What great paintings say: The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck, 1434

Watch: Secrets of The Arnolfini Portrait

“The Arnolfini Portrait is completely unique,” says Capron. “There is nothing else like it that has survived in 15th-century art. For a long time, it was thought to depict the Italian merchant Giovanni di Arrigo Arnolfini. But more recently, art historian Lorne Campbell has argued that the figures are more likely to be his merchant cousin, Giovanni di Nicolao Arnolfini and his second wife, whose identity is unknown. They all resided in Bruges.”

The pose of the woman as she deliberately clutches her voluminous green gown to her stomach has led many to conclude that she is pregnant, while the couple’s joined hands could indicate that this is, in fact, a wedding portrait. Indeed, the artist’s flourishing signature above the mirror – Johannes de eyck fuit hic (Jan van Eyck was here) – has been interpreted by some as the artist bearing witness to the nuptials.

“The pregnancy theory was popular for a long time,” comments Capron. “But her pose actually has more to do with showing off the rich fabric of her gown, and ideas of female beauty at the time. Women with prominent stomachs had a strong visual appeal in the 15th century, and these were sartorially emphasised with high belts and folds of fabric. By lifting her gown, she reveals the expensive fur lining beneath – possibly ermine or miniver (squirrel fur) – which is depicted in a white that would have been nearly impossible to achieve in real life. The focus on her stomach does relate to fertility, but it is more a demonstration of fecundity and an ability to produce an heir rather than evidence of pregnancy.”

• READ MORE | A beginner's guide to art history

Historically, much has been read into the other objects carefully strewn around the room. In the 1930s, art historian Erwin Panofsky used the painting as a basis for his theory of ‘disguised symbolism’, whereby each object has a hidden meaning. Paintings, he believed, could be decoded and deciphered: the oranges on the table represented original sin, for example, while the presence of the dog at the woman’s feet could be read as a symbol of her fidelity to her husband.

“Panofsky’s theories are very seductive,” says Capron, “and he, too, also argued that the painting was a form of marriage contract. But his ideas are not always grounded in fact. Once we begin to unpick the realism of the painting, it becomes clear that what Van Eyck has done is create an illusion of reality; something to be enjoyed for its exquisite detail rather than its hidden mysteries.

“The portrait is a carefully constructed reality – a figment of Van Eyck’s imagination and a product of his incredible brush and powers of observation. His elaborate signature, ‘Jan van Eyck was here’, in this context calls us back to that fact that, as a place only he has visualised, he is the only one who has ever been in this room.”

The Arnolfini Portrait hangs in Room 63 at the National Gallery in London. Visit the website for more information on the painting

This article was first published in the Christmas 2021 issue of BBC History Revealed