Kirsten Lampi Dane Beyer Markie Wendel

Portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his Wife, Jan van Eyck, 1434

In his article, Campbell introduces Jan van Eyck and gives some background information on him. Campbell goes on to list documented owners of the Arnolfini portrait, information on the x-ray imaging of the portrait and contradictions between the imagery/symbols in the portrait and real life. Campbell argues in his article that the man in the portrait is not Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini as had been originally believed. Campbell also discredits the possibility that this portrait depicts a marriage ceremony in light of his findings about the identity of the man in the portrait.

Don Diego de Guevara First owner of Arnolfini Double Portrait Brought up in Burgundian Court Coat of Arms on Wing Panels Margaret of Austria Given portrait by Don Diego Listed in inventory 17 July 1516 Claimed to be portrait of Hernoul le Fin and his wife, done by Johannes

Mary of Hungary ( ) “a large panel, with two doors with which it closes, and in it a man and a women taken hands, with a mirror that says man and a woman are shown. The doors have the arms of Don Diego de Guevara done by Juanes de Hec in 1434” Phillip II ( ) Described as a German woman in green giving her hand to a youth, at night. Says they are deceiving each other

There are small losses along a zig-zag scratch across the mirror and minor lake-losses in the side and back walls and in the bed cover. Some of the ultramarine-containing paint in the woman’s sleeve and under dress in the man’s tabard and in their reflections in the mirror may have deteriorated and become grayish. There are two layers of varnish: the lower is somewhat physically degraded and is yellower than the upper layer. In the under drawing the figures the bed and the chest are all outlined. The woman’s eyes were drawn lower and her gaze has shifted towards the man.

Couple wearing Fur, yet cherries indicate it is “high summer;” fur indicates wealth There’s an absence of a fireplace Bed is too short Chandelier is too large for the space it takes up Jan van Eyck’s usual practice means he probably altered things in the room for aesthetic purposes/Arnolfini’s aspirations The ceiling and floor are wooden. The carpet is unusual in having no fringes, is apparently oriental, though the pattern cannot be related to any specific eastern tradition.

Possibility of 5 different Arnolfini family members Giovanni Di Nicolao Arnolfini Believed to be Arnolfini in portrait b/c the woman could be his 2 nd wife. Married before 1434 but 1 st wife died in Memorial portrait? No reference to a 2 nd wife has been found. Giovanni Di Arrigo Arnolfini Did not marry until 1447, well after the date of the portrait in 1434 Died 1472, as did his wife, Jeanne Cenami, debunking the theory that the portrait is a memorial to her death. No indication he was interested in the arts Michele di Arrigo Arnolfini Married in 1450 Battista di Nicolao Arnolfini Visited Netherlands in , after the painting had been done Bartolomeo di Nicolao Arnolfini Indications he married after 1450 according to ages of his children, etc.

Campbell says that Vaernewijck’s assumption is wrong; not married by faith because of size, Mary of Hungary received it from Mary of Austria, not a Barber. Lines from Ovid may not have been original to the frame. Misleading details within the portrait concerning marriage.

Popular opinion has held that Giovanni Di Arrigo Arnolfini is the man in the portrait but Campbell proposes that because of these facts, di Arrigo Arnolfini is NOT the man in the portrait. Campbell states that “it is only sensible to return to the 1516 description and to treat the painting as a portrait, without any significant narrative content, of Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his second wife

How convincing is Campbell’s argument that the Arnolfini in the portrait is Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini, not Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini, as traditionally believed? Campbell states that it only makes sense for this portrait to depict di Nicolao Arnolfini and his second wife. Does Campbell present enough evidence to convince the reader of this? Can we omit the idea that this may be a posthumous portrait?