The Arnolfini double portrait: a simple solution - Critical Essay

The range of rejoinders 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 single grown with the passing centuries. This picture appear to bes both too alien to grasp and at the same time entirely straightforward--encouraging scholars of each variety to register their possess different interpretations in print. The dominant account has been that of Erwin Panofsky, who published his first treatment of the picture as drawn out ago as 1934. (1) No matter in what way certain scholars have become that Panofsky was mistaken, however, his reading is the single every subsequent author must address. It will be necessary therefore to rehearse Panofsky's arguments, as well as those of a certain number of of his critics. It is through way of this revisionist history that I arrived at what I will not away 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 formality witnessed, he claimed, by the painter himself, shown in the reflection in the mirror. With the addition of his signature, Panofsky conclud Jan van Eyck endowed his image with the power of a legal document. Arguably, sole a masterful scholar could have convinced thus many people to accept of that kind an unlikely scenario. His reading was to play the leading character for more than hall a hundred so compelling was his erudition and thus elegant his prose. One part historical research, single part manifesto, this was the essay in which Panofsky launched his influential on the contrary misleading concept of 'disguised symbolism' (whereby an ordinary thing perceived painted in a naturalistic way functions as the sign for an idea that--because the symbolism is unknown to fresh viewers is hidden). This essay was also the popular trial case of Panofsky's ambitious process of 'iconology' that was to dominate the discipline until novel times. Due to its persuasiveness and prestige, then, nearly all later scholars, and the informed public at large, still come [i]or[/i] go after [i]or[/i] behind Panofsky and refer to the picture as the Arnolfini wedding. (2)

Panofsky's contention that Van Eyck literally painted a marriage certificate was lower parted in two early accounts of the picture. In 1568 Marcus van Vaernewyck described the double portrait as 'a true small panel' in which was painted 'a marriage of a man and a woman who are married by the agency of Faith'. (3) In 1604, Karel van Mander, sometimes called the Vasari of the North, perpetuated the misunderstanding in his have a title to commentary, having drawn from Van Vaernewijck. However, it have the appearances unlikely that either of them at any time saw the work. Van Mander's interpretation was based upon 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 alone a few steps from there to the marriage theory place forth by Panofsky, who judg the misunderstandings to be the proceed of poor Latin, arguing that these earlier sources intended to say the brace was married per fidem, a legal bourn indicating a private marriage. 'According to canon law', Panofsky wrote 'marriage was conclud through taking an oath, and this oath (fides) implied sum of two units actions: that of joining hands (fides manualis) and, upon the part of the servant that of raising his forearm (fides levata, a gesticulation still retained by out legal procedure)' (5) His learned coinage of the phrase fides levata--a convincing on the contrary altogether fictional Latin term (6)--would contribute to the overwhelming succes of Panofsky's account.

Important information concerning the picture may be gleaned from inventories. These were frequently if not always, made with the original to hand. (7) The inventory of Margaret of Austria's collection at Malines, taken in her nearness 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 the agency of Don Diego, whose arms are upon the cover of the said picture; done through the painter Johannes.' (8) Another inventory of the same collection, made between 9 July 1523 and 17 April 1524 includes this entry: 'another real exquisite picture, which closes with sum of two units shutters, where there are painted a man and a woman, standing, touching hands, done through the hand of Johannes, the arms and device of the late Don Diego upon 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 depressed Countries; he died in 1520 (9)

The Double portrait passed by dint of descent to Mary of Hungary, who had mov to Spain in 1556 Her inventory from around 1558 includes the following: 'a large panel, with sum of two units doors with which it shut ups 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 upon the doors the arms of Don Diego de Guevara; done by the agency of Juanes de Hec, in the year 1434' (10) The panel then passed to the King of Spain, who absorbed Mary of Hungary's collection upon her death.