The Debate of the Arnolfini Portrait

In the early to mid-fifteenth century, as Northern Europe began to experience the Renaissance, artists portraying symbolism in their paintings began to occur with some frequency. Robert Campin, for example, used white lilies to express the Mary’s purity and virginity at the time of the Annunciation in his work Mérode Triptych (ca. 1425-1430) as well as the vessel of water on the table indicates that she is the vessel for Christ. Other symbols include the snuffed out candle, the crucifix, violets and roses, the mousetrap on Joseph’s desk and the light on Mary’s womb (Davies, et al. 2009). Artist Hugo van der Goes’ painting The Portinari Altarpiece, when opened, expresses a wonderful triptych of the adoration of the newborn Christ. This altarpiece contains symbolism as well in the flowers, for Mary, and the wheat, interpreted as the bread of the Eucharist (Davies, et al. 2009). However, one of the works holding the most intriguing and elaborate hidden symbolism, and is still debated among scholars, is Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait (1434).

A man holds his hand as if to take an oath whilst the other is holding the hand of a young lady beside him. The room appears to be a wealthy receiving room with only one lit candle on the chandelier and a dog at the man and woman’s feet. Jan van Eyck’s well scripted signature hangs above a mirror revealing two other men in the room. Art historians have debated Jan van Eyck’s painting the Arnolfini Portrait with many different possibilities of the symbolisms and meaning, if any. However, the more one studies it, more difficult questions arise: Who was the woman? Is this a betrothal or marriage? What is the symbolism behind the other objects?

Scholars have debated even over the identity of the man in the portrait. He is either Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini or his younger cousin Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini who were both living in Bruges at the time (Carroll 2008). However, even more debate exists regarding the young woman. Arrigo Arnolfini’s marriage to his only recorded wife Giovanni Cenami was thirteen years after this piece was painted –the work is dated at 1434 (Carroll 2008) (Davies, et al. 2009). Constanza Trenta was the teenage wife of Nicolao Arnolfini. However, she passed away in 1433 (Carroll 2008). Could this have been a memorial portrait of him and his late wife? Many scholars find this to be unlikely and suggest that the likelihood that one of these men had an undocumented marriage is much greater (Carroll 2008).

However, there are possibilities suggesting that the woman could still be Constanza. The arm chair is decorated with sculptures of lions on the arm rests and a haloed woman praying on the top of the chair as she emerges from the body of a dragon. She may be a depiction of St. Margaret of Antioch who is the patron saint of women in childbirth (Hicks 2011). The maternal manner in which the young woman in the portrait is holding herself, one’s first thought is that she might be pregnant, but she is more likely portrayed as a symbol of fertility and the hope of motherhood (Davies, et al. 2009), leading to additional suspicions that the young Constanza, who never had the opportunity to become a mother or may have died in childbirth (Carroll 2008), could be the woman in the painting.

Yet more is to be considered. For instance, the manner Arnolfini is holding the young woman’s hand. It was customary for a man to hold the woman’s right hand with his right hand in a marriage ceremony. However, Arnolfini is holding her hand with his left (Hall 1994). Was this merely Eyck’s artistic license as Hall continues to explain? Some scholars wonder if this is a betrothal announcement instead of a wedding (Hall 1994). If so, the woman’s identity as Constanza is less probable.

The painting pours out a mass of symbolism, all of which suggest hints to what this occasion is. On the back wall there is the inscription, “Jan van Eyck was here, 1434” (Davies, et al. 2009) an unusual occurrence for Eyck, since he typically signed on the frame. Nevertheless, it was unusual in this era for an artist to sign their work (Davies, et al. 2009). Not only does his inscription date the painting but it demonstrates that Eyck is literally present (Hall 1994). Below the inscription hangs a mirror framed with elegant illustrations of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. In the mirror’s reflection, in addition to the couple, are two men – a man in blue clothing and a man wearing a red headdress standing about where the viewer would be. Jan van Eyck may be the man in the red headdress in the mirrors reflection. One source suggests that his presence and the inscription denote that he is witness of the event (Davies, et al. 2009) or perhaps a participant of what is taking place. The man in blue is speculated to be the bride’s father (Davies, et al. 2009).

I, on the other hand, am curious by the resemblance of the woman in this portrait compared to the portrait Eyck painted of his wife Margaret van Eyck in 1439. Style of dress and hair aside, since those were common traditional clothing for a married woman, the facial similarities in the eyebrows, eyes, nose and smile are striking. Margaret, in her portrait, would have been about five years older than the woman in the Arnolfini Portrait. Though this claim, often known as the Eastlake-Waagen hypothesis from the 1930s, has no apparent supporters today (Hall 1994) the possibility still exists that the betrothal or marriage, of which Arnolfini was a witness, may have been between Eyck himself and his wife Margaret who were married in 1432. One scholar, Pierre-Mechel Betrand argues strongly that the woman is Margaret and that she is pregnant with Eyck’s own son, not only due to the women’s physical similarities but also that neither of the Arnolfini cousins had children (Hicks 2011).

Why the mirror? Scholars have begun to assume that the mirror holds more significance than being a Renaissance window. The presence of the mirror continues the theme that these individuals are wealthy since at the time mirrors were expensive (Hicks 2011). Mirrors possess a lot of fairytale lore, indicating that it can be a symbol for a doorway just as a symbol for good and evil (Hicks 2011). “The Virgin herself is a mirror that reflects the majesty of God… No longer reflecting divine majesty, the mirror now became simply ‘spotless’ or ‘stainless’ and, as a metaphor of being without sin, was appropriated as a symbol of the Immaculate Conception” (Hall 1994). The brush, though possessing a functional role, also represents the Mary’s virtue as well as her industry and humility (Hicks 2011). Beside the mirror, hanging on the wall are amber prayer beads called a paternoster, which symbolize a woman’s piety and were a frequent gift from husband to wife during this time period (Hicks 2011).

Hall continues to argue, however, that this is a betrothal ceremony rather than a marriage.  “The Passion iconography may be an allegory for to the use of Ephesians 5:22-23 in both Catholic and some Protestant marriage services. The argument might be plausible save for two reasons that effectively undermine its validity. Because a betrothal ceremony, not a marriage, is depicted, text and imagery properly associated with marriage as a sacrament are inappropriate to the circumstances of the couple’s action… Even when a betrothal was witnessed by a priest, there were normally no prayers. A betrothal was, in short, no more than a religious rite in the fifteenth century than an engagement to be married is today (Hall 1994). Upon the brass chandelier burns a candle in broad daylight where some believe the lit candle “signifies the drafting of a dowry agreement” (Hicks 2011), a suggestion which benefits the idea that this portrait illustrates a betrothal.

Aside from how the mysterious woman is holding her dress, there are additional indicators of hopeful fertility, such as the dog, a Brussels griffon – a terrier bred to catch rats (Hicks 2011). The terrier, staring right at the viewer (Hicks 2011), may be more than a mere pet. “Fides is Latin for faithfulness, the origin of the traditional dog name Fido (Davies, et al. 2009). The oranges by the window are perhaps of evident of virtue as well. “The fruit and its blossom could also symbolize love and the marriage ceremony, so the Arnolfinis’ oranges might have been a subtle reference to their relationship as well” (Hicks 2011) (Hicks 2011).

Oranges, being a rare delicacy, were also indicative of the couples’ wealth. Other indicators include the shoes and the clothing which were very rich in fabric and style, including their elaborate shoes. Arnolfini’s fabrics had been dyed plum and black, expensive dyes, which “announced his own gravitas and virtue as well as a statement of wealth”  (Hicks 2011) Hicks continues to compare the style of dress between the couple, “The contrast between the modish hat and the woman’s head covering could not be more extreme – black/white, cosmopolitan/local, up-to-date/old-fashioned, dashing/demure” (Hicks 2011). Another aspect of self-display was that of the furniture. Though the bed may have suggested the consummation of marriage (Davies, et al. 2009), it wasn’t uncommon for persons of intense wealth to place a bed such in the front room not for functional purposes, but it and the rug flaunt their wealth (Hicks 2011). The chest under the window, in addition to functional uses, might represent marriage stability, yet it also is a wealth indicator.

Scholars have yet to conclude the meaning within this painting, the woman’s identity, Jan van Eyck’s personal presence, etc. and it appears the scholars are becoming less certain in recent interpretations (Davies, et al. 2009). Nevertheless, it is a painting that draws the viewer in, leaves us wondering and curious about who and what. We can never tire of it because every time we view it, we see more detail, more symbolism, more meaning. Whoever these people are and whatever the painting was originally intended to convey, it is a window to the fourteen-thirties, an insight into the culture and the people of the time.

Works Cited

Carroll, Margaret D. Painting and Politics in Northern Europe: Van Eyck, Bruegel, Rubens, and their Contemporaries. Univeristy Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008.

Davies, Penelope J.E., Frima Fox Hofrichter, Joseph Jacobs, Ann M. Roberts, and David L. Simon. Janson's Basic History of Western Art. 8th. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009.

Hall, Edwin. The Arnolfini Betrothal: Medieval Marriage and the Enigma of Van Eyck's Double Portrait. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1994.

Hicks, Carola. Girl in a Green Gown: The History and Mystery of the Arnolfini Portrait. London: Chatto & Windus, 2011.