Arnolfini Portrait

The Arnolfini Portrait

Artist	Jan van Eyck
Year	1434
Type	Oil on oak panel of 3 vertical boards
Dimensions	82.2 (panel 84.5) cm × 60 (panel 62.5) cm (32.4 in × 23.6 in)
Location	National Gallery, London

The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on oak panel dated 1434 by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan van Eyck. It is also known as The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Marriage, The Arnolfini Double Portrait or the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife.

This painting is believed to be a portrait of the Italian merchant Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife, presumably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered one of the most original and complex paintings in Western art history. Both signed and dated by Van Eyck in 1434, it is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous panel painting to have been executed in oils rather than in tempera. The painting was bought by the National Gallery in London in 1842.

The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of detail, but particularly for the use of light to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a room, as well of the people who inhabit it".^[1]

Identity of subjects

This painting was long believed to be a portrait of Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his wife Giovanna Cenami in a Flemish bedchamber, but it was established in 1997 that they were married in 1447, thirteen years after the date on the painting and six years after van Eyck's death. It is now believed that the subject is either Giovanni di Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, and an unkown wife of either one of them. This is either an undocumented first wife of Giovanni di Arrigo or a second wife of Giovanni di Nicolao, or, according to a recent proposal, Giovanni di Nicolao's first wife Costanza Trenta, who had died by February 1433.^[2] In the latter case, this would make the painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing one living and one dead person. Both Giovanni di Arrigo and Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini were Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but resident in Bruges since at least 1419.^[3] The man in this painting is the subject of a further portrait by Van Eyck in the Gemäldegalerie, Berlin, leading to speculation he was a friend of the artist.^[4]

Description

Dagging

The painting^[5] is generally in very good condition, though with small losses of original paint and damages, which have mostly been retouched. Infra-red reflectograms of the painting show many small alterations, or pentimenti, in the underdrawing: to both faces, to the mirror, and to other elements.

The couple are shown in an upstairs room with a chest and a bed in it in early summer as indicated by the fruit on the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably functioned as a reception room, as it was the fashion in France and Burgundy where beds in reception rooms were used seating, except, for example, when a mother with a new baby received visitors. The window has six interior wooden shutters, but only the top opening has glass, with clear bulls-eye pieces set in blue, red and green stained glass.

The two figures are very richly dressed; despite the season both their outer garments, his tabard and her dress, are trimmed and fully lined with fur. The furs may be the especially expensive sable for him and ermine or miniver for her. He wears a hat of plaited straw dyed black, as often worn in the summer at the time. His tabard was once rather more purple than it appears now, as the pigments have faded; it may be intended to be silk velvet (another very expensive element). Underneath he wears a doublet of patterned material, probably silk damask. Her dress has elaborate dagging (cloth folded and sewn together, then cut and frayed decoratively) on the sleeves, and a long train. Her blue underdress is also trimmed with white fur.

Although the woman's plain gold necklace and the plain rings both wear are the only jewellery visible, both outfits would have been enormously expensive, and appreciated as such by a contemporary viewer. But especially in the case of the man, there may be an element of restraint in their clothes befitting their merchant status - portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold chains and more decorated cloth.

Charles the Bold surprising David Aubert, a miniature with an unusual variant of the presentation portrait, probably alluding to Alexander the Great, who surprised one of his artists in similar fashion. The rear wall seems to refer to the Arnolfini Portrait of forty years earlier, containing many of the same objects, in particular the painted inscription on the wall. Before 1472.

The interior of the room has other signs of wealth; the brass chandelier is large and elaborate by contemporary standards, and would have been very expensive. It would probably also have had a mechanism with pulley and chains above, to lower it for managing the candles. Van Eyck has probably omitted this for lack of room. The convex mirror at the back, in a wooden frame with scenes of The Passion painted behind glass, is shown larger than such mirrors could actually be made at this date - another discreet departure from realism by Van Eyck. There is also no sign of a fireplace (including in the mirror), nor anywhere obvious to put one. Even the oranges casually placed to the left are a sign of wealth; they were very expensive in Burgundy, and may have been one of the items dealt in by Arnolfini.

Further signs of luxury are the elaborate bed-hangings, which are probably held up by iron rods suspended from the ceiling, and the carvings on the chair and bench against the back wall (to the right, partly hidden by the bed). Another sign of wealth is the small Oriental carpet on the floor by the bed; many owners of such expensive objects placed them on tables, as they still do in the Netherlands.

The view in the mirror shows two figures just inside the door that the couple are facing. The second figure, wearing red, is presumably the artist although, unlike Velázquez in Las Meninas, he does not seem to be painting. Scholars have made this assumption based on the appearance of figures wearing red headdresses in some other van Eyck works (e.g., the Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) and the figure in the background of the Madonna with Chancellor Rolin). The dog is an early form of the breed now known as the Brussels griffon.

The painting is also signed, inscribed and dated on the wall above the mirror: "Johannes de eyck fuit hic. 1434" ("Jan van Eyck was here. 1434"). The inscription looks as if it were painted in large letters on the wall, as was done with proverbs and other phrases at this period. Other surviving van Eyck signatures are painted in trompe l'oeil on the wooden frame of his paintings, so that they appear to have been carved in the wood.^[3]

Scholarly debate

"Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" ("Jan van Eyck was here. 1434").

In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an article entitled Jan van Eyck's 'Arnolfini' Wedding in the Burlington Magazine, arguing that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that it was painted as a legal document recording a marriage.^[6] Panofsky also argues that the items presented in the painting all have a disguised symbolism attached to their appearance. Some of the meanings attached to this symbolism are discussed below in the “Interpretation and Symbolism” section.

Since then, there has been considerable debate on this point. Art historian Edwin Hall considers that the painting depicts a betrothal, not a marriage. Art historian Margaret D. Carroll argues that the painting is a portrait of a married couple that alludes also to the husband's grant of legal authority to his wife.^[7] Carroll also proposes that the portrait was meant to affirm Giovanni Arnolfini’s good character as a merchant and aspiring member of the Burgundian Court. She argues that the painting depicts a couple, already married, now formalizing a subsequent legal arrangement, a mandate, by which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to conduct business on her own or his behalf (like a power-of-attorney). The claim is not that the painting had any legal force, but that van Eyck played upon the imagery of legal contract as a pictorial conceit. While the two figures in the mirror could be thought of as witnesses to the oath-taking, the artist himself provides (witty) authentication with his notarial signature on the wall. ^[8]

Jan Baptist Bedaux agrees somewhat with Panofsky that this is a marriage contract portrait in his 1986 article “The reality of symbols: the question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait.” However, he disagrees with Panofsky’s idea of items in the portrait having hidden meanings. Bedaux argues, “if the symbols are disguised to such an extent that they do not clash with reality as conceived at the time…there will be no means of proving that the painter actually intended such symbolism.”^[9] He also conjectures that if these disguised symbols were normal parts of the marriage ritual, then one could not say for sure whether the items were part of a “disguised symbolism” or just social reality.^[10]

Craig Harbison, author of “Sexuality and Social Standing in Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Double Portrait,” takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about “disguised symbolism” and realism. Harbison argues that “Jan van Eyck is there as storyteller…[who] must have been able to understand that, within the context of people’s lives, objects could have multiple associations.”^[11] Harbison presents the idea that there are many possible purposes for the portrait and ways it can be interpreted. He maintains that this portrait cannot be fully interpreted until scholars accept the notion that objects can have multiple associations. Harbison urges the notion that one needs to conduct a multivalent reading of the painting that includes references to the secular and sexual context of the Burgundian Court, as well as, religious and sacramental references to marriage.

Lorne Campbell in the National Gallery Catalogue sees no need to find a special meaning in the painting beyond that of a double portrait, very possibly made to commemorate the marriage, but not a legal record. He cites examples of miniatures from manuscripts showing similarly elaborate inscriptions on walls as a normal form of decoration at the time. Another portrait in the National Gallery by Van Eyck, Portrait of a Man (Leal Souvenir), has a legalistic form of signature.^[3]

Margaret Koster's new suggestion, discussed above and below, that the portrait is a memorial one, of a wife already dead for a year or so, would displace these theories.

Art historian Maximiliaan Martens has suggested that the painting was meant as a gift for the Arnolfini family in Italy. It had the purpose of showing the prosperity and wealth of the couple depicted. He feels this might explain oddities in the painting, for example why the couple are standing in typical winter clothing while a cherry tree is in fruit outside, and why the phrase "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" is featured so large in the centre of the painting.

Interpretation and symbolism

• The placement of the two figures suggests conventional 15th century views of marriage and gender roles – the woman stands near the bed and well into the room, symbolic of her role as the caretaker of the house, whereas Giovanni stands near the open window, symbolic of his role in the outside world. Giovanni looks directly out at the viewer, his wife gazes obediently at her husband. His hand is vertically raised, representing his commanding position of authority, whilst she has her hand in a lower, horizontal, more submissive pose. However, her gaze at her husband can also show her equality to him because she is not looking down at the floor like lower class women would. They are part of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal not his subordinate.^[12]

• The symbolism behind the action of the couple’s joined hands has also been debated among scholars. Many point to this gesture as proof of the painting’s purpose. Is it a marriage contract or something else? For example, Panofsky interprets the gesture as an act of fides, Latin for “marital oath.”[22] He calls the representation of the couple “qui desponsari videbantur per fidem” which means, “who were contracting their marriage by marital oath.”^[13]The man is grasping the woman’s right hand with his left which is the basis for the controversy. Some scholars like Jan Baptist Bedaux and Peter Schabacker argue that if this painting does show a marriage ceremony, then the use of the left hand points to the marriage being morganatic and not clandestine. A marriage is said to be morganatic if a man marries a woman of unequal rank.^[14] However, the subjects originally thought by most scholars to be represented in this painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, were of equal status and rank in the courtly system, so the theory would not hold true.^[15] On the opposite side of the debate are scholars like Margaret Carroll. She suggests that the painting deploys the imagery of a contract between an already married couple giving the wife the authority to act on her husband’s behalf in business dealings.^[16] Carroll identifies Arnolfini’s raised right hand as a gesture of oath-taking known as "fidem levare," and his joining hands with his wife as a gesture of consent known as "fides manualis.”^[17]

• Although many modern viewers assume the wife to be pregnant, this is not believed to be so. Art historians point to numerous paintings of female virgin saints similarly dressed, and believe that this look was fashionable for women's dresses at the time.^[18] Fashion would have been important to Arnolfini, especially since he was a cloth merchant. The more cloth a person wore, the more wealthy he or she was assumed to be. Another indication that the woman is not pregnant is that Giovanna Cenami (the identification of the woman according to most earlier scholars) died childless,^[19] as did Costanza Trenta (a possible identification according to recent archival evidence);^[20] whether a hypothetical unsuccessful pregnancy would have been left recorded in a portrait is questionable. As mentioned above, some viewers have argued that the woman in the portrait is already pregnant, thus the protruding belly. Harbison, however, maintains her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple shown for fertility and progeny.^[21]

• It is also believed that the couple is already married because of the woman’s headdress. A non-married woman would have her hair down, according to Margaret Carroll.^[22]

• The cherries on the tree outside the window may symbolize love. The oranges which lie on the window sill and chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that reigned in the Garden of Eden before the Fall of Man.^[23] They were uncommon and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy were a symbol of fecundity in marriage.^[24] The fruit could more simply be a sign of the couple’s wealth since fruit was very expensive during this time.^[25]

• The cast-aside patten clogs are possibly a gesture of respect for the wedding ceremony and also indicate that this event is taking place on holy ground, although these were normally only worn outside. Husbands traditionally presented brides with clogs.^[23] It can also be seen as indicative of domestic stability and tranquility.

Panofsky and Koster draw very different conclusions from the single lighted candle; note the burned-out one opposite it on the right

Detail of the convex mirror

According to Harbison , the removal of shoes associated with the candle and the statue of St Margaret could all reflect “the couple’s love, sexual union, and the fruitfulness of the woman.”^[26] The removal of shoes was often seen as an indicator of “the presence of sexual passion in seventeenth century Dutch art.”^[27] Likewise, the candle also indicated love and sexual union because it was often brought into the bedchamber by newlyweds to burn all night.^[28] As discussed below, the figure of Saint Margaret beside the bed could relate to the couple’s desire for fertility, as revealed by both Panofsky and Harbison.

• The little dog symbolizes loyalty,^[23] or can be seen as an emblem of lust, signifying the couple's desire to have a child.^[29] The dog could also be simply a lap dog, a gift from husband to wife. Many wealthy women in the court had lap dogs as companions. So, the dog could reflect the wealth of the couple and their position in courtly life.^[30]

• The green of the woman's dress symbolizes hope, possibly the hope of becoming a mother. Her white cap could signify purity, but probably signifies her being married.

• Behind the pair, the curtains of the marriage bed have been opened; the red curtains might allude to the physical act of love between the married couple.

• The single candle in the left rear holder of the ornate seven-branched chandelier is possibly the candle used in traditional Flemish marriage customs.^[23] Lit in full daylight, like the sanctuary lamp in a church, the candle may allude to the presence of the Holy Ghost or the ever-present eye of God.

• Alternatively, in Margaret Koster's theory that the painting is a memorial portrait, the single lit candle on Giovanni's side contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub can just be seen on his wife's side. In a metaphor commonly used in literature, he lives on, she is dead.

• There is a carved figure of Saint Margaret, patron saint of pregnancy and childbirth, as a finial on the bedpost,^[23]. Saint Margaret was invoked to assist women in labor and to cure infertility. The figure could also represent Saint Martha the patroness of housewives as Harbison suggests.^[31] From the bedpost hangs a brush, symbolic of domestic care. Furthermore, the brush and the rosary (a popular wedding gift) appearing together on either side of the mirror may also allude to the dual Christian injunctions ora et labora (pray and work). According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, the broom could also symbolize proverbial chastity; it “sweeps out impurities.”^[32]

• The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes from the Passion of Christ and may represent God's promise of salvation for the figures reflected on the mirror's convex surface. Furthering the Memorial theory, all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's death and resurrection. Those on the husbands side concern Christ's life. See mirror detail under Reproductions below.

• The mirror itself may represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity.^[23]

• The mirror reflects two figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and Van Eyck's signature on the wall acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he was himself present.

Technique

Van Eyck created a painting with an almost reflective surface by applying layer after layer of translucent thin glazes. The intense glowing colours also help to highlight the realism, and to show the material wealth and opulence of Arnolfini's world. Van Eyck took advantage of the longer drying time, compared to tempera, of oil paint to blend colours by painting wet-in-wet to achieve subtle variations in light and shade to heighten the illusion of three-dimensional forms. He carefully distinguished textures and captured surface appearance precisely. He also rendered effects of both direct and diffuse light by showing the light from the window on the left reflected by various surfaces. It has been suggested that he used a magnifying glass in order to paint the minute details such as the individual highlights on each of the amber beads hanging beside the mirror.

Provenance

Diego de Guevara, who gave the painting to the Habsburgs, by Michael Sittow, ca. 1517

The known provenance of the painting is as follows:^[33]

• 1434 - Painting dated by van Eyck; presumably owned by the sitters.
• before 1516 - In possession of Don Diego de Guevara (d. Brussels 1520), a Spanish career courtier of the Habsburgs (himself the subject of a fine portrait by Michael Sittow in the National Gallery of Art). He lived most of his life in the Netherlands, and may have known the Arnolfinis in their later years. By 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Austria, Habsburg Regent of the Netherlands.
• 1516 - Painting is the first item in an inventory of Margaret's paintings, made in her presence at Mechelen. The item says (in French): "a large picture which is called Hernoul le Fin with his wife in a chamber, which was given to Madame by Don Diego, whose arms are on the cover of the said picture; done by the painter Johannes." A note in the margin says "It is necessary to put on a lock to close it: which Madame has ordered to be done."
• 1523-4 - In another Mechelen inventory, a similar description, this time the name of the subject is given as "Arnoult Fin".
• 1558 - In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's niece Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in Spain. It is clearly described in an inventory taken after her death in 1558, when it was inherited by Philip II of Spain. A painting of two of his young daughters commissioned by Philip clearly copies the pose of the figures (Prado).[1]
• 1599 - a German visitor saw it in the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. Now it had verses from Ovid painted on the frame: "See that you promise: what harm is there in promises? In promises anyone can be rich." It is very likely that Velázquez knew the painting, which may have influenced his Las Meninas, which shows a room in the same palace.
• 1700 - In an inventory after the death of Carlos II it was still in the palace, with shutters and the verses from Ovid.
• 1794 - Now in the Palacio Nuevo in Madrid.
• 1816 - The painting is now in London, in the possession of Colonel James Hay, a Scottish soldier. He claimed that after being seriously wounded at the Battle of Waterloo the previous year, the painting hung in the room where he convalesced in Brussels. He fell in love with it, and persuaded the owner to sell. More relevant to the real facts is no doubt Hay's presence at the Battle of Vitoria (1813) in Spain, where a large coach loaded by King Joseph Bonaparte with easily portable artworks from the Spanish royal collections was first plundered by British troops, before what was left was recovered by their commanders and returned to the Spanish. Hay offered the painting to the Prince Regent, later George IV of England, via Sir Thomas Lawrence. The Prince had it on approval for two years at Carlton House before eventually returning it in 1818.
• c1828 - Hay gave it a friend to look after, not seeing it or the friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged for it to be included in a public exhibition.
• 1841 - The painting was included in a public exhibition.
• 1842 - Bought by the recently-formed National Gallery, London for £600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. The shutters have gone, along with the original frame.

References

External links

• The Arnolfini Portrait on the National Gallery website
• The Arnolfini double portrait: a simple solution - Critical Essay, proposing the painting is partly a memorial portrait
• Mystery of the Marriage - Open University program
• Erwin Panofsky and The Arnolfini Portrait
• Blog essay on theories around the painting by John Haber
• Press interview with art historian Craig Harbison
• Not «The Arnolfini Portrait» but «The Van Eyck Wedding» - News about a Critical Essay, proposing the painting is a self-portrait of the painter with his spouse Margaretha

Reproductions

• Very hi-resolution: The Arnolfini Portrait
• Very large detail of mirror and artist's signature
• Picture: Detail of the chandelier