Okay, this is my (probably horrible) attempt at writing something that is supposed to sound like 17th century English, in order to match the style of the Dutch sentence. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. :D

I don't know anything about 17th century English, but I would envision it as "He who..., may..." (i.e. shifting the "he"). Usually, that's how these sorts of statements are phrased (though usually it would be in parody of 17th century English, and not in genuine imitation).

Maybe it's better just to translate it into contemporary English.

One possibility (contemporary English with a flair):

"He who seeks a flawless horse or flawless wife, may rest assured that neither bed nor stable will he fill."

> Maybe it's better just to translate it into contemporary English.
Yes, maybe it is. But I thought: I can just try and see if there is someone around who actually knows something about early modern English first, and if there isn't, I can always change it to something more contemporary :)

FeuDRenais, I think your version sounds quite nice, although it's rather far from the original. And the part about working is missing.

True...

Oh, so did you leave out the working part on purpose? Why?

No, no, haha... I just neglected it. I suppose it didn't seem very important in the essence of the sentence (I mean... why would a man without a wife or horse work *less*?) Or is the work the work of seeking?

No, the work is his normal job, but what the sentence says, is that he won't have any time left for his job, because he'll be seeking a perfect horse or wife forever (and still not find them).

Ah... That part wasn't very clear.

And now that it's clear, how would you rephrase it to fit in the sentence you suggested earlier? :)

"He who seeks a flawless horse or flawless wife, may rest assured that even if his work he did forsake, nor bed nor stable would he ever fill."

But I wouldn't put that as THE translation ;-)

I think you should just keep yours and put the "He" in front...

Okay, I put the "he" in front and added the other sentence as a second translation. There is no way, though, to distinguish between THE translation and JUST ANOTHER translation. ;)

Is the "forever empty he will keep" part grammatical?

If we use artistic license, then it is grammatical :-)

(It's poetically grammatical.)

> Is the "forever empty he will keep" part grammatical?

It comes under 'writers license' or poetic style.

He who would a writer be, first must keep these guidelines three.
* English is never wrong when it is beautiful.
* Always ask for an advance.

(Writers don't need to count ;-)

:D

Thank you for all the comments en suggestions. :)