The Arnolfini Portrait is, quite literally, one of the single most famous paintings in the history of

European art. Unlike The Ghent Altarpiece, which was internationally famous in its own time, this
painting was not well known until over a century after it was first made. The full-length double portrait,
itself an anomaly, depicts a wealthy man and young woman in a darkened interior holding hands. The
man's right hand is raised up, as if in greeting or taking an oath, as he looks slightly to his left. The
woman, with her head slightly downcast, looks directly at him. The subtle interplay of light and shadow
creates an atmosphere of serene intimacy. The controlled source of light, such as that coming through
the window to the viewer's left, and shadows helped to unify the composition, a characteristic of the
signature naturalism of early Flemish painting. The extreme virtuosity of draftsmanship, most
prominently on display in the golden chandelier and convex mirror against the back wall, confirm the
nomination given to Jan van Eyck as the "father of oil painting."

The full-length portrait was quite rare in the early Renaissance, and later proved an important influence
to multiple generations of artists. However, it also serves as a point of contention among scholars and
historians as to who, what and why this painting was commissioned. An identification of the male figure
was made based on a written inventory of Margaret of Hungary's collection in 1516, which noted: "A
large picture which is called Hernoult le Fin [translating to "Arnolfini"] with his wife in a bedchamber
done by Johannes the painter." However, which member of the Arnolfini family and the identity of the
woman long remained a puzzle. Like the numerous bust portraits van Eyck painted, it serves to illustrate
the growing wealth and autonomy of the middle class in Flemish society. Staging the portraits as if
engaged in an activity, however, is something new.

In 1934, art historian and iconologist Erwin Panofsky set the stage for decades of debate when he put
forth the theory that this painting depicted the vows of a marriage ceremony between the wealthy
Arnolfini and his young wife. According to Panofsky's theory of "disguised symbolism" every object in
the scene was laden with iconographic significance. The notion of a "disguise" was not meant to infer
that the meaning was hidden from its contemporary viewers. Quite the opposite, it was expected they
would understand the double-entendre of the imagery, but that in place of traditional or classical
symbolism, the artist employed everyday objects to illustrate meanings based on commonly held
knowledge of certain metaphors. The small dog, for example, was not a beloved pet but a symbol of
fidelity, and quite fitting for what the historian believed was a marriage scene. Additional images to
support the notion of a marriage include the single burning candle in the hanging candelabra
symbolizing the presence of God at this sacred event, the man's cast aside clogs indicate that this event
is taking place on holy ground, while the oranges on the chest under the window may refer to fertility.
Although Panofsky found it was not required by canon law for a priest to perform a wedding, it was
required for the event to have witnesses, which van Eyck provides in this portrait. Against the back wall
of the room, there is a small convex mirror reflecting the back of the couple and two individuals who
appear to watch the ceremony, one who appears to wear an elaborate red turban, or chaperon. On the
wall above the mirror the artist has written an inscription in elaborate script that says "Johannes de Eyck
fuit hic 1434" (Jan van Eyck was here in 1434). This marks the only known example where the artist's
signature was on the actual painting rather than the picture frame. The elaborate red turban in the
reflection, along with the distinctive signature, leads many to believe it is van Eyck in the mirror.

Although first widely accepted, over time an increasing onslaught of challenges to Panofsky's
interpretation brought new light on the subject of this painting. Not all objections were taken with equal
authority, and ranged from slight amendments, such as an announcement of their betrothal, to a legal
swearing giving power of attorney to the wife during Giovanni's travels, to boastful narratives, reading
the scene as a display of the merchant's wealth, and finally, to the nearly blasphemous, claiming the
subject was a mockery of the notion of fidelity and marriage, an interpretation somewhat predicated on
the notoriously unfaithful behavior of the original Giovanni Arnolfini believed to be the main subject.
However, all these theories were literally nullified in the early 1990s, when historian Jacques Paviot,
while researching naval history, happened across a notation describing a gift from the Duke of Burgundy
on the event of Giovanni's wedding. The problem was the event took place in 1447 - thirteen years after
the painting was complete, and, perhaps more to the point, six years after the artist's death.

This discovery brought attention to another member of the family, the lesser-known Giovanni di Nicolao
Arnolfini, who also happened to have his portrait painted by the artist. Borchert explains the impact of
this discovery that "made it possible to re-evaluate the painting, which is now considered to have served
a memorial function." It commemorates the young wife of Giovanni di Nicolao, Costanza Trenta, who
died (possibly during childbirth) just one year before the painting was complete. The dog, Borchert
explains, remained a pivotal symbol of fidelity, but it was tied to a cultural phenomenon, "a reference to
carvings on late medieval tombs, where it is a familiar motif." The symbols of marriage, fertility and
childbirth are equally applicable, though now quite melancholy, in this interpretation.