The Arnolfini double portrait: a simple solution

Apollo, Sept, 2003 by Margaret L. Koster

The range of responses to Jan van Eyck's Double portrait in the National Gallery is an indication of the painter's stupendous achievement (Fig. 1). The mystery has only grown with the passing centuries. This picture seems both too alien to grasp and at the same time entirely straightforward--encouraging scholars of every variety to register their own different interpretations in print. The dominant account has been that of Erwin Panofsky, who published his first treatment of the picture as long ago as 1934. (1) No matter how certain scholars have become that Panofsky was mistaken, however, his reading is the one every subsequent author must address. It will be necessary therefore to rehearse Panofsky's arguments, as well as those of some of his critics. It is by way of this revisionist history that I arrived at what I will present here: a new and simple solution to the function and meaning of the work.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Panofsky argued that the picture showed a clandestine marriage ceremony, witnessed, he claimed, by the painter himself, shown in the reflection in the mirror. With the addition of his signature, Panofsky concluded, Jan van Eyck endowed his image with the power of a legal document. Arguably, only a masterful scholar could have convinced so many people to accept such an unlikely scenario. His reading was to play the leading role for more than hall a century, so compelling was his erudition and so elegant his prose. One part historical research, one part manifesto, this was the essay in which Panofsky launched his influential but misleading concept of 'disguised symbolism' (whereby an ordinary object painted in a naturalistic way functions as the sign for an idea that--because the symbolism is unknown to modern viewers is hidden). This essay was also the popular test case of Panofsky's ambitious method of 'iconology' that was to dominate the discipline until recent times. Due to its persuasiveness and prestige, then, nearly all subsequent scholars, and the informed public at large, still follow Panofsky and refer to the picture as the Arnolfini wedding. (2)

Panofsky's contention that Van Eyck literally painted a marriage certificate was rooted in two early accounts of the picture. In 1568, Marcus van Vaernewyck described the double portrait as 'a very small panel' in which was painted 'a marriage of a man and a woman who are married by Faith'. (3) In 1604, Karel van Mander, sometimes called the Vasari of the North, perpetuated the misunderstanding in his own commentary, having drawn from Van Vaernewijck. However, it seems unlikely that either of them ever saw the work. Van Mander's interpretation was based on the assumption that the couple's right hands were clasped (since this was required in a marriage ceremony) and that a personification of Faith joined them together. (4)

It was only a few steps from there to the marriage theory set forth by Panofsky, who judged the misunderstandings to be the result of poor Latin, arguing that these earlier sources intended to say the couple was married per fidem, a legal term indicating a private marriage. 'According to canon law', Panofsky wrote, 'marriage was concluded by taking an oath, and this oath (fides) implied two actions: that of joining hands (fides manualis) and, on the part of the groom, that of raising his forearm (fides levata, a gesture still retained by out legal procedure).' (5) His learned coinage of the phrase fides levata--a convincing but altogether fictional Latin term (6)--would contribute to the overwhelming success of Panofsky's account.

Important information concerning the picture may be gleaned from inventories. These were often, if not always, made with the original to hand. (7) The inventory of Margaret of Austria's collection at Malines, taken in her presence, dates from 17 July 1516, and records '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.' (8) Another inventory of the same collection, made between 9 July 1523 and 17 April 1524, includes this entry: 'another very exquisite picture, which closes with two shutters, where there are painted a man and a woman, standing, touching hands, done by the hand of Johannes, the arms and device of the late Don Diego on the said two shutters, the name of the personage being Arnoult Fin.' This 'Don Diego' is Don Diego de Guevara, a Spanish nobleman who grew up and lived in the Low Countries; he died in 1520. (9)

The Double portrait passed by descent to Mary of Hungary, who had moved to Spain in 1556. Her inventory from around 1558 includes the following: 'a large panel, with two doors with which it closes, and in it a man and a woman who take each other's hands, with a mirror in which the said man and woman are shown, and on the doors the arms of Don Diego de Guevara; done by Juanes de Hec, in the year 1434.' (10) The panel then passed to the King of Spain, who absorbed Mary of Hungary's collection on her death.