by public law. ... From the fact that the knights were equal before the king, the theory of equality was evolved, which later became one of the important features of the constitution.
It was replaced with "petite" There is no such term. The term is petty nobility. I restored the correct term, which was reverted with edit summary "Who cares? Petty is the wrong word. It is Petite, not Petty. Petty is the wrong in English."
I do not think a personal opinion about words is a valid reason for revert. We have established terminology which must be followed. Lembit Staan ( talk) 18:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
References
One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook.
{{
cite book}}
: Check |first=
value (
help)
This military class was subdivided into clans, the members of each clan being bound together by strong ties of solidarity. Each clan had its name and crest. The Polish nobility, which sprang from this military class and which derived its family names from its landed properties (in the fifteenth century), had no family crests, of which there was only a limited number. Each of these bore a name which had been the old word of call of the clan. In many instances, one crest belonged to more than a hundred families. The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe.
We should use the term 'petty', not petite, it's much more common in English. If anyone disagrees, please first get consensus to rename petty nobility to petite nobility, then we will follow suit here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Please avoid using obsolete sources for potentially controversial or disputed claims. Let's focus on modern scholarship, defined as post-WWII. I am not saying old works are always wrong, but often they use obsolete terminology and claims that are no longer considered accurate. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Piotrus and Exxess. Sorry, but I'm not really around that much for the next little while to be able to take something like this on. Hope matters get resolved amicably. Regards to you both, El_C 11:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here, monitor this, please, if you have time. Find the flaws in the logic. I do not claim infallibility, nor ownership of this article, but some things seem obvious to me, and I could be missing something (besides sanity) in my thinking. Please stop accusing me of a wall-of-text, when I anticipate a dispute, and I am trying to produce evidence of an extended discussion. I am trying to be precise and rigorous, not annoying or dominating. Wikipedia-wide, I get concerned when what I consider reliable secondary sources get dismissed.
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
In 1459 Ostroróg presented a memorandum to the Sejm (Senate), submitting palatines, or Voivodes of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, receive the title of prince. Sons of the prince were to receive titles of counts and barons. Castellans of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth were to receive the title of count. All these submissions were rejected.[26]"
SOURCE: Skwarczyński, Paweł (June 1956). "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century". The Slavonic and East European Review. Salisbury House, Station Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire county, ENGLAND: Modern Humanities Research Association. 34 (83): 302. JSTOR 4204744. "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors, should be given the title of prince and their sons the titles of barons and counts. The title of count was suggested by him for a castellanus. But all these suggestions were not accepted. The composition of the king's council provides another distinction between the system in Poland and regular feudal systems elsewhere."
Wikipedia:No original research - "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research;"
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - That is not original research, nor is that reaching or implying a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source. The source is not the quote - "In 1459 Ostroróg submitted a memorandum to the parliament (sejm), suggesting that the palatines, or provincial governors,".
That cited quote is part of the source. The source is "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".
"The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - The sentence is a summarization of the many pages in the source. That conclusion is directly and explicitly supported by the source. Not LITERALLY, with that statement spelled out EXACTLY, with just the words rearranged on Wikipedia. The idea is supported. The quote is one example in support of the summarization that is the sentence and its idea.
Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary
The ENTIRE source needs to be read - "The Problem of Feudalism in Poland up to the Beginning of the 16th Century".
In that source, it is stated the szlachta resisted royal feudal policy, amongst many other statements along those lines. I think that supports, "The szlachta deliberately avoided becoming a feudal nobility, with its attendant titles.
" - directly and explicitly. The idea is supported.
Is there some bit of obscure Wikipedia minutiae that's corrupting the logic above? - Exxess ( talk) 11:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)