The debate over this painting by Jan Van Eyck, bought in 1842 by the National Gallery in London, has been lively almost from the get-go and it is still one of the most visited pictures in the gallery. School-children guffaw at the man in the huge hat and his funny gesture, whilst artists marvel at the detail achieved in this painting where Van Eyck was one of the first to try the new medium of oil paint.
Who were this odd looking couple? Both of them are richly dressed in what we have to assume was the most fashionable gear of the period, they are lightly touching hands in a gesture that was believed to imply a morganatic union because he is taking her hand to rest gently on his left, not right, hand. However, her expensive clothing and the fact that the marriage was being witnessed by the Court Ambassador, Van Eyck himself, does not suggest that this bride was of lower status than Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, a wealthy Italian merchant based in Bruges, originating from Lucca in Tuscany.
Costanza Trenta also hailed from Lucca, and far from being of unimportant status her aunt Ginevra Cavalcanti was married to Lorenzo de’ Medici, brother of Cosimo de’ Medici, who was by this time already the unofficial leader of the Republic of Florence. The Medici might still have been considered “new-rich” by the Florentine nobility but one of their family would have been unlikely to be humiliated by a morganatic marriage.
But is this a painting of the marriage of Costanza Trenta to Arnolfini?
One of the problems in confirming her identity arises from the date of the painting – The mischievous message on the wall behind the couple reads “Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1934“, which translates to the infamous message left by graffiti artists in toilets and famous buildings worldwide – “Jan van Eyck was here, 1434″ but it was in 1426 that Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini married Costanza Trenta. This makes her unlikely to be the newly wed bride in the 1434 portrait, especially as a letter by her mother dated February 26th 1433, mentions that Constanza had died. She would have been aged 20 and in all probability died in childbirth.
The suggestion arose from Margaret Koster in 2003 that this could be a posthumous portrait of Costanza, whilst the couple shown in from the back the concave mirror behind them could be Arnolfini with a new wife, with Van Eyck, without his easel in the room as one of two official witnesses required to authenticate the marriage. Koster suggests that is it more probable that it is a memorial portrait, including a remembered image of Costanza that was painted a year after her death – or perhaps, given the complexity of this painting, it was begun towards the term of her pregnancy and the unhappy husband insisted that it was completed?
Personally, I like this concept, it has authenticity as most of the images shown in the painting could allude to this being a grieving widower regretting the loss of both his wife and stillborn child.
Symbols suggesting his continued fidelity include the affenpinscher dog, and symbols of childbirth, besides the volumetry of the bride’s dress, include the Persian carpet beside the bed (evidently carpets were only put out when childbirth was imminent) and the bed itself being included in the picture,
Most significant is the image of St Margaret, Patron Saint of Pregnancy, emerging from the stomach of a dragon shown sculpted onto the bedstead.
Evidence of this being a memorial painting includes the single candle burning over the head of the groom on the chandelier whilst the flame is extinguished over the head of the bride. Candles are often used as a symbol of mortality – life’s brief candle – as well as a symbol of purity and innocence as expected of a new bride.
In addition, all difficult to see, the small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show scenes from the Passion of Christ . This supports the Memorial theory as all the scenes on the wife’s side are stories of Christ’s death and resurrection whilst those on the husband’s side concern Christ’s life and works.
One of the more unusual symbols within the painting is the orange perched on the window sill and a further three on top of the cupboard behind Arnolfini. This has been suggested as a sign of the wealth of the Arnolfini family but in my fanciful way, I wonder whether a merchant who had married into the Medici family might also have suggested a symbol of the Palle of the family crest could be included in his Memorial painting?
The Medici already had a Bank in Bruges, where the couple lived, as well as ever-increasing control over Florence, so could this be a small clue to the identity of the dead wife?
Botticelli later used Apples of the Hesperides (oranges) to link his Primavera with his then paymasters. The Medici Palle (balls) have many interpretations but are also sometimes said to be bitter red oranges, alluding to the trade the Medici family conducted with the East, but when oranges are used in paintings of this period they also allowed the artist to discreetly show where his political allegiance lay – and maybe attract further commissions from these wealthy bankers?
Oranges were also given to newlyweds as a symbol of fertility, like pomegranates they are full of seeds and were also seen as a symbol of the promise of a new life to come – so, although there is no record of a second marriage, perhaps Mr Arnolfini was beginning to plan his next courtship?
That said, Jan Van Eyck painted Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini a second time in later life and he is now, a sad-eyed man sitting resolutely on his own – but still sporting the latest word in head gear!
I admire how much information you are able to glean from the detail in the painting that most of us would not notice, let alone interpret.
Thanks so much Stephen – I was checking out Cosimo’s brother Lorenzo’s heritage after watching the Medici on Netflix and wondering how they are going to explain Grand Duke Cosimo now they have let Lorenzo die without issue. ( I hope this isn’t a spoiler for you if you haven’t seen the series) So, I got really excited when I found his link to the Arnolfi Portrait, which only increased when I spotted all the oranges – they probably were only there to indicate wealth – but then again those Medici Balls got everywhere!!
I really enjoyed reading this post.
Thanks, Heather – as you know I love making links back to Florence and this was just too exciting an opportunity to miss. I expect the oranges really were put there to indicate wealth, but it is a big coincidence assuming that Costanza Trenta was the Bride whose short life was being celebrated in this painting. I look forward to seeing you in Feb.
Well, you’ve done it again, la mia amica!!– such an interesting tour through this “well-known” painting!! And, you made me look up a new-to-me word: morganatic! Perhaps us Americans are just too young and lacking in historical traditions & hierachy for the word/concept to get much play!?
Thanks Cara Amica – so good to know you are there and enjoying these Blogs!
Great post, you mention a letter that is written by the mother, do you have a link to the aforementioned letter
“This makes her unlikely to be the newly wed bride in the 1434 portrait, especially as a letter by her mother dated February 26th 1433, mentions that Constanza had died. She would have been aged 20 and in all probability died in childbirth.”
can you cite the letter?
Many thanks,
Carl
Carl Smith – So pleased that you enjoyed this – of course, there are many and varied interpretations of this painting but I am rather attached to mine as I live in Florence and enjoy making connections between Florence and the UK.
The reference to Costanza’s mother, Bartolomea, who was the daughter of Giovanni di Amerigo Cavalcanti, a Florentine of considerable stature is found in https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Arnolfini+double+portrait%3A+a+simple+solution.-a0109131988”
He writes
In 1416, Bartolomea’s sister was married to Lorenzo de’Medici, the brother of Cosimo il Vecchio. It is thanks to this family connection that we learn of the fate of her daughter. On 26 February 1433, Bartolomea writes from Lucca to Lorenzo de’Medici to congratulate them on the birth of their son, and in the course of a discussion of her children, she mentions that her daughter Costanza is no longer alive: ‘solamente ne viveno due, Paulo e Johi. Morio la Costanza e Lionardo. Paulo si trova in Avignone … Johanni e a lucha …’ (26)
Reaching what appeared to be another impasse, Campbell finally concluded that: ‘If Hernoul le Fin is rightly interpreted as Arnolfini, then van Eyck’s couple may be tentatively identified as Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his putative second wife.’ (27)
I believe Lorne Campbell is correct that this is Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini. Moreover, I agree with him that this is no picture of a betrothal ceremony, nor indeed of a wedding. But is it a straightforward portrait of two wealthy people, as he contends? More crucially, is he correct in assuming that this is a second wife, of whom we have no record, and with whom there were no recorded children? What happens if we look at the portrait in an altogether different way? What if it is of the deceased Costanza? It is my contention that Van Eyck’s picture is a posthumous representation of Costanza, the only wife of Giovanni di Nicolao of whose existence we find any evidence.
Quote taken from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Arnolfini+double+portrait%3A+a+simple+solution.-a0109131988
I hope that this helps you.
best regards
Penny Howard
Thank You Penny for your research and downloading It
– A late comment; just to say am reading Barbara Tuchman’s book ‘A Distant Mirror’…… with exceptions, the 14th century must have (at times) – been a terrifying time to live through; & not just for the villein/serf.
Wonder how much the Arnolfini’s were affected by it All;
If and when they travelled, if only in Bruge itself; would they have had bodyguards? Best Wishes
Great question – I will do some additional research on this, but as both partners had managed to get to Bruges from Tuscany they certainly did travel – mainly on horseback, with noble ladies in some sort of carriage where they couldn’t be seen. I believe that they would have had bodyguards if they were travelling with money- and as merchants, they would have had some money and, perhaps more importantly, coloured cloth, alum, wine or cheese, with them. If you read Medici Money by Tim Parks he explains about a sort of travel insurance policy the Medici introduced to enable their customers to travel without stacks of gold or cash, but they still risked attacks from pirates who could resell their merchandise. The other downside of the travel plan was that it expired after a certain number of days so if you were attacked and beaten up by pirates en route, and thus failed to reach your destination in time, you also lost the right to exchange your “bond” for cash! As you say, terrifying times to live through!