# Poczciwiem zył na świecie,to moje staranie o statek w ręce twoje poruczam mój panie



## Espero Antos

Hello

In the center of Cracow, on the architrave of the outer  door of an old house (on Tomasza Ulica, if I am not  mistaken...), I read the following inscription:

"Pocciwyem naswi szeleczye tomo ranyo yesta statek wrecze twoie poruczam moy Panie".

(letters are old and not very clear, so I am not sure at all that I transcribed them correctly...)

Could you please help me find out the meaning of this sentence?

Thanks in advance!

E_A


----------



## wolfbm1

POCZCIWIEM ZYŁ NA ŚWIECIE,TO MOJE STARANIE O *STATEK* W RĘCE TWOJE *PORUCZAM MOJ PANIE 
Źródło: Maciej Szwan.  *Tajemniczy napis czyli trochę o renesansowym portalu

Translation attempt: I have lived in a decent/proper/good way, (so) into your hands, MY LORD, I give my endeavors to live decently (well).


----------



## Espero Antos

Wow! Thank you so much, Wolfbm1!


----------



## Espero Antos

Just a couple of little doubts: 1) what does "STATEK" mean in this context? Is it a metaphore (human life as a vessel?) or an old and/or less usual meaning of this word? and 2) why does Maciej Szwan translate "NA ŚWIECIE" as "in a decent way"? Doesn't that Polish expression mean "in the world"?


----------



## jasio

Espero Antos said:


> 1) what does "STATEK" mean in this context? Is it a metaphor (human life as a vessel?) or an old and/or less usual meaning of this word?



It's an old meaning referring to property, goods, also stability (hence 'stateczny' = 'stable', 'statecznik' = 'stabiliser'), decency, prudence. Historically, the 'vessel' meaning used to be only a secondary one, or perhaps a metaphore = 'a ship carrying goods'. That's why the different words are used in Polish for transport ships ('statek') and military ships ('okręt'). Nowadays the original meaning is mostly forgotten and used only in archaisms. 



Espero Antos said:


> 2) why does Maciej Szwan translate "NA ŚWIECIE" as "in a decent way"?



'In the world' phrase was actually skipped in the translation. 'in a decent/proper/good way' refer to 'poczciwem'. 

Please also bear in mind that the original inscription uses an old orthography, and the text is broken to fit empty spaces regardless of word boundaries, while Wolfbm1 used the modern spelling.


----------



## Espero Antos

Thank you, Jasio, everything fits in much better now!

Taking advantage of your patience and competence, I would like to pose two more questions: 1) What is the infinitive mood of the verb whose past tense, first person singular, is "POCZCIWIEM"?  2) Do the words "STARANIE O STATEK" (also) refer to the endeavor by the architrave - where these words are carved - to hold the building firmly in place? A possible double meaning: moral, metaphorical stability in life and physical, literal stability of the townhouse, ethics and statics?


----------



## wolfbm1

Espero Antos said:


> Just a couple of little doubts: 1) what does "STATEK" mean in this context?


The online Słownik Staropolski defines the Old Polish word statek as: majątek, dobytek, naczynie; stateczność, rozwaga, which means wealth/property, possesions, a dish/vessel, stability, decency/prudence.
Wealth and having a lot of property usually means a decent living.



> 2) why does Maciej Szwan translate "NA ŚWIECIE" as "in a decent way"? Doesn't that Polish expression mean "in the world"?


I completely forgot about translating the Polish phrase "NA ŚWIECIE." It indeed means "in the world." 

Here is how the word 'statek' is used:
"Gdzie dostatek, tam statek, tj. gdzie dość majętności, tam łacny rząd być może, gdyż moc z dostatku płynie"
Source: Website: wolnelektury.pl

"Gdzie dostatek, tam statek i rząd, na okazanié, iż rządu i karności woiennéy nie może bydź bez pieniędzy Petr Seb "
Source: Website: osinski.ibi.uw.edu.pl

'Dostatek' means affluence, wealth.


----------



## wolfbm1

Espero Antos said:


> Thank you, Jasio, everything fits in much better now!
> 
> Taking advantage of your patience and competence, I would like to pose two more questions: 1) What is the infinitive mood of the verb whose past tense, first person singular, is "POCZCIWIEM"?


Here is what '*poczciwie*' means today:
 adv. grad. [wyglądać] goodnatured adi.; 
poczciwie wyglądający człowiek a good-natured looking man; 
to bardzo poczciwie z jego strony it's very kind of him

Source: PWN-OXFORD Dictionary.

Staropolska on-line: uczciwie, należycie. It is an adverb.

POCZCIWIEM ŻYŁ = poczciwie żyłem



> A possible double meaning: moral, metaphorical stability in life and physical, literal stability of the townhouse, ethics and statics?



I think it is about a stability in life rather than a stability of the house.


----------



## jasio

Espero Antos said:


> Taking advantage of your patience and competence, I would like to pose two more questions: 1) What is the infinitive mood of the verb whose past tense, first person singular, is "POCZCIWIEM"?



In past tense in Polish, both indicative and conditional mood, there is a phenomenon called 'movable verb suffix' - a trace of a former compound past tense which later turned into the simple past.



wolfbm1 said:


> POCZCIWIEM ŻYŁ = poczciwie żyłem



The former phrase sounds archaic, but for the Poles it's clearly understandable. The latter is a modern form. 

The '-em' suffix is a remnescant of a weak form of 'jestem' ('jem'/'żem' = 'I am', 'io sono'), which had been used to create (in this case) the first person compound past tense. It used to be a separate verb, but nowadays it's permanently attached to the verb as a suffix. Sometimes however (for example to express emotions, for stylistical reasons, like in poetry to maintain a metre, in archaisms, etc.) can be dettached again and used either as a separate verb or can be attached to another word in the phrase. For example: 'Co zrobiłeś?' is a typically neutral question ('What did you do/what have you done?"), vs. 'Coś ty zrobił?', which thoretically means the same, but inhrently demonstrates irritation, anger, disappointment, etc., even if you do not actually hear the voice. Actually, I wasn't able to reproduce the phrase without hearing a resentment in my own voice. 



wolfbm1 said:


> I think it is about a stability in life rather than a stability of the house.



I fully agree. It's about life, not a construction.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> The former phrase sounds archaic, but for the Poles it's clearly understandable. The latter is a modern form.
> 
> The '-em' suffix is a remnescant of a weak form of 'jestem' ('jem'/'żem' = 'I am', 'io sono'), which had been used to create (in this case) the first person compound past tense. It used to be a separate verb, but nowadays it's *permanently attached* to the verb as a suffix.



The mobile endings "-em, -eś, -eśmy, -eście are not obsolete in Polish, and are often used in dialects and the colloquial language. They are usually attached to the particles "że", "co" and some others, or to the personal pronouns. 

"Co wyście zrobili?" is a normal emphatic colloquial form, while "Co wy zrobiliście" has not got the same emotional meaning.


----------



## jasio

Ben Jamin said:


> The mobile endings "-em, -eś, -eśmy, -eście are not obsolete in Polish, and are often used in dialects and the colloquial language. They are usually attached to the particles "że", "co" and some others, or to the personal pronouns.



Where did you read me writing that they were obsolete? On the contrary, I used PRESENT tense: 





> "In past tense in Polish, both indicative and conditional mood, *there is a phenomenon* called 'movable verb suffix'"


 I thought that it clearly referred to the *contemporary language*, didn't it? Which does not change the fact that a specific phrase "poczciwiem żył" sounds archaic. "Dobrzem pisał" sounds somewhat archaic too, despite using contemporary words. 



Ben Jamin said:


> "Co wyście zrobili?" is a normal emphatic colloquial form, while "Co wy  zrobiliście" has not got the same emotional meaning.



Isn't it more or less the same, as my own statement: 





> For example: 'Co zrobiłeś?' is a typically neutral question ('What did  you do/what have you done?"), vs. 'Coś ty zrobił?', which thoretically  means the same, but inhrently demonstrates irritation, anger,  disappointment, etc., even if you do not actually hear the voice.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jasio said:


> Where did you read me writing that they were obsolete?


 Read, please my quote: " It used to be a separate verb, but nowadays it's *permanently attached to the verb as a suffix."
*And the phenomenon is not as marginal as you give an impression of in your post. It is a very common way of speaking, albeit not in formal language.

Sorry for repeating your examples.


----------



## Espero Antos

Thank you once again for your precious help.

Now that the literal meaning of the inscription has been clarified, I would like to know your opinion about the exact "message" it conveys, so that I can try to make (a real) sense out of it: did the owner of the house basically mean 1) "so far I have lived in a decent manner, now (that I own this beautiful townhouse) I pray God to allow me to live in a decent manner here too" (but why does he need God's help only from now on? Does this new "kamienica" - and above all the social and economic status it implies - constitute a possible temptation for him?) or 2) "so far I have lived in a dignified manner (decency in moral sense only), now (that I accumulated a fortune and thus I could afford this house) I pray God to allow me to live in a financially stable manner (as well)"?
In other words, is there a substantial difference between the meaning of "POCZCIWIEM ZYŁ" and that of "STARANIE O STATEK"? And what is this difference (if any)? In the light of what you have explained about the original "material" meaning of "statek" (goods, possessions, whence financial stability), I wonder if the owners' "endeavours" (staranie) refer to his spiritual life, his material condition or both...

P.S: just to clarify my previous point: When I mentioned a possible double meaning of "statek", I meant indeed a "double" meaning, in that the reference to the physical stability of the house did not exclude that to the moral/material stability of his owner (as you know, such hints and subtleties are by no means rare in this sort of old inscriptions).


----------



## jasio

Ben Jamin said:


> Read, please my quote: " It used to be a separate verb, but nowadays it's *permanently attached to the verb as a suffix."
> *And the phenomenon is not as marginal as you give an impression of in your post. It is a very common way of speaking, albeit not in formal language.



Although I might have posted somewhat ambigous expression indeed, please note that my sole objective was  to give OP a grasp of understanding, why it happened that he had taken  an adjective for the verb rather than to discuss the details and nuances of the conteporary past tense. Having that in mind, actually all our discussion about peanuts is just an unnecessary  complication, even if conducted in a good faith.



Espero Antos said:


> Now that the literal meaning of the inscription has been clarified, I would like to know your opinion about the exact "message" it conveys, so that I can try to make (a real) sense out of it



The inscription may be as old as Shakespear's Hamlet, so it's risky to discuss it in too many details without a proper knowledge of the old language, history of the house, its owners, cultural details in a period when the inscription was originally written, and the inscription itself. For example, in the article linked to by wolfbm1 the author says that the building was reconstructed in 19th century, only then the portal was located in it's current place (I don't know where it came from), and in one of the comments it was stated that on old photos the inscription was somewhat different(!). There's no clue that the particular building might have anything to do with the details of the material situation of the owner.I mean - it might have happened that the owner got rich and finally bought his house in the city, but it might have been as well that he inherited 10 such houses and for a reason chose this particular one to live in it, or settle there when he grew old.

Having said that, my personal feeling is that the owner prayed that the God blessed his efforts to gain stabilty in return for his previous decent life. But what he exactly meant by that, and to what extent he referred to material and spiritual phenomena is unknown to me - especially that people often have both of them in mind, and treat personal and material safety as an evidence of the God's special grace. I only feel that the idea of limiting the stability to the physical construction of the building is a way too narrow.


----------



## wolfbm1

jasio said:


> The inscription may be as old as Shakespeare's Hamlet, so it's risky to discuss it in too many details without a proper knowledge of the old language, history of the house, its owners, cultural details in a period when the inscription was originally written, and the inscription itself. For example, in the article linked to by wolfbm1 the author says that the building was reconstructed in 19th century, only then the portal was located in it's current place (I don't know where it came from), and in one of the comments it was stated that on old photos the inscription was somewhat different(!). There's no clue that the particular building might have anything to do with the details of the material situation of the owner.I mean - it might have happened that the owner got rich and finally bought his house in the city, but it might have been as well that he inherited 10 such houses and for a reason chose this particular one to live in it, or settle there when he grew old.
> 
> Having said that, my personal feeling is that the owner prayed that the God blessed his efforts to gain stability in return for his previous decent life. But what he exactly meant by that, and to what extent he referred to material and spiritual phenomena is unknown to me - especially that people often have both of them in mind, and treat personal and material safety as an evidence of the God's special grace. I only feel that the idea of limiting the stability to the physical construction of the building is a way too narrow.



You took those words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Espero Antos

Thank you, Jasio and wolfbm1! I fully agree with you that, at the current state of our knowledge, it is impossible for us to find out the exact meaning of this inscription, but of course I hope that in the future you or some other member will be able to spread some more light on this little yet intriguing "mistery"...

I would only like to add that, apparently, the text seems to be at least partly "original", that is expressly conceived for that inscription, even if I suspect that there might well a (literal or paraphrased) quotation of an adage or a longer text presently unknown to us. The wording of the invocation to God, for example, clearly echoes that of Psalm 31:6 (and Luke 23:46) "O Lord (Father, in the Polish version I am linking here), into Your hand I commit my spirit" (http://brewiarz.pl/indeksy/pokaz.php3?id=1&nr=036).


----------



## jasio

Espero Antos said:


> The wording of the invocation to God, for example, clearly echoes that of Psalm 31:6 (and Luke 23:46) "O Lord (Father, in the Polish version I am linking here), into Your hand I commit my spirit" (http://brewiarz.pl/indeksy/pokaz.php3?id=1&nr=036).



That's an interesting trail... I made a quick search and it seemed to me that the word "poruczam" is most often used in protestant translations (like Gdansk Bible), even if they are  quite modern, while catholic translations seem to prefer 'polecam' (including Jakub Wujek Bible, even though it's older).


----------

