Arnolfini Portrait

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arnolfini Portrait

Artist

Jan van Eyck

Year

1434

Type

Oil on oak panel of 3 vertical boards

Dimensions

82.2 cm 60 cm (32.4 in 23.6 in);

panel 84.5 cm 62.5 cm (33.3 in 24.6 in)

Location

National Gallery, London

The Arnolfini Portrait is an oil painting on oak panel dated 1434 by the Early Netherlandish painter Jan
van Eyck. It is also known as The Arnolfini Wedding, The Arnolfini Marriage, The Arnolfini Double
Portrait or the Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, among other titles. The painting is a small
full-length double portrait, which is believed to represent the Italian merchant Giovanni di Nicolao
Arnolfini and possibly his wife,[1] presumably in their home in the Flemish city of Bruges. It is considered
one of the more original and complex paintings in Western art because of the iconography,[2] the unusual
geometric orthogonal perspective,[3] the use of the mirror to reflect the space,[4][5] and that the portrait is

considered unique by some art historians as the record of a marriage contract in the form of a painting.
[6]
According to Ernst Gombrich "in its own way it was as new and revolutionary as Donatello's
or Masaccio's work in Italy. A simple corner of the real world had suddenly been fixed on to a panel as if
by magic ... For the first time in history the artist became the perfect eye-witness in the truest sense of
the term".[7] Signed and dated by van Eyck in 1434, it is, with the Ghent Altarpiece by the same artist and
his brother Hubert, the oldest very famous panel painting to have been executed in oils rather than
in tempera. The painting was bought by the National Gallery in London in 1842.
Van Eyck used the technique of applying layer after layer of thin translucent glazes to create a painting
with an intensity of both tone and colour. The glowing colours also help to highlight the realism, and to
show the material wealth and opulence of Arnolfini's world. Van Eyck took advantage of the longer
drying time of oil paint, compared to tempera, to blend colours by painting wet-in-wet to achieve subtle
variations in light and shade to heighten the illusion of three-dimensional forms. The medium of oil paint
also permitted van Eyck to capture surface appearance and distinguish textures precisely. He also
rendered the effects of both direct and diffuse light by showing the light from the window on the left
reflected by various surfaces. It has been suggested that he used a magnifying glass in order to paint
the minute details such as the individual highlights on each of the amber beads hanging beside the
mirror.
The illusionism of the painting was remarkable for its time, in part for the rendering of detail, but
particularly for the use of light to evoke space in an interior, for "its utterly convincing depiction of a
room, as well of the people who inhabit it".[8] Whatever meaning is given to the scene and its details, and
there has been much debate on this, according to Craig Harbison the painting "is the only fifteenthcentury Northern panel to survive in which the artist's contemporaries are shown engaged in some sort
of action in a contemporary interior. It is indeed tempting to call this the first genre painting a painting
of everyday life of modern times".[9]
Contents
[hide]

1Description

2Identity of subjects

3Scholarly debate

4Interpretation and symbolism

o

4.1Figures and marriage

4.2Mirror

4.3Other objects

5Provenance

6Notes

7References

8Further reading

9External links

Description[edit]

Detail showing the male subject, probably Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini

The painting is generally in very good condition, though with small losses of original paint and damages,
which have mostly been retouched. Infrared reflectograms of the painting show many small alterations,
or pentimenti, in the underdrawing: to both faces, to the mirror, and to other elements.[10] The couple are
shown in an upstairs room with a chest and a bed in it during early summer as indicated by the fruit on
the cherry tree outside the window. The room probably functioned as a reception room, as it was the
fashion in France and Burgundywhere beds in reception rooms were used as seating, except, for
example, when a mother with a new baby received visitors. The window has six interior wooden
shutters, but only the top opening has glass, with clear bulls-eye pieces set in blue, red and green
stained glass.[10]
The two figures are very richly dressed; despite the season both their outer garments, his tabard and
her dress, are trimmed and fully lined with fur. The furs may be the especially expensive sable for him
and ermine or miniver for her. He wears a hat of plaited straw dyed black, as often worn in the summer
at the time. His tabard was more purple than it appears now (as the pigments have faded over time) and
may be intended to be silk velvet (another very expensive item). Underneath he wears a doublet of
patterned material, probably silk damask. Her dress has elaborate dagging (cloth folded and sewn
together, then cut and frayed decoratively) on the sleeves, and a long train. Her blue underdress is also
trimmed with white fur.[10]
Although the woman's plain gold necklace and the rings that both wear are the only jewellery visible,
both outfits would have been enormously expensive, and appreciated as such by a contemporary
viewer. There may be an element of restraint in their clothes (especially the man) befitting their
merchant status portraits of aristocrats tend to show gold chains and more decorated cloth, [10] although
"the restrained colours of the man's clothing correspond to those favoured by Duke Phillip of Burgundy".
[11]

Detail showing the female subject and convex mirror

The interior of the room has other signs of wealth; the brass chandelier is large and elaborate by
contemporary standards, and would have been very expensive. It would probably have had a
mechanism with pulley and chains above, to lower it for managing the candles (possibly omitted from
the painting for lack of room). The convex mirror at the back, in a wooden frame with scenes of The
Passion painted behind glass, is shown larger than such mirrors could actually be made at this date
another discreet departure from realism by van Eyck. There is also no sign of a fireplace (including in
the mirror), nor anywhere obvious to put one. Even the oranges casually placed to the left are a sign of
wealth; they were very expensive in Burgundy, and may have been one of the items dealt in by Arnolfini.
Further signs of luxury are the elaborate bed-hangings and the carvings on the chair and bench against
the back wall (to the right, partly hidden by the bed), also the smallOriental carpet on the floor by the
bed; many owners of such expensive objects placed them on tables, as they still do in the Netherlands.
[10][11]

The view in the mirror shows two figures just inside the door that the couple are facing. The second
figure, wearing red, is presumably the artist although, unlike Velzquezin Las Meninas, he does not
seem to be painting. Scholars have made this assumption based on the appearance of figures wearing
red head-dresses in some other van Eyck works (e.g., the Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) and the
figure in the background of the Madonna with Chancellor Rolin). The dog is an early form of the breed
now known as the Brussels griffon.[10]
The painting is signed, inscribed and dated on the wall above the mirror: "Johannes de eyck fuit hic
1434" ("Jan van Eyck was here 1434"). The inscription looks as if it were painted in large letters on the
wall, as was done with proverbs and other phrases at this period. Other surviving van Eyck signatures
are painted in trompe l'oeil on the wooden frame of his paintings, so that they appear to have been
carved in the wood.[10][12]

Identity of subjects[edit]

Jan van Eyck, Portrait of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini.Gemldegalerie, Berlin

In their book published in 1857, Crowe and Cavalcaselle were the first to link the double portrait with the
early 16th century inventories of Margaret of Austria. They suggested that the painting showed portraits
of Giovanni [di Arrigo] Arnolfini and his wife.[13] Four years later James Weale published a book in which
he agreed with this analysis and identified Giovanni's wife as Jeanne (or Giovanna) Cenami. [14] For the
next century most art historians accepted that the painting was a double portrait of Giovanni di Arrigo
Arnolfini and his wife Jeanne Cenami but a chance discovery in 1997 established that they were married
in 1447, thirteen years after the date on the painting and six years after van Eyck's death. [15]
It is now believed that the subject is either Giovanni di Arrigo or his cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini,
and an unknown wife of either one of them. This is either an undocumented first wife of Giovanni di
Arrigo or a second wife of Giovanni di Nicolao, or, according to a recent proposal, Giovanni di Nicolao's
first wife Costanza Trenta, who had died by February 1433.[16] In the latter case, this would make the

painting partly an unusual memorial portrait, showing one living and one dead person. Both Giovanni di
Arrigo and Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini were Italian merchants, originally from Lucca, but resident
in Bruges since at least 1419.[12] The man in this painting is the subject of a further portrait by van Eyck
in the Gemldegalerie, Berlin, leading to speculation he was a friend of the artist.[17]

Scholarly debate[edit]

Charles the Bold surprising David Aubert, a miniature with an unusual variant of the presentation portrait, probably
alluding to Alexander the Great, who surprised one of his artists in similar fashion. The rear wall seems to refer to
the Arnolfini Portrait of forty years earlier, containing many of the same objects like the convex mirror and in
particular the painted inscription on the wall. Before 1472.

In 1934 Erwin Panofsky published an article entitled Jan van Eyck's 'Arnolfini' Portrait in the Burlington
Magazine, arguing that the elaborate signature on the back wall, and other factors, showed that it was
painted as a legal record of the occasion of the marriage of the couple, complete with witnesses and a
witness signature.[18] Panofsky also argues that the many details of domestic items in the painting each
have a disguised symbolism attached to their appearance. While Panofsky's claim that the painting
formed a kind of certificate of marriage is not accepted by all art historians, his analysis of the symbolic
function of the details is broadly agreed, and has been applied to many other Early Netherlandish
paintings, especially a number of depictions of theAnnunciation set in richly detailed interiors, a tradition
for which the Arnolfini Portrait and the Mrode Altarpiece by Robert Campin represent the start (in terms
of surviving works at least).[19]
Since then, there has been considerable scholarly argument among art historians on the occasion
represented. Edwin Hall considers that the painting depicts a betrothal, not a marriage. Margaret D.
Carroll argues that the painting is a portrait of a married couple that alludes also to the husband's grant
of legal authority to his wife.[20] Carroll also proposes that the portrait was meant to affirm Giovanni
Arnolfini's good character as a merchant and aspiring member of the Burgundian court. She argues that
the painting depicts a couple, already married, now formalizing a subsequent legal arrangement, a
mandate, by which the husband "hands over" to his wife the legal authority to conduct business on her
own or his behalf (similar to a power of attorney). The claim is not that the painting had any legal force,
but that van Eyck played upon the imagery of legal contract as a pictorial conceit. While the two figures
in the mirror could be thought of as witnesses to the oath-taking, the artist himself provides (witty)
authentication with his notarial signature on the wall.[21]

Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434 (Jan van Eyck was here. 1434).

Jan Baptist Bedaux agrees somewhat with Panofsky that this is a marriage contract portrait in his 1986
article "The reality of symbols: the question of disguised symbolism in Jan van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait."
However, he disagrees with Panofsky's idea of items in the portrait having hidden meanings. Bedaux
argues, "if the symbols are disguised to such an extent that they do not clash with reality as conceived
at the time ... there will be no means of proving that the painter actually intended such symbolism." [22] He
also conjectures that if these disguised symbols were normal parts of the marriage ritual, then one could
not say for sure whether the items were part of a "disguised symbolism" or just social reality.[22]
Craig Harbison takes the middle ground between Panofsky and Bedaux in their debate about "disguised
symbolism" and realism. Harbison argues that "Jan van Eyck is there as storyteller ... [who] must have
been able to understand that, within the context of people's lives, objects could have multiple
associations", and that there are many possible purposes for the portrait and ways it can be interpreted.
[23]
He maintains that this portrait cannot be fully interpreted until scholars accept the notion that objects
can have multiple associations. Harbison urges the notion that one needs to conduct
a multivalent reading of the painting that includes references to the secular and sexual context of the
Burgundian court, as well as religious and sacramental references to marriage.
Lorne Campbell in the National Gallery Catalogue sees no need to find a special meaning in the
painting: "... there seems little reason to believe that the portrait has any significant narrative content.
Only the unnecessary lighted candle and the strange signature provoke speculation." [24] He suggests that
the double portrait was very possibly made to commemorate a marriage, but not a legal record and cites
examples of miniatures from manuscripts showing similarly elaborate inscriptions on walls as a normal
form of decoration at the time. Another portrait in the National Gallery by van Eyck, Portrait of a Man
(Leal Souvenir), has a legalistic form of signature.[12]
Margaret Koster's new suggestion, discussed above and below, that the portrait is a memorial one, of a
wife already dead for a year or so, would displace these theories. Art historian Maximiliaan Martens has
suggested that the painting was meant as a gift for the Arnolfini family in Italy. It had the purpose of
showing the prosperity and wealth of the couple depicted. He feels this might explain oddities in the
painting, for example why the couple are standing in typical winter clothing while a cherry tree is in fruit
outside, and why the phrase "Johannes de eyck fuit hic 1434" is featured so large in the centre of the
painting. Herman Colenbrander has proposed that the painting may depict an old German custom of a
husband promising a gift to his bride on the morning after their wedding night. He has also suggested
that the painting may have been a present from the artist to his friend.[25]

Interpretation and symbolism[edit]

Figures and marriage[edit]
It is thought that the couple is already married because of the woman's headdress. A non-married
woman would have her hair down, according to Margaret Carroll.[26] The placement of the two figures
suggests conventional 15th century views of marriage and gender roles the woman stands near the
bed and well into the room, symbolic of her role as the caretaker of the house, whereas Giovanni stands
near the open window, symbolic of his role in the outside world. Arnolfini looks directly out at the viewer,
his wife gazes obediently at her husband. His hand is vertically raised, representing his commanding

position of authority, whilst she has her hand in a lower, horizontal, more submissive pose. However, her
gaze at her husband can also show her equality to him because she is not looking down at the floor as
lower class women would. They are part of the Burgundian court life and in that system she is his equal,
not his subordinate.[27]

Detail showing the couple joined hands.

The symbolism behind the action of the couple's joined hands has also been debated among scholars.
Many point to this gesture as proof of the painting's purpose. Is it a marriage contract or something
else? Panofsky interprets the gesture as an act of fides, Latin for "marital oath". He calls the
representation of the couple "qui desponsari videbantur per fidem" which means, "who were contracting
their marriage by marital oath".[28] The man is grasping the woman's right hand with his left which is the
basis for the controversy. Some scholars like Jan Baptist Bedaux and Peter Schabacker argue that if
this painting does show a marriage ceremony, then the use of the left hand points to the marriage
being morganatic and not clandestine. A marriage is said to be morganatic if a man marries a woman of
unequal rank.[29] However, the subjects originally thought by most scholars to be represented in this
painting, Giovanni Arnolfini and Giovanna Cenami, were of equal status and rank in the courtly system,
so the theory would not hold true.[29] On the opposite side of the debate are scholars like Margaret
Carroll. She suggests that the painting deploys the imagery of a contract between an already married
couple giving the wife the authority to act on her husband's behalf in business dealings. [30] Carroll
identifies Arnolfini's raised right hand as a gesture of oath-taking known as "fidem levare", and his
joining hands with his wife as a gesture of consent known as "fides manualis".[31]
Although many viewers assume the wife to be pregnant, this is not believed to be so. Art historians point
to numerous paintings of female virgin saints similarly dressed, and believe that this look was
fashionable for women's dresses at the time.[32] Fashion would have been important to Arnolfini,
especially since he was a cloth merchant. The more cloth a person wore, the more wealthy he or she
was assumed to be. Another indication that the woman is not pregnant is that Giovanna Cenami (the
identification of the woman according to most earlier scholars) died childless, [33] as did Costanza Trenta
(a possible identification according to recent archival evidence);[16] whether a hypothetical unsuccessful
pregnancy would have been left recorded in a portrait is questionable. As mentioned above, some
viewers have argued that the woman in the portrait is already pregnant, thus the protruding belly.
Harbison, however, maintains her gesture is merely an indication of the extreme desire of the couple
shown for fertility and progeny.[34]
There is a carved figure as a finial on the bedpost, probably of Saint Margaret, patron saint of pregnancy
and childbirth,[35] who was invoked to assist women in labor and to cure infertility, or possibly
representing Saint Martha, the patroness of housewives.[36] From the bedpost hangs a brush, symbolic of
domestic duties. Furthermore, the brush and the rock crystal prayer-beads (a popular engagement
present from the future bridegroom) appearing together on either side of the mirror may also allude to
the dual Christian injunctions ora et labora (pray and work). According to Jan Baptist Bedaux, the broom
could also symbolize proverbial chastity; it "sweeps out impurities".[37][38]

Mirror[edit]

Detail of the convex mirror

The small medallions set into the frame of the convex mirror at the back of the room show tiny scenes
from the Passion of Christ and may represent God's promise of salvation for the figures reflected on the
mirror's convex surface. Furthering the Memorial theory, all the scenes on the wife's side are of Christ's
death and resurrection. Those on the husband's side concern Christ's life. The mirror itself may
represent the eye of God observing the vows of the wedding. A spotless mirror was also an established
symbol of Mary, referring to the Holy Virgin's immaculate conception and purity.[35] The mirror reflects two
figures in the doorway, one of whom may be the painter himself. In Panofsky's controversial view, the
figures are shown to prove that the two witnesses required to make a wedding legal were present, and
Van Eyck's signature on the wall acts as some form of actual documentation of an event at which he
was himself present.
According to one author "The painting is often referenced for its immaculate depiction of non-Euclidean
geometry",[39] referring to the image on the convex mirror. Assuming a spherical mirror, the distortion has
been correctly portrayed, except for the leftmost part of the window frame, the near edge of the table
and the hem of the dress.[40]

Other objects[edit]

Detail of the dog

The little dog symbolizes loyalty,[35] or can be seen as an emblem of lust, signifying the couple's desire to
have a child.[41] Unlike the couple, he looks out to meet the gaze of the viewer.[42] The dog could also be
simply a lap dog, a gift from husband to wife. Many wealthy women in the court had lap dogs as
companions. So, the dog could reflect the wealth of the couple and their position in courtly life. [43]
The green of the woman's dress symbolizes hope, possibly the hope of becoming a mother. Her white
cap could signify purity, but probably signifies her being married. Behind the pair, the curtains of the
marriage bed have been opened; the red curtains might allude to the physical act of love between the
married couple.
The single candle in the left-front holder of the ornate six-branched chandelier is possibly the candle
used in traditional Flemish marriage customs.[35] Lit in full daylight, like the sanctuary lamp in a church,

the candle may allude to the presence of the Holy Ghost or the ever-present eye of God. Alternatively,
Margaret Koster's posits that the painting is a memorial portrait, the single lit candle on Giovanni's side
contrasts with the burnt-out candle whose wax stub can just be seen on his wife's side. In a metaphor
commonly used in literature; he lives on, she is dead.[44]
The cherries present on the tree outside the window may symbolize love. The oranges which lie on the
window sill and chest may symbolize the purity and innocence that reigned in the Garden of Eden
before the Fall of Man.[35] They were uncommon and a sign of wealth in the Netherlands, but in Italy were
a symbol of fecundity in marriage.[45] The fruit could more simply be a sign of the couple's wealth since
oranges were very expensive imports. It could be a sign of fertility as well. [46]

Provenance[edit]

Diego de Guevara, who gave the painting to the Habsburgs, by Michael Sittow, ca. 1517

The known provenance of the painting is that in 1434 it was dated by van Eyck and presumably owned
by the sitters. At some undetermined point before 1516 it came into the possession of Don Diego de
Guevara (d. Brussels 1520), a Spanish career courtier of the Habsburgs (himself the subject of a fine
portrait by Michael Sittow in the National Gallery of Art). He lived most of his life in the Netherlands, and
may have known the Arnolfinis in their later years.[47]
By 1516 he had given the portrait to Margaret of Austria, Habsburg Regent of the Netherlands, when it
shows up as the first item in an inventory of her paintings, made in her presence atMechelen. The item
says (in French): "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." A note in the margin says "It is necessary to put on a lock to close it: which Madame has
ordered to be done." In a 15234 Mechelen inventory, a similar description is given, although this time
the name of the subject is given as "Arnoult Fin".[47]
In 1530 the painting was inherited by Margaret's niece Mary of Hungary, who in 1556 went to live in
Spain. It is clearly described in an inventory taken after her death in 1558, when it was inherited
by Philip II of Spain. A painting of two of his young daughters, "Infantas Isabella Clara Eugenia and
Catalina Micaela of Spain" (Prado), commissioned by Philip clearly copies the pose of the figures. In
1599 a German visitor saw it in the Alcazar Palace in Madrid. Now it had verses from Ovid painted on
the frame: "See that you promise: what harm is there in promises? In promises anyone can be rich." It is
very likely that Velzquez knew the painting, which may have influenced his Las Meninas, which shows
a room in the same palace.[47]

In 1700 the painting appeared in an inventory after the death of Carlos II. It was still in the palace, with
shutters and the verses from Ovid, and by 1794 had been moved to the Palacio Nuevo in Madrid. In
1816 the painting was in London, in the possession of Colonel James Hay, a Scottish soldier. He
claimed that after he was seriously wounded at the Battle of Waterloothe previous year, the painting
hung in the room where he convalesced in Brussels. He fell in love with it, and persuaded the owner to
sell. More relevant to the real facts is no doubt Hay's presence at the Battle of Vitoria (1813) in Spain,
where a large coach loaded by King Joseph Bonaparte with easily portable artworks from the Spanish
royal collections was first plundered by British troops, before what was left was recovered by their
commanders and returned to the Spanish. Hay offered the painting to the Prince Regent, later George
IV of England, via SirThomas Lawrence. The Prince had it on approval for two years at Carlton
House before eventually returning it in 1818. Around c. 1828, Hay gave it to a friend to look after, not
seeing it or the friend for the next thirteen years, until he arranged for it to be included in a public
exhibition in 1841. It was bought the following year (1842) by the recently formed National
Gallery,London for 600, as inventory number 186, where it remains. The shutters have gone, along
with the original frame.[47]

Notes[edit]
1.

Jump up^

Giovanni Arnolfini
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wifeby Jan van Eyck.

Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini (c. 1400 after 1452) was a merchant from Lucca, a city
in Tuscany, Italy, who spent most of his life in Flanders, then part of the Duchy of Burgundy, probably
always based in Bruges, a wealthy trading city and one of the main towns of the Burgundian court.
The Arnolfini were a powerful family in Lucca, involved in the politics and trade of the small but wealthy
city, which specialised (like Florence) in weaving expensive cloth.
Giovanni, called here di Nicolao or "son of Nicolao" to distinguish him from his cousin Giovanni di Arrigo
Arnolfini (see below), moved to Bruges in Flanders at an early age to work in the family business and
lived there for the rest of his life. He became wealthy trading in silk and other fabrics, tapestries and
other precious objects, although in later years he seems to have suffered business reverses, and to
have retired from trading. His fame arises because he is the most likely candidate, out of a number of
male Arnolfinis, to have been the subject of two portraits by Jan van Eyck, the famous Flemish painter.
These are: The Arnolfini Portrait of Giovanni and his wife, dated 1434 and now in London, and another
portrait, evidently of the same sitter when slightly older, now in Berlin (below).
He was presumably born in Pamplona, where his parents lived, but neither the place nor the date are
documented. He was sent to Bruges whilst still technically a child, as the first record of him is a letter
from his father Nicolao in Lucca to his agent in Bruges in 1419 empowering the agent to "emancipate"
Giovanni - that is, to declare him adult. Since there was no fixed age for this, it gives no real clue as to
his date of birth.
In the next few years Giovanni di Nicolao worked with a very successful Italian merchant, Marco
Guidiccioni, another Lucchese who was connected to him by marriage. Records of some of his dealings
with the Ducal court have survived, but these were probably only part of his business activities. In 1422
he tried to sell a valuable gold collar to King Henry V of England, and 1423 he sold Duke Phillip the
Good six tapestries of scenes from the life of the Virgin, which the Duke gave to the Pope. Other sales
to the Court are recorded, although he may have been acting on behalf of Guidiccioni.
In 1426 he married Costanza Trenta, who is at first sight not the wife in the portrait, as a letter by her
mother of February 26, 1433 mentions that she had died. She was also from Lucca, and her aunt
Ginevra Cavalcanti was married to Lorenzo de' Medici, brother of Cosimo de' Medici. On the other hand,
Margaret Koster has recently proposed that the double portrait may be a memorial one, including an
image of Costanza, but painted a year after her death.
In 1442 he signed an agreement whereby, for a moderate fee, he became a burgess of Bruges after
promising not to trade as a merchant. He was permitted to practise "the small burgess's crafts", but
whether he ever did is unknown. In 1446 and 1452 he is documented as an arbitrator in disputes
between other Lucchese merchants (in 1446 including his cousin Giovanni) over property; these are his
last appearances in the documentary record. The double portrait remained in Flanders (see the
Provenance section in that article), which suggests that Giovanni died there.
There is no documentary evidence of a further marriage, but one has been assumed by art historians; it
is not at all implausible that such a marriage would be undocumented. The appearance of the woman in
the double portrait perhaps suggests she was Flemish, rather than Italian. [citation needed]
A slightly younger first cousin of Giovanni, called Giovanni de Arrigo Arnolfini, (or "Jehan Arnoulphin
le jeune" by the Burgundian accountants) also came to live in Bruges and was even more successful

than Giovanni de Nicolao. 'Giovanni de Arrigo Arnolfini married, and was survived by, Giovanna
(Jeanne) Cenami, and they were the couple thought to be the shown in the Arnolfini Portrait from 1861
until 1994, when a French naval historian, Jacques Paviot, discovered in the Ducal accounts that the
Duke had in 1447 presented two silver pots to "Jehan Arnoulphin" on his marriage - by this time Van
Eyck had been dead for six years. Jane or Jeanne Arnolfini is documented further until her death in
Bruges in 1480. A further two Arnolfinis, each a younger brother of one of the two Giovannis, are
possible candidates as the subject of the Van Eyck portraits, as they lived in, or passed through, Bruges;
but neither was apparently there in 1434.