Jan Van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait, painted in 1434 is one of art’s most contested paintings.
What is so contested about this painting? I hear you ask, it is a nice double portrait of a man and woman, and that’s that. The portrait hangs in the National Gallery in London and their official blumph about the painting boils down to it is a nice painting of two people, end of story.
But is it?
Well not really, for a start there is the title, notice I call it the Arnolfini ‘portrait’, it is also widely known as the Arnolfini ‘marriage’. Why? Because for years people thought it was a picture about a marriage, and it was some sort of legal document. This idea gained fame, mainly because it was put about by the art historian Erwin Panofsky, who wrote an article claiming this, and more, in the Burlington Magazine in 1934. Since then various theories have been put forward as what the painting is, and what it is all about, because one thing is certain it is about something, to dismiss it as a nice double portrait is way too simplistic.
A problem that I have written about before concerns historians and viewers trying to second guess artist’s intentions. Broadly speaking no one – except the long gone Jan Van Eyck – actually knows for certain what the painting says. However, there are various intriguing clues in this painting that have led to speculation and counter speculation, so I thought it might be interesting to look at some of these clues and some of the meanings attributed to them, and then you can make your own mind up about the painting.
So who are they? For a long time, it was thought that the couple were Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini and his Mrs., but recent research shows it is more likely to be his cousin Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his wife Costanza Trenta. Mr. A was a wealthy Italian merchant who lived in Bruges. Bruges in the 15th Century was an International centre and home to many a rich merchant.
First of all, let’s look at some of the ‘symbolism’ in the painting, don’t worry we are not into Dan Brownesque territory here, there is no ‘code’.
First there are the oranges; some say that these are symbols of the biblical forbidden fruit, reminding us to resist temptation and all that jazz. Fruit left lying about like this also features in other paintings of the time, particularly Madonna and child paintings. Others claim that the oranges are signs of wealth, as they would be very expensive items in Van Eyck’s Bruges, to leave oranges casually scattered about you had to be rich. The open window shows us a Cherry tree in the garden; cherries are also used as symbols of the fruits of paradise. In Joos Van Cleve’s Madonna and Child the child holds three cherries depicting the trinity and also the fruit of paradise Christianity promises the believer.
The clothes the couple are wearing depict wealth, they are dressed up for the occasion showing off their best clothes, why else fur lined clothes in summertime ? To own clothes like these one would have to be fabulously wealthy; this is the 15th century equivalent to having a Porsche or two as runabouts for the staff.
Is Panofsky right when he claims this is a clandestine marriage?
First, we will look at what he says, among his evidence of the marriage Panofsky claims that the writing on the wall which says ‘Johannes de Eyck fuit hic 1434’ (this is actually a bit of graffiti and means Van Eyck was here, 1434) is evidence of the artist witnessing a marriage and is therefore, legal document. In 1568 Van Vaernewych claimed that the painting was of an illegal ‘not by faith’ marriage, this idea was then carried on by Karel van Mander in 1604 and picked up again by Panofsky.
He goes as far to state that the gesture of the man in raising his forearm in the picture is part of a ceremony, he calls this ‘fides levata’, a convincing bit of Latin to back up his argument ; except it is fictional.
Panofsky has probably got it wrong.It is unlikely that this is a picture of wedding legal or otherwise. One clue is her hairdo. Many brides are depicted at the time as having their hair down as in depictions of the Virgin Mary. It is unlikely that a bride would have worn her hair pinned up and under a veil as Constanza does.
Some have suggested that it is a picture of a betrothal, but that is also unlikely as Arnolfini and Constaza got betrothed when she was thirteen, she is much older in this painting. Also, Tuscany family betrothals would not have actually included the woman just the men of the families.
One feature of the painting has caused a lot of interest and that is the question of her being pregnant. It has been shown, by reconstructing the dress, that to hold up a dress of this weight in the way Mrs. A is, any woman would look pregnant. However, other paintings of Van Eyck’s show pregnant women, his painting of St Catherine depicts a woman very much like Mrs. Arnolfini. Childbirth was such a risky business around the 15th century that it was common –for the rich- to have the mother-to-be painted, so there would be a record of her if the worst happened. Is this what the Arnolfini portrait is?
The art historian Margaret Koster and others have put forward the idea that this is actually a posthumous portrait of Mrs A. This is likely as she died in 1433 a year before the painting was completed. It could even be that the painting was started before she died, we do not know if she died in childbirth or not. Was she pregnant some say the inclusion of the carpet by the bed (tradition of time) and the figure of St Margaret near the bed (patron saint of mums to be) all lead to the conclusion that she was in the family way.
Right, so let’s look at the evidence of this being a posthumous painting.
The painting shows a mirror in which is surrounded by the Stations of the Cross, the images on Mrs. A’s side depict death. Mirrors are generally memento mori, so the inclusion of a mirror in the centre of the painting is thought by some to show that the painting is posthumous. The candelabra shows one candle lit and this is on the side of Mr. A, the candles above Mrs. A have been snuffed out. Some read this that she too has died.
Panofsky thought the wee dog at Mrs. A’s feet to be a symbol of faithfulness and it fitted in nicely with his wedding theory. Some say it has no symbolic reference at all, whilst others say that it is in keeping with death imagery, in particular female deaths, which depict wee dogs.
Panofsky made much about the hands in the painting claiming that they clearly showed an act of marriage, but look at them again. He isn’t actually holding her hand; her hand is just resting in his palm, as though she is slipping away from him, he has no firm grasp of her hand.
Okay, so there you have it. My own feelings are that Koster is right; this is a posthumous portrait of Mrs. A. It may have been started before she died, and she may have been pregnant at the time of the painting (there is evidence that Van Eyck altered the painting). Mrs. A may well have died in childbirth.
I also think that because the painting is so contested, the National Gallery has attempted to play it safe by claiming that this is just a nice cosy double portrait, but I feel that this sells the work short. However, the viewer must make up their own mind about the painting. Your story about what is happening in this picture is as legitimate as anyone’s. No one knows for certain what the picture is about. If nothing else, the Arnolfini portrait clearly illustrates a point about trying to guess an artist’s intentions.
What the National Gallery says : http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/jan-van-eyck-the-arnolfini-portrait Go and see the painting there.
