DOI Heft:
II: Z zagadnień historii sztuki
DOI Artikel:Kępiński, Zdzisław: Jan van Eyck: "Małżeństwo Arnolfinich" czy "Dawid i Betsabe"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14269#0170
164
ZDZISŁAW KĘPIŃSKI
quently, an artist in any case. Thus, John van Eyck's érudition was once more a guide to him in tying up the image or poctic
parabola between the personages in question, an event chosen from the Bible, and his own condition and situation and his own
person with Margaret —■ Bethsheba is referred to as an artist's wife.
As a resuit of what we have said above, the possibilities of advocating the theory of a portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and
his wife née Cenami in the London picture are meagre, as we think. The name could be in the inventory of 1516 a trace of
the former owner, the one before Guevara, or even a still earlicr one.
On the other hand the probability of this being a portrait of van Eyck and his wife becomes a much greater one. This has
some implications too on the sphère of similarity between the marital portrait in London and the single portrait of the supposed
"Arnolfini" in Berlin.
Putting.aside the problem of the physiognomic différences and similarities between Bethsheba in the National Gallery picture
and Margaret van Eyck of Bruges (1439), we shall only point ont to some coïncidence in the types of both the persons in the
London picture on the one hand, and the physiognomy of the holy personages in the art of John van Eyck and his circlc.
The case is similar with the head of the companion of David, Bethsheba, i.c. Margaret van Eyck. Above ail, we must bring
to bear here the invaluable information found out by F. Grossmann, being an entry of Pieter Stevens's collection auction cata-
dogue, of an auction that took place in Antwerp on August 13th, 1668: "De Jean Van Eyck, num. 3. Le Bain très renomé, en
lequel van Eyck a dépeint le Portrait de sa femme nue at vêtue...77. Really, the head of this Bethsheba "bathing" resembles
the face of the marital London portrait, and the maid-servant's head resembles Margaret van Eyck's head (though five years
older) from the portrait in Bruges78.
Her type repeatedly appears in the heads of the Madonna's and the saints by van Eyck.
Particularly the features of Mary from the Madonna of chanccllor Rolin and the Bethsheba of the "Arnolfini" portrait seem
to be the same, what is even more striking, because of a différent turn of the head and the eyes looking in a différent direction.
The same identity of the person sitting for the picture can be found between our Bethsheba and the Lucca Madonna.
As we arrived a différent ground at a conclusion confirming the dating of the Madonna of chancelier Rolin to fall on 1435,
as the date of the comission for that picture79, we should likc to suggest that the similarity of features is an expression of the
looks of the painters wife in those years, i.e. in 1434—-35, and thus also the date of the Lucca Madonna should be narrowed down
to those years.
Also the head of St. Katherine from the small triptych by John van Eyck in Dresden belongs to the same group.
The similarities that exist between the head of our Bethsheba —■ Margaret and some fcmale heads of the Ghent altarpiece
are more complicated. However, the face of one of the Marys in the thicket on the "hennit" wing is undoubtedly close to our
Bethsheba in the Toilet, looking in the opposite direction. It is difficult, because of the considérable différence in the direction
the heads are turned to, to discuss and to appreciate the similarities Connecting Eve's head of the Ghent polyptych, those similarities
however arc not neglibible. On the other hand, a thoroughly striking thing is the similarity of Mary on the throne at Christ's
side (just one year iater — 1432 !) to ' 'Margaret van Eyck's portrait" of 1439. Is it possible that John van Eyck was able to vis-
ualizc as early as that the indications of the later changes in her features coming with âge, which, a thing that the master prob-
ably did not expect, was to bring also six childbirths?
At last, it is impossible to fail to emphasize that the head of the Mary on the right, on the "hermit" wing of the Ghent
altarpiece is a kind of a link Connecting on the one hand the head of the heroinę of Bethsheba''s Toilet from the van der Ghecst
collection of 1628.
The undoubtedly Eyckian character of the features of the latter not only helps us to appreciate the exaetness of William
van Haecht as a copyist, but supplies materiał or serious brainwork.
Is it possible in this situation to go on talkifg about Arnolfini and his wife whose features John van Eyck would transfer
not only to his Madonnas, but also to his nudens, while the features of the merchant would be transferred to the physiognomy
of Christ by himself and by his disciples?
It is much simpler to admit that the features of the fiancée, or later wedded wife, were transferred by the painter in différent
variations (we do postulate accuracy, anyway) into the idéal faces of his saints, and his own features were solemnised by his dis-
ciples, or his brush transferred them into idéal faces even unawares, as it was the case sometimes with Rubens.
Thus, also the symbolical "Domus David" would be in such a conception actually a probable picture of master John's and
Margaret van Eyck's home.
Like every conception in scholarship, also the présent theory may be questioned as a whole or in its détails. Although we
have no right (convinced as we are) to insist on its absolute validity, we think that it is, in any case, the first fully consistent
and homogeneous theory offered. It is also, as we feel it, a consistent step on the path creatcd by the efforts of scholars, who
were before us on the track of the problems under discussion.
77 Cf. above, note 19.
78 Because of the différences between the features of the recognized portrait of Margaret van Eyck in Bruges (1439) and
the face of the woman of our London David and Bethsheba, pointed out by many authors, (what now we must regard also as
a possible réservation towards the head of Bethsheba'a Toilet, or otherwise the Bain très renomé according to the catalogue quoted
above), we have to emphasize strongly that the misérable heroinę of those pictures experienced between the earliest and the
latest one i.c. batween 1434 and 1439 no less than six childbirths, which, with four children already boni before, could have
deteriorate the physiognomy even of the most vigorous woman, and, as far as we can judge from the pictures, she does not look
like one. The fact of a violent sharpening and emaciation of features is undeniable but it can be satisfactorily accoufited for.
79 Z. Kępiński, Jan van Eyck La Vierge du chancelle Rolin et l'histoire de France, Rocznik Historii Sztuki, 7:1969, 107—161.
ZDZISŁAW KĘPIŃSKI
quently, an artist in any case. Thus, John van Eyck's érudition was once more a guide to him in tying up the image or poctic
parabola between the personages in question, an event chosen from the Bible, and his own condition and situation and his own
person with Margaret —■ Bethsheba is referred to as an artist's wife.
As a resuit of what we have said above, the possibilities of advocating the theory of a portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and
his wife née Cenami in the London picture are meagre, as we think. The name could be in the inventory of 1516 a trace of
the former owner, the one before Guevara, or even a still earlicr one.
On the other hand the probability of this being a portrait of van Eyck and his wife becomes a much greater one. This has
some implications too on the sphère of similarity between the marital portrait in London and the single portrait of the supposed
"Arnolfini" in Berlin.
Putting.aside the problem of the physiognomic différences and similarities between Bethsheba in the National Gallery picture
and Margaret van Eyck of Bruges (1439), we shall only point ont to some coïncidence in the types of both the persons in the
London picture on the one hand, and the physiognomy of the holy personages in the art of John van Eyck and his circlc.
The case is similar with the head of the companion of David, Bethsheba, i.c. Margaret van Eyck. Above ail, we must bring
to bear here the invaluable information found out by F. Grossmann, being an entry of Pieter Stevens's collection auction cata-
dogue, of an auction that took place in Antwerp on August 13th, 1668: "De Jean Van Eyck, num. 3. Le Bain très renomé, en
lequel van Eyck a dépeint le Portrait de sa femme nue at vêtue...77. Really, the head of this Bethsheba "bathing" resembles
the face of the marital London portrait, and the maid-servant's head resembles Margaret van Eyck's head (though five years
older) from the portrait in Bruges78.
Her type repeatedly appears in the heads of the Madonna's and the saints by van Eyck.
Particularly the features of Mary from the Madonna of chanccllor Rolin and the Bethsheba of the "Arnolfini" portrait seem
to be the same, what is even more striking, because of a différent turn of the head and the eyes looking in a différent direction.
The same identity of the person sitting for the picture can be found between our Bethsheba and the Lucca Madonna.
As we arrived a différent ground at a conclusion confirming the dating of the Madonna of chancelier Rolin to fall on 1435,
as the date of the comission for that picture79, we should likc to suggest that the similarity of features is an expression of the
looks of the painters wife in those years, i.e. in 1434—-35, and thus also the date of the Lucca Madonna should be narrowed down
to those years.
Also the head of St. Katherine from the small triptych by John van Eyck in Dresden belongs to the same group.
The similarities that exist between the head of our Bethsheba —■ Margaret and some fcmale heads of the Ghent altarpiece
are more complicated. However, the face of one of the Marys in the thicket on the "hennit" wing is undoubtedly close to our
Bethsheba in the Toilet, looking in the opposite direction. It is difficult, because of the considérable différence in the direction
the heads are turned to, to discuss and to appreciate the similarities Connecting Eve's head of the Ghent polyptych, those similarities
however arc not neglibible. On the other hand, a thoroughly striking thing is the similarity of Mary on the throne at Christ's
side (just one year iater — 1432 !) to ' 'Margaret van Eyck's portrait" of 1439. Is it possible that John van Eyck was able to vis-
ualizc as early as that the indications of the later changes in her features coming with âge, which, a thing that the master prob-
ably did not expect, was to bring also six childbirths?
At last, it is impossible to fail to emphasize that the head of the Mary on the right, on the "hermit" wing of the Ghent
altarpiece is a kind of a link Connecting on the one hand the head of the heroinę of Bethsheba''s Toilet from the van der Ghecst
collection of 1628.
The undoubtedly Eyckian character of the features of the latter not only helps us to appreciate the exaetness of William
van Haecht as a copyist, but supplies materiał or serious brainwork.
Is it possible in this situation to go on talkifg about Arnolfini and his wife whose features John van Eyck would transfer
not only to his Madonnas, but also to his nudens, while the features of the merchant would be transferred to the physiognomy
of Christ by himself and by his disciples?
It is much simpler to admit that the features of the fiancée, or later wedded wife, were transferred by the painter in différent
variations (we do postulate accuracy, anyway) into the idéal faces of his saints, and his own features were solemnised by his dis-
ciples, or his brush transferred them into idéal faces even unawares, as it was the case sometimes with Rubens.
Thus, also the symbolical "Domus David" would be in such a conception actually a probable picture of master John's and
Margaret van Eyck's home.
Like every conception in scholarship, also the présent theory may be questioned as a whole or in its détails. Although we
have no right (convinced as we are) to insist on its absolute validity, we think that it is, in any case, the first fully consistent
and homogeneous theory offered. It is also, as we feel it, a consistent step on the path creatcd by the efforts of scholars, who
were before us on the track of the problems under discussion.
77 Cf. above, note 19.
78 Because of the différences between the features of the recognized portrait of Margaret van Eyck in Bruges (1439) and
the face of the woman of our London David and Bethsheba, pointed out by many authors, (what now we must regard also as
a possible réservation towards the head of Bethsheba'a Toilet, or otherwise the Bain très renomé according to the catalogue quoted
above), we have to emphasize strongly that the misérable heroinę of those pictures experienced between the earliest and the
latest one i.c. batween 1434 and 1439 no less than six childbirths, which, with four children already boni before, could have
deteriorate the physiognomy even of the most vigorous woman, and, as far as we can judge from the pictures, she does not look
like one. The fact of a violent sharpening and emaciation of features is undeniable but it can be satisfactorily accoufited for.
79 Z. Kępiński, Jan van Eyck La Vierge du chancelle Rolin et l'histoire de France, Rocznik Historii Sztuki, 7:1969, 107—161.