The real face of Clarice Orsini. Did Botticelli and Leonardo da Vinci portray Lorenzo de Medici s spouse? A critical appraisal of new evidence. 1) Introduction 2) The known or presumed portraits of Clarice Orsini 3) Portraits by Sandro Botticelli 4) Comparison with the Domenico Ghirlandaio portraits,MM1 5) The portrait found in Cardinal Leopoldo de Medici inventory,MM2 6) Discussion on possible attribution a) Preparatory Drawing b) Bernardo Luini c) Perugin d) Leonardo da Vinci :The Musician e) Antonnelo da Messina 7) The Venice connection 8) The written record 9) Conclusion 10) Addendums 1) Introduction There is a scarcity of information available concerning Clarice Orsini, wife of Lorenzo de Medici even when it comes to her physical appearance or her precise date of birth. Hailing from the illustrious Orsini family,renowned for their high nobility and their professed lineage to the Julio-Claudian dynasties of imperial Rome,Clarice's ancestry is a tapestry intricately woven with alliances forged with esteemed crusader families, boasting ties to various European royal houses,most notably England and France. Some of those alliances include the de Montfort,d’Enghien,des Baux,Adhemar de Monteil,de L‘Estendard,de Sabran,de Clermont:French,Anglo-Norman and Flemish noble houses. Noteworthy to mention is the propensity for intrafamilial marriages within the Orsini clan,as evidenced by Clarice's parents,who were cousins,and the two preceding generations of consanguineous unions on her maternal side.[1] The Orsinis also counted four popes and numerous cardinals by the time Clarice entered into matrimony with Lorenzo. Contrasting with the Orsinis,the Medicis [21] emerged as a prosperous banking and merchant family,with Lorenzo's grandfather,Cosimo,attaining considerable political power through his leadership of the Republic of Florence.Preceding Lorenzo's union, several generations of the Medici lineage had wedded noblewomen from families such as Bardi,Bueri,Cavallini,and Donati.Lorenzo's mother,Lucrezia Tornabuoni olim Tornaquinci,hailed from a noble lineage as well,although their status could be more aptly described as wealthy urban consular rather than landed feudal aristocracy,a distinction noteworthy when compared to the Orsinis. However,it is worth mentioning that the Tornabuoni family,formerly known as Tornaquinci,had produced a cardinal in the late 14th century and actively aligned themselves with the Guelph party,fervent supporters of the Papacy who ardently opposed the influence of the Teutonic Holy Roman Emperor.Significantly,the Orsinis were leaders within the Guelph party. It was through the astute arrangements made by Lucrezia Tornabuoni that her son Lorenzo's path intertwined with that of Clarice Orsini,culminating in a matrimonial union of immense significance. This union forged an alliance between two powerful families,representing the convergence of financial prowess, political acumen,and a shared commitment to the Guelph party's cause.As the veil of historical obscurity shrouds Clarice Orsini,the implications of her union with Lorenzo de Medici remain an intriguing subject of inquiry, leaving scholars yearning to uncover further insights into this remarkable partnership that shaped the political and cultural landscape of Renaissance Italy. A formal betrothal agreement was consummated in February of 1469,although it was not until June of that year that Clarice made her way to Florence,embarking upon a fateful journey that would indelibly alter the course of Medici history, [2] The weightiness of this alliance cannot be overstated,for it instigated a remarkable transformation in the Medicis' family,engendering a lineage replete with popes, cardinals, kings,and queens,while cultivating alliances with imperial and royal families across Europe.Undoubtedly,much of the ensuing prosperity and splendor can be attributed to Lorenzo the Magnificent and the Medicis fortune.Nevertheless,it is incumbent upon us to accord Clarice her due credit,not solely due to her illustrious lineage but also owing to her considerable influence and remarkable personality,which reverberated through her descendants long after her passing. 2) The known or presumed portraits of Clarice Orsini There are three painted portraits of Clarice,all three done posthumously by the same artist Domenico Ghirlandaio.For all three the qualification given is‘presumed’. Two of these portraits were painted in a fresco from the Santa Maria Chapel dedicated to Lucrezia Tornabuoni and depicting family members.This gives at least a good probability that it is in fact Clarice.The third is now in an Irish national museum,and it is the image that is usually presented and known as being the portrait of Clarice Orsini. Examining the triptych of portraits and assuming their subjects to be the same lady painted by a singular artist elicits somewhat a sense of astonishment.Particularly noteworthy are the two portraits within the fresco of Santa Maria Novella,positioned on the left side,which were executed around the same period.Notably,variations in the depiction of the lips across all three portraits are discernible.The length of the neck and shape of the head,somewhat different in all three can also be mentioned,but there was a trend at the time to represent patrician ladies with quite a tall neck,a long face, fair skin and hair which could explain those differences.(see for instance portrait of a lady by Pollaiulo in parag 6- e). There are indeed enough similarities however,such as chin, pronounced philtrum,eyes and eyebrows,nose, forehead to suggest that this is indeed Clarice Orsini,confirmed by context or provenance. There is also a description of Clarice written by Lucrezia Tornabuoni,when she arranged for the marriage.She mentions that Clarice is not blonde,but “her hair gets toward red”,a face that s “a bit rounded”,”delicate neck”, “could not see her breasts, because ( in Rome) they all shut themselves up,but it shows good quality”. The face that fits best that description here is the one from the middle, and we may infer that the other two might have been rendered in a somewhat more flattering shape. She also mentions her age,as being perhaps 15 or 16.[3] On this statement, it is also a bit surprising.Indeed the practice was that when the betrothal was completed,the bride would join her newly found husband. However the practice at the time was that the betrothal,the legal agreement for the marriage could be arranged when the bride to be was very young, and in that case she would join her husband only after reaching puberty. The delay between the betrothal for Clarice and her coming to Florence,of about six month,could suggest that she was in fact much younger than 15 when the agreement was made. Lorenzo was twenty years old at the time. 3) Portraits by Sandro Botticelli This Virgin Mary was commissioned by the Medici family to Sandro Botticelli in 1469, the year of Lorenzo’ s wedding to Clarice Orsini. The painting is titled The Virgin and Child and two Angels and the Young St John the Baptist. One immediately notices the remarkably youthful portrayal of the Virgin Mary. While Botticelli often depicted the Virgin as youthful in his numerous works, the present rendition appears to accentuate her tender age to an even much greater extent. The relative size of baby Jesus in the painting makes the Virgin appear almost childish. It is also possible to distinguish some reddish hair under the veil,and the face is somewhat round, as well. If one had to guess the age of the young woman it certainly would be a girl in her early teens.Perhaps one that had just reached puberty. One might object that it would have been so blasphemous to use Clarice as a model ,if in fact she was,but blasphemy probably would not apply in the same manner to a family with four popes and so many cardinals. Moreover, it is plausible to propose that the depiction merely captures a resemblance to what Clarice may have looked like.In this regard,the appearance of the Virgin aligns with the brief description provided by Lucrezia, except for the matter of age. However,the fact that Clarice came to Florence several months after the betrothal can certainly be an indication that she had just reached puberty before she went. And while it cannot be claimed based on these facts alone that Clarice was a model for this scene,it is worth mentioning to give some context concerning other representations. Botticelli,a few years later, painted another scene,an Adoration of the Magi, which is supposed to have the Medici family represented as the Kings kneeling in front of the Virgin and Child,as well as other figures close to the Medici family.This is known primarily from the writings of Vasari [4], who identifies the three Kings as Cosimo, Giuliano and Giovanni di Cosimo de Medici. Hermann Ullman in his 1893 monograph on Botticelli also identifies the Medicis however a bit differently than Vasari,and identifies Lorenzo in the painting whom Vasari did not mention.[5] Some even mention other characters in the painting including Botticelli,in a self portrait -on the far left- as well as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and even Angelo Poliziano,the preceptor of Lorenzo’s children who stayed with Clarice. (indicated as such on various museum guides concerning the Uffizzi gallery ). It is worth noting that Vasari, even though he made a portrait of Lorenzo,failed to mention him,or Poliziano,the latter being recognizable from other known portraits. There might be an explanation for that, which we’ll address further. (addendum B) And no one mentions Clarice. It is interesting to note that one of the families that had an alliance with the Orsinis,the family des Baux,claimed to be descended from the biblical Kings of Magi. This was expressed for instance in Naples by Dominican Johannes Regina in a funeral oration for Hughes des Baux in 1334 .The des Baux family were possessioned in Italy and held various titles such as prince of Taranto.This claim to be descended from the Magis was made again in the 15th century by Clement de Sainghain who wrote a genealogy of Marguerite des Baux-daughter of Sueva Orsini- and her husband Pierre de Luxembourg in 1471.The coat of arms of the des Baux family has one large 16 branch star, which according to the genealogists of the time relates to the biblical scene. [6] Clarice herself is a descendant of the des Baux family (Roberto Orsini count of Nola married to Sueva des Baux –del Balzo in Italian-,their daughter Anastasia married Giordano Orsini,lord of Monterodondo great grand parent of Clarice). Indeed as the only woman in the painting is the Virgin, the notion of blasphemy could certainly be a factor. Yet as well,the idea that the main characters of the Medici family would be kneeling in front of her,even in such a scene has probably been too much to even envision for generations of scholars. It could be argued however,that with Poliziano and Botticelli as well as Lorenzo, perhaps they could have imagined and created such a scene. And so the Virgin in the painting merits some closer scrutiny.  It can certainly be interesting to compare this “Virgin Mary” painted by Botticelli in his Adoration of the Magi to the Clarice Orsini portraits done by Domenico Ghirlandaio in the fresco. 4) Comparison with the Domenico Ghirlandaio portraits The obvious similarities are not limited to the shape of the head and general appearance.They include the shading,as on the nose,chin,around the eyes. Those similarities cannot seriously be attributed to some common idealized beauty or any type of spurious correlation.The picture on the left,which is the Ghirlandaio portrait from the fresco,was taken before the flood of 1969 and the subsequent restoration work.It was provided by Galleria Uffizzi,and they only had a black and white sample. It should be stated also that the Adoration of the Magi was in the same Santa Maria Novella chapel than the frescoes of Domenico Ghirlandaio,and had been there some ten years before the Ghirlandaio frescoes were made. The biblical scene of the oriental kings visiting the Holy Child had become quite popular in Italy and in the south of France from the 14th century and later.Some processions of the Magis were conducted,in Provence and in Milan on Christmas day or on the day of the epiphany,personified by local dignitaries[6]. In this context, and surely with the knowledge that Clarice was herself a descendant of one of the Magis-Balthazar- (the legitimacy of one’s nobility was founded on that genealogical knowledge) the surprising fact would be that she would not be represented in the Botticelli painting. Another point of interest, which shows in Botticelli’s sample and not on the one by Ghirlandaio, is the mouth of Clarice-the Madonna from the scene.  This picture comes from the high definition picture that has been obtained from the Uffizzi Gallery,the museum in Florence who owns the painting.We can see the damage of time,and even what appears to be some touch-ups (on the lower lip left side). However it still shows some form of asymmetry which certainly seems to be original.As a matter of fact,the touch-up on the lower lip left side could have been an attempt to correct it.In any event, it is inconceivable that Botticelli would have done some asymmetrical lips for the Virgin. And of course,the fact that Domenico Ghirlandaio would have used this portrait as a model for one of his portraits of Clarice on the fresco confirms that he knew her to be Clarice. It also confirms somehow that he worked on those frescoes posthumously, and may have never even met Clarice Orsini. It could also explain why his other portrait of Clarice looks somewhat different. He may have used another portrait of her done during her lifetime,perhaps by a different artist, who like Botticelli, had access to the Medici family and Clarice in particular. In fact, the portrait he might have used as a model may have been found.(which we’ ll designate by MM1) The portrait on the right is the other one from the fresco,picture taken before the 1969 flood damage,and provided by the Uffizzi Gallery. In a similar way as the ‘copy’ of the Botticelli figure,Ghirlandaio reproduced much of the light and shade,around the eyes,chin,nose and also replicated a distinctive long neck.In the Ghirlandaio version,the face is a bit more elongated, with a more elegant, aristocratic appearance perhaps,but MM1 in that regard is closer to the Botticelli portrait as can be seen in the comparison bellow. This painting,found in France, was made upon a wood panel of poplar. A carbon 14 analysis was conducted by the Ciram laboratories of Bordeaux and found that the first date possible (when the tree was cut down) to be 1460, consistent with a painting done in Clarice’s lifetime. The one on the left had been in the same French family for several centuries, a family with a direct link to Catherine de Medici,and who also counted a marriage with the Orsini cousin of Marie de Medici. There were some other renaissance works with it, a Madonna and Child by Andrea della Robbia ,similar to the one that is today in Casa Buonarroti,the MichelAngelo’s house,and a portrait of Pope Clement VII signed on a piece of vellum on the back by Sebastiano del Piombo (Addendum C ) The asymmetry on the lips is quite clear in this portrait, without taking away from the grace and beauty of the lady. And as for the first portrait Ghirlandaio seems to have ‘corrected ‘the asymmetry on the lips,he somewhat did the same for the second portrait. There might be a fairly probable cause of this asymmetry.Cleft lip and cleft palate is a fairly common problem in families with high consanguinity [7]. Clarice is the offspring of three generations in a row of consanguineous parents,and she certainly would have had a much higher risk of getting this genetic problem. From the portrait it looks perhaps like what is referred to medically as congenital unilateral hypoplasia,which is often associated with a cleft palate. 5) The portrait found in Cardinal Leopoldo de Medici inventory ( MM2) A similar portrait which probably is a copy of the one found in France (MM1),was done around 1510 and was found in the inventory of Cardinal Leopoldo de Medici in 1695. It is in the collection today of the Palazzo Pitti Museum of Florence. This portrait was found in Palazzo Pitti,the Medici residence in Florence where Cardinal Leopoldo lived and had his collection.He was known to be an important patron of the arts, a fine connoisseur, and had a special liking for 16th century Venetian art.It is therefore most probable that he did not have this portrait as a collected work, but rather a family portrait.And being a Medici in direct descendance of Clarice and also from the Habsburg imperial family he did not lack prestigious ancestors to fill his family portrait gallery. It attracted the attention of quite a few scholars [8], certainly in good part due to its provenance. They consensually agreed to state that it was probably a lady of the time, dressed as Mary Magdalen.However, they failed to identify the lady in question. The painting was attributed to Domenico Puligo,and there were some slightly different opinions as to the date of execution.One indicated 1510, while the others opined for a few years later. One opinion was that she was perhaps dressed too modestly to be a Medici lady. In fact in Puligo’s version she displays one sign of vanity with the jewelery and not much else. And she looks perhaps as she had just poured away her perfume. The gospels have different versions of the woman with the expensive perfume,which she poured on Jesus’s feet (Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke 7:36-50, John 12:1-8). Only John gives her a name, Mary and indicates she is Lazarus’s sister.Magdalen is supposed to indicate the village that she came from : Maddala. The three Mary’s in fact were often confused for one another: the Virgin Mary, Lazarus sister, Mary Magdalen and Mary of Jacob . The scholars who studied the painting by Puligo indicated that there were two other versions known of this Mary Magdalen.One that was sold in 1971 at Sotheby’s Florence, while the other had been part of the very prestigious collection of pre- renaissance and renaissance art of Professor Paolo Paolini, which was dispersed in the early 20th century with many of the art work going to museums. One important fact is that they did not say that the two other versions were copies of the Puligo painting.In fact, they may have known that the two other copies were perhaps older than the one by Puligo.And if this was the case (I was not able to find more information or pictures of those), I would expect that they did not show the piece of jewelery either. As they probably were a copy of the original,MM1. So with MM1, this makes four copies of this portrait, done in Clarice’s lifetime or relatively shortly thereafter- during the lifetime of her older daughter-for the Puligo copy. And the Botticelli and Ghirlandaio portraits can be added. Those are the paintings that survived over 500 years,of the same person. It is indeed at least as many and perhaps more than what we have for her husband, Lorenzo. Puligo’s painting does not show the asymmetry of the lips, just like Ghirlandaio had done, it was somewhat ‘corrected’. It can be noted as well that Puligo gave her a more elongated face as well. And of course it would not have made sense the other way around,and confirms Puligo’s version as a copy of MM1.  Especially as MM1 displays a higher level of ‘quality’ despite perhaps being ‘unfinished’ as the hair,or shirt for instance lack detail. On MM1the shirt Mary Magdalen,or rather Clarice,is wearing is a sort of see-through type of clothing. It does show quite a bit of her breast,perhaps in a fashion that Lucrezia Tornabuoni alluded to in her letter- Interesting in that regard to quote a character from Dante in his Divine Comedy ‘shameless Florentine women who would walk around with cleavage that showed their breasts’ [9]. And this was at the beginning of the 14th century. However Puligo did not paint it as a see-through,and it may have been due to a limitation of his skill as a painter at the time,or perhaps more probably to follow a request from whomever asked him to do the painting.As the Puligo version was in the Medici inventory in Palazzo Pitti, it must have been commissioned by one of the Medicis,and the best guess as to whom it could be would be Lucrezia,Clarice’s eldest daughter . It certainly would make sense that Clarice’s daughter would have preferred a less revealing corsage for her mother as well as add a piece of jewelery.It would be interesting to see how this was done in the other two versions,the one from the Professor Paolo Paolini collection and the one sold by Sotheby.However the lack of jewelery in MM1 just as the rather modest dress would have been in line with a depiction of Mary Magdalen renouncing vanities. Domenico Puligo,in fact, painted a Mary Magdalen with a see through corsage some years later in 1525.This painting is now in the Capitoline museum in Rome. It is inspired by the previous Mary Magdalen.In this painting Domenico Puligo represents Mary Magdalen with a melancholic expression which did not appear as much in his 1510/20 version, perhaps a bit closer to the very striking melancholic expression from MM1. But it is the hand that might be most interesting. Just like in MM1,the thumb is not in the logical spot for holding the vessel. The seemingly out of focus fingers might suggest some movement. This is even clearer in MM1. The vessel appears very clear, very much ‘in focus’, while the fingers and even the arm do not. The arm and wrist look like they are contracting. The odd position of the fingers is important and merits some special attention that we’ll discuss in addendum A. The vessel and the hand certainly seem to stick out from the rest of the picture, certainly giving it a three dimensional aspect. (Above picture taken before restoration,and previous page after being restored but unvarnished) This Mary Magdalen obviously was very meaningfull for the Medici family (addendum E). The Puligo version was in Pallazzo Pitti,in the inventory of Cardinal Leopoldo de Medici,a direct descendant of Clarice (from her eldest daughter Lucrezia, and the Salviatis). Professor Paolo Paolini thought it was worthy to be in his collection (perhaps based on provenance). MM1was in the Montmorency family and descendants.The Montmorency’s at the time were closely linked to King Henry II of France and his wife Catherine de Medici. Henry II’s oldest daughter Diane married a Montmorency after her first husband died in battle.The first husband was Horace Farnese son of the Duke of Farnese, whose mother was from the Orsini family.Diane attended Catherine de Medici at the end of her life in the Blois castle.Just a few years later a Montmorency lady was a dame d’honneur for Marie de Medici,wife of King Henri IV.Her brother Henri II de Montmorency was a godson of King Henri IV,and married Maria Felicia Orsini,a cousin of Marie de Medici . 6) Discussion on possible attribution This painting as we have already discussed was most probably painted as a portrait of Clarice and during her lifetime. Several Mary Magdalen painted aound that time and a drawing merit some attention. a) Preparatory drawing It is in fact a drawing of a Mary Magdalen,and the artist is interested in the movement of her pouring the perfume. It shows similarly the upper body of Mary Magdalen,and her arm contracted with a wrist slightly inward .The dress is also quite similar,somewhat puffy on the upper arm and tight on her forearms with similar pleats. This drawing is dated from about 1480 and is in the collection of the Courteauld Institute in London. The author of the drawing is Leonardo da Vinci. Obviously the drawing by Leonardo da Vinci is an indication of his interest in a Mary Magdalen,and also an interest in representing movement.By briefly looking into the work of some of his students,like Bernardo Luini,Ambrogio de Preidis or Marco d’ Oggiono we can look for clues pertaining to MM1 as to what they achieved under Leonardo’s guidance.Leonardo da Vinci was the first to use oil paints in Florence,on paintings done by the Verrochio workshop and as Vasari,his biographer mentioned a link concerning oil paints to another famous painter Antonnelo da Messina,we will also look into this.A Mary Magdalen done by Perugin,who had worked with Leonardo in the Verrochio workshop offers some other clues.And we’ll discuss an important matter concerning MM1 which is wether Leonardo in fact did work for Lorenzo de Medici. b) Bernardo Luini When in Milan,Leonardo had a workshop and some students. One of them was Bernardo Luini. Bernardo Luini painted a Mary Magdalen,and he also showed her with some sense of movement as if she’s about to pour the perfume.The way she holds the vessel is similarly somewhat odd,and some of the fingers slightly out of focus. This painting was removed from Italy by Napoleon,and it was sold in 1815 as a Leonardo. c) “Perugin” Another Mary Magdalen painted by Perugin,also referred to as “the divine painter” is of interest.Perugin was in the workshop of Verrochio just like Leonardo.He quickly gained a reputation as one of the best masters in Italy,and later on had Raphael as one of his students.He also painted frescoes in the sixtine chapel in Rome and worked there alongside Sandro Botticelli and Domenico Ghirlandaio.Vasari mentions Perugin as a pupil of Leonardo. This Mary Magdalen is dated around 1500,and certainly has a charming melancholic look. Perugin in fact used his wife Chiara Fancelli as a model for his Mary Magdalen.He also used her as a model for several Madonnas.She was the daughter of a prominent architect,and became known as the Muse of the Divine Painter.Perugin was recognized as one of the best masters if not the best for some decades,and had Raphael as his most famous pupil. This portrait of Chiara /Mary Magdalen just like the Clarice/Mary Magdalen is also a clear rupture from quattrocento portraiture.The story of provenance and attribution for this painting is most interesting.It was in the inventory of Palazzo Pitti since 1641.It might therefore have been acquired by Cardinal Leopoldo de Medici.At the time it was listed as having been painted by Raphael.At the end of the 18th century,various other attributions were considered.Several scholars indicated it to be a work by Leonardo da Vinci.The best known of these scholars was Luigi Lanzi.He is the author of “The History of Painting in Italy” and wrote a biography of Leonardo da Vinci.Luigi Lanzi actually searched for Leonardo’s paintings that he knew existed from documentation,such as the Medusa, and went to look for these in Florence. The striking and charming melancholic look of this Mary Magdalen -or rather Chiara Fancelli-,as well as the sfumato technique that was used certainly merits some attention.The sfumato helps to define a third dimension,showing the hands in the foreground seemingly closer to the viewer.Today the art critics generally agree that this is a work by Perugin,probably in great part because it is is wife,and the same person painted in his other works.But stylistically/technically it is also sufficiently different from his other paintings that it had received various opinions from scholars for its attribution along the years :Raphael, Franciabigio,Leonardo da Vinci. An explanation might be that he got his inspiration for this Mary Magdalen from seeing another one.His wife’ s father certainly had a relation with the Medicis. And Perugin had known Leonardo from working with him in the Verrochio workshop. And of course he worked in the sixtine chapel alongside Botticelli and Ghirlandaio, starting in 1481.This Mary Magdalen was done around 1500, after Lorenzo and Clarice were gone.The fact that he used his wife as a model for this Mary Magdalen as well as for several Virgin Marys could obviously have come from the knowledge of what Sandro and Leonardo had done before with Clarice. In any case it certainly questions the supposed impossibility to portray a living person as the Madona at the time due to potential blasphemy consequences. d) Leonardo da Vinci : the Musician Leonardo da Vinci around 1485,so just a few years later painted ‘the Musician’. “The Musician” is somewhat different of other Leonardo’s paintings.It was registered as a work by Leonardo in the 17th century,but then art critics sometimes rejected it,then some admitted only the face was painted by the master. After much further studies,including scientific ones it is recognized as a work by Leonardo,even if some argue that Leonardo only did the face.The argument rests apparently on the fact that Leonardo would not have made the body look so stiff,as well as the ‘odd’ manner with which he holds the music sheet. It is also considered as ‘unfinished’ and the main arguments for that are how crude the light and shade appear on the face,and the relatively small number of coats of glazes used for the painting.Luigi Lanzi noted that generally speaking Leonardo tended to leave his paintings “unfinished”. It is worth noting the hand holding the music sheet though.It does appear quite three dimensional in relation to the body,and through a combination of light and shade and sfumatto it gives the impression of movement.Indeed the music sheet seems to be moving.One can distinguish some writing on it but only partially.This certainly bothered at one point the keepers of the painting as they had the music sheet covered with paint.It was restored later on, and I think it can be argued that what appear blank on the music sheet maybe quite intentional as it participated in the impression of movement, but this could have been interpreted as unfinished;however judging only from readily available pictures one cannot tell wether it was intentional,unfinished, or a result of some damage.The ‘odd’ manner with which it is held in my view was quite intentional,and rather successful.We will briefly discuss this aspect further in addendum A What must be mentioned is that ‘The Musician’ is a clear rupture with quattrocento portraiture.Quattrocento portraiture in Italy and Florence in particular tended to represent the person in profile,with a rather stiff appearance and quite devoid of emotion. However it was changing,with artists such as Sandro Botticelli or Leonardo da Vinci in Florence,and especially from artists in Venice. e) Antonnelo da Messina The northern Flemish influence certainly was a factor,and sicilian painter Antonnelo da Messina is known to have followed northern artists,not only for his portraiture or interior scenes but also for using painting techniques with oils instead of only tempera. One painting from Antonnelo stands out,and was done around 1474/1476, which would be before MM1. This painting is remarkable in many ways.For instance let’s first briefly compare it to a typical portrait of the quattrocentto on the right.This one was done by Antonio del Pollaiuolo in 1460/65,an important artist in Florence who had taught Sandro Botticelli. The contrast is obvious.The Pollaiulo portrait is rather stiff,and absolutely flat, two dimensional.It shows certainly a patrician woman of the time,with fair hair and skin,a long face and an exaggerated long neck.Her appearance is devoid of any emotion. The Messina ‘Virgin’seems to extend her hand towards the intruder,there is a three dimensional quality to it,and we can see her movement,she reaches out with one hand,the other seems to grab her veil and cover herself,even the pages of the book seem to be moving.Quattrocento is the century when linear perspective was introduced first in Italy,therefore giving the scenery a third dimension,but here it goes beyond for objects and portraiture and we might even talk of a holographic quality (even if this word is not used much in the art historian lexical field).Her face is quite expressive, somewhat mysterious, but we can detect some strong spiritual force perhaps emanating from her young face. Antonnelo da Messina was well recognized and his work admired in his time. Marin Sanuto Venetian historian and diarist cited by Alessandro Pagano [10] said of his work and of praises from the humanist circles in his time that he was able to create figures “so well that they seemed alive and missing only a soul”,and that he made inanimate things seem real and animate creatures seem alive” (F. Maurolico) They were right that those portraits,and perhaps even this ‘Virgin’ were missing a soul in a theological sense, but Messina certainly was able to give us a glimpse of it. Those remarks certainly point out what me might call today the holographic quality of his representations,and pertain to the sense of movement,of being alive as well that emanates from the person portrayed. Keith Christiansen said it best: “Antonnello‘s pictures possess a harmony and geometric clarity of structure that even Jan Van Eyck could not match.”I understand this to refer in part to this holographic,three dimensional view of his representations.For this Antonnelo da Messina uses very correct isometric drawing,together with very precise lighting and shading and also a form of sfumato ,to render a three dimensional view of the person and objects probably unmatched by any artist before him. Keith Christiansen also said of of Antonelo’s Virgin Annunciate “it has without apology or exaggeration been compared to Leonardo da Vinci s Mona Lisa” and “once seen this relatively small picture haunts the imagination, not as a static image but as a living presence”……“the corner of the diagonally placed desk seems to break through the picture plane”. Indeed, and this without having to wear the 3D glasses for viewing…. We certainly can understand how this would have attracted much attention in 15 th century Italy. 7) The Venice connection Antonnelo da Messina was in Venice for two years, in 1475/1476, and his work was noticed and praised immediately in other cities of northern Italy as well. He came to Venice mainly for a commission to paint an altar for the San Cassiano church. There are only three panels that were recovered from this altar,but we can see the hand of the Virgin extending as well as an expressive face giving a sense of a living presence. The Virgin Annunciate is known to have been painted in those two years as well. It would then seem logical that it was also done in Venice.There is however a claim,not supported by any solid information –from what I could find- that it was done in Sicily,never left Sicily, and that a modest Sicilian girl was used as a model. The story is very nice, and quite understandably favors a Sicilian pride.It is indeed a plausible story. What is known is that at the end of the 19th cent,it was the property of a noble Sicilian family. However,Marco Boshini himself a artist, author and also an art merchant saw a “Virgin Annunciate from Antonnelo da Messina in Venice in the 17th century which was in the house of a ‘baron Ottavio’ and described it in those terms :” I should say that there is from Antonnelo da Messina a Virgin with a book in front of her and that in all the studies of this world there is nothing quite as beautiful” [11]. Boshini indeed was an art merchant for Cardinal Leopoldo di Medici,who liked to collect venetian art, and had gained a reputation as a fine connoisseur.He owed this reputation in part to Marco Boshini.There are in fact two Virgins Annunciate from Messina but it is very doubtful that the other one could have engendered such an enthusiastic description from Boshini. It should be noted as well that baron is not a venetian title but was more common in Sicily,just as the first name Ottavio (or Attavio) was quite uncommon in the patrician venetian families.Some of the aristocratic families of Sicily did in fact have homes in Venice,perhaps due to the longstanding trade relations,like the di Francesco or Spadafora,just as some of the venetian families had homes and branches in Sicily like the Miceli/Michiel or the Loredans. And when it comes to a humble Sicilian girl one should note that this is an educated young lady,but granted,she is not represented with the‘aristocratic’ tall neck and fair hair that was favored at the time.And even though the theme is religious,it appears semi secular as well,void of clear religious symbols and it should also be noted that in giving the painting a title Messina did not use the name of Mary. The ‘model’ could have been someone that the client of Messina knew,even perhaps a new daughter in law.And indeed this beautiful painting could have travelled later on to Sicily. This needs to be mentioned as a strong hypothesis,as aside from Bushini’s description which certainly fits,there are quite a few other indirect but rather convincing clues that it was in Venice. Venice was of course a city very important for trade,but also well known for its cultural and artistic scene.Giovanni Bellini can be counted as a great Renaissance artist from Venice,and he is said to be the first to use oils in Venice in the very early 1470’s.It was also a city where the humanist renaissance flourished,with the study of ancient greek and latin texts,modern world cartography and edition.Aldus Manutius,Pico de la Mirandola’s good friend, settled there in the 1480’ s and created the famed Aldine editions.Venice was also known to be a supplier of pigments and other goods for the painter’s workshops.Verrochio for instance spent 4 months in Venice in 1469,looking for supplies (mainly for the “palla” of the Duomo in Florence -bronze ball) [12] Of course this visit is known as it is documented, but it is also known that he obtained an important contract for the equestrian sculpture of Bartolomeo Colleoni later on.It is documented that the decision to build this statue was accepted by the senate of Venice in july of 1479.Vasari mentions that the senators knew of Andrea del Verrochio.It is certain that Verrochio must have kept in touch with his Venetian contacts and probably made other trips there before 1479.Vasari also mentions that it was Antonnello da Messina who introduced oil paints in Italy.It is quite an achievement to be able to prove wrong a knowledgeable source from the early 1500’s five hundred years later.And indeed Giovanni Bellini in Venice started using oil paints in the early 1470’s sometimes after the documented stay of Verrochio in Venice.And it is known that Nicola Colantonio,an artist from Naples,started using oils much before that still,and may have had Antonnello da Messina as a pupil. But Vasari was in Milan and certainly had to know better of how things happened in his city and in Florence a few decades earlier.The first ones to use oil paints there were the Verrochio workshop and Leonardo da Vinci in particular.Vasari’s comment on who introduced the oil paints in Italy points to a link between Verrochio/Leonardo and Antonnelo da Messina.In fact,the few paintings by the Verrochio workshop that did include oil paints,and those are said to have been done by Leonardo, were perhaps started before 1475 but are known to have been completed a few years later (addendum F) Antonnelo da Messina’s talent was also noted by the Sforzas,the ducal family from Milan. Sforza Maria Sforza the youngest brother of Duke Galeazzo Maria Sforza had his portrait done by Antonnelo in Venice.The Sforza’s were so impressed that they invited Antonnelo da Messina to come work for them in Milan.He declined,it should also be noted that around 1476,by the time Antonnelo was ready to leave Venice,there was high trouble among the ducal family in Milan,Sforza and his brother Ludovico,who later hired Leonardo had fled to France. They eventually came back and Ludovico succeeded in his quest to rule the Duchy of Milan. It is therefore highly probable that Leonardo had the opportunity to see at least one portrait by Antonnelo in Milan.However some of the late work he did in Florence,as well as some of the work that his assistants/pupils,such as Giovanni Ambrogio de Preidis or Marco d Oggiono in Milan did when he first got there, strongly suggest that they (Leonardo and his pupils) were not only well aware of Antonnelo da Messina’s work but the Virgin Annunciate in particular. The picture on the left represents Giani Galeas Sforza, the young duke of Milan - whose godfather was Lorenzo de Medici. His brothers Ludovico and Sforza –the one who had Antonnelo do his portrait -had come back from their French exile and Ludovico was assuming the regency (Sforza passed away shortly before that).Ludovico Sforza hired Leonardo, who initially stayed in Ambrogio de Preidis house,the artist credited for the portrait on the left.Here the young Duke is portrayed as Saint Sebastian holding an arrow.In Florence Clarice had been portrayed as Saint Mary Magdalen.And in Venice a young Sicilian woman had been portrayed as the Virgin.Leonardo da Vinci’s influence concerning these two paintings is well accepted.The intent to define a three dimensional view,as well as the use of sfumato and perhaps show a movement for the painting on the left is rather well done. The similarities with Antonnelo da Messina’s Virgin Annunciate,especially for the portrait -known as the ‘Archinto’- on the right is undeniable.The author of that portrait is generally admitted to be Marco d’ Oggiono,even though it had also been attributed to Ambrogio de Preidis.Both were pupils of Leonardo. 8) The written record Even though it is clear that Sandro Botticelli must have met Clarice, perhaps several times, there is no written record of that, but the paintings, his own as well as the frescoes by Domenico Ghirlandaio tell the story. And while her husband Lorenzo is known for having supported and maintained relations with a number of prominent intellectuals and artists there are few written mentions of Mona Clarice. Vasari some 60/100 years later indicated that Antonnelo had been impressed by a Van Eyck painting he saw in Naples and may have gone to Bruges to learn from the Flemish master. He certainly could not have met him, as Jan Van Eyck passed in 1441 but Vasari was certainly correct in naming Jan Van Eyck as an influence,as evidenced by Antonnelo’s” St Jerome in his study” for instance,probably painted in Venice. It is well accepted also that Antonnelo was influenced by another Flemish artist, Petrus Christus, even though there is no clear written record of how this happened. But the indications of Vasari,even though partially incorrect,as well as Antonnello’s paintings,especially his portraits, tell the story.Antonnelo da Messina was in Venice in the 1475/1476 period.Interestingly there’s quite a bit of speculation as to where was Leonardo at that time. In the spring of 1476 indeed, a denunciation of “immoral activity”,named Leonardo da Vinci among a few others.This is what is referred to as the Saltarelli affair.It was indicated in the complaint that Leonardo lived with Verrochio, and one of the other young men accused was from the Tornabuoni family,in fact related to the Medicis. It is probably not a coincidence that Leonardo right about that time ceased to live with Verrochio.It is also known that he continued for some time to work with Verrochio after 1476.It is highly probable that he conveniently left Florence right after the Saltarelli affair came about. Some have speculated that he may have gone to Pistoia.The probability is that he went to Venice,in agreement with Verrochio and this is when he learned so much from Antonello da Messina.This is consistent with Vasari’s writing on oil paints,and explain the clear similarities with Messina that can be seen in his work and the work of his pupils in the following years.Anonimo Gaddiano,the other biographer of Leonardo [13] mentioned that after leaving Verrochio workshop Leonardo was hired by Lorenzo and was present in his garden.Lorenzo de Medici indeed is famous for his garden of San Marco where he had artists work such as Michelangelo.However various scholars have pointed out that this was probably an erroneous statement by “Anonimo”. Erroneous in fact,but in a similar fashion that Vasari’s statement on oil paints was incomplete.The famous garden at San Marco is where Michelangelo and others worked (Rustici, Granacci, Lorenzo di Credi etc).This may have happened only after Leonardo left for Milan. However there was a garden,purchased from the church of Santa Maria della Neve in 1478 or before,dedicated to Clarice Orsini.Leonardo would have been there,if indeed he was to do a portrait of Clarice.1478 is the year of the Pazzi conspiracy.This is when a rival faction tried to assassinate Lorenzo de Medici.They failed to kill him, but they did assassinate his brother Giuliano, on Easter day and in the cathedral of all places. (And the conspirators where said to have the Pope’s support….). Clarice for safety reasons moved shortly after that to Pistoia,a city about 50 kms away from Florence. Leonardo himself in one of his written notes indicated “at Pistoia…bre 1478” [14] mentioned a dear friend of his in Florence and indicated that he was working on two Madona’s. One has been identified as the Madona Benois, while the other remained unknown.A Mary Magdalen certainly would have qualified to be called a Madona. And the preparatory drawing done by Leonardo showing a Mary Magdalen certainly dates from this period of time. So Leonardo himself indicated his proximity to Clarice,being in Pistoia when she was there in the autumn of 1478, as evidenced by some letters from Pistoia by Angelo Poliziano,in September[15]. Clarice returned to Florence in 1479 or perhaps in the last part of 1478. In 1482 Leonardo wrote a letter listing his abilities.There is some speculation as to wether this really dates from 1482,or later,and even if it was sent to Ludovico Sforza at all [16]. This letter,however, is in fact a sort of ‘resume’ of Leonardo,where he lists his areas of competency.Much of it explains his abilities in the field of engineering,wether it implies waterworks,bridges or weaponry.When it comes to his artistic abilities Leonardo first mentions his ability as a sculptor: “I can carry out sculpture in marble, bronze, or clay” And when it comes to painting, this is what he wrote: “I can do in painting whatever may be done, as well as any other, be he who he may”. Most have noted the humility he displays,being the painter probably the most celebrated in history. It should be said however that his statements on his abilities as an engineer come across as being factual and do not seem particularly humble.Leonardo’s statement on his ability as a painter at the time should probably be taken at face value.He still was exploring technique,eager to learn and to teach and as many have noted similarities in his work with some of Antonello da Messina’s work,Leonardo in his own words says that he could do the same as any other painter,even the best of them. Ludovico Sforza had been forced out of Milan in his struggle for power there, and after returning from France was in Tuscany,in the vicinity of Florence, plotting to take charge of the Duchy,now in the hands of his very young nephew Gian Galeazzo,Gian’ s mother and others.He eventually succeeded and became regent of his nephew and that‘s some time after that he hired Leonardo as a painter and engineer.It is probable that Lorenzo de Medici helped Ludovico Sforza in his endeavor,as Ludovico was willing to help Lorenzo in his own struggles with King Ferdinand of Naples right after seizing power in Milan in the fall of 1479,first as governor, then regent in 1480.After The Pazzi conspiracy failed,in the year 1478,Pope Sixtius IV excommunicated Lorenzo and his government.The Pope used his influence to instigate a war between the very powerful kingdom of Naples, and one of king Ferdinand’s sons was sent to lead an army against Florence.Milanunder the regency of Gian Ludovico Sforza and his brother Sforza Maria came to Tuscany in the vicinity of Florence. Ludovico Sforza eventually succeeded in wrestling the power back and first became governor. Ludovico Sforza returned successfully to Milan In December 1479, Lorenzo de Medici embarked on a very risky trip to meet King Ferdinand in Naples and try to bring the war to an end.It is said Lorenzo used secret diplomatic channels to arrange for this.It was clear at that time he had the support of Ludovico Sforza, who was already governor of Milan and this is said to have been an important factor for the success of this trip.It is to be noted as well that King Ferdinand was married to a lady from the Orsini clan, and one of King Ferdinand’s sons was married to Ippolita Sforza,a friend of Lorenzo and sister of Ludovico. It is believed that Leonardo da Vinci probably met Ludovico Sforza in Florence or Pistoia.And when Vasari indicates that Lorenzo de Medici sent Leonardo to Ludovico Sforza with a silver lyra as a gift to secure peace,it might be better understood that it was more a celebration of peace,victory and friendship for both of them.And the gift certainly turned out to be Leonardo himself.That this show of friendship was made in 1482,when Milan got embroiled in the Ferrara war, was probably not a coincidence. What is factually known is that the Sforza’s had been wanting to hire Antonnello da Messina who declined.That Antonnello da Messina had done a portrait of Sforza Maria [17], a brother of Ludovico who was closest to him,and died in their common struggle to regain power in Milan.That the works done by Leonardo’s pupils or himself when he first got to Milan and later -portrait of Gian Galeazzo by Ambrogio dePreidis,The Musician by Leonardo ,or the Archinto portrait by Marco d Oggiono- certainly bear many similarities to Antonnelo’s work, and the Virgin Annunciate in particular. And of course,Ludovico Sforza could have seen the portrait of Clarice as Mary Magdalen in Florence. It s also interesting to note that when Leonardo had to leave Milan at the end of 1499,as Milan was in trouble,he went to Venice.It is said that by that time he was already a legend and that the Venetians requested his help.The help he was hired for by the Signoria (governing council of Venice) was for some military engineering.This is somewhat odd, if I may say,to have had an opportunity to hire Leonardo and request his help in that field.Certainly his military weaponry and systems show remarkable vision and imagination,but they were more fantastic artistic representations then,and even later,rather than practical tools that could give a tactical advantage.Leonardo devised a wooden lock that would allow a river to flood a plain to defend against a potential Turkish invasion of Venice.It was never built,like most of his military inventions. The governor general of the Venetian forces who hired him was Niccolo Orsini di Pitigliano.He was a famous condottiere who had worked many years for the Medicis.He had done so well in Venice that an equestrian statue of himself was being commissioned in that same year (1500). He was also a cousin of Clarice,and when in Florence-he had been ‘Field Marshal’ there from 1473 until 1481- had her take care of his son’s education along with Lorenzo’s children [18]. If indeed Leonardo da Vinci has spent some time visiting Clarice,wether in Florence or in Pistoia,he would have met Niccolo Orsini and his sons. It should be noted as well that Leonardo,while in Venice,showed an interest in books of greek and latin texts,even though he had not had the classical training for those languages.Aldus Manutius,Pico de la Mirandola and Angelo Poliziano’s good friend had established his famous printing shop in Venice just a few years before,and published Angelo Poliziano,who previously had Florentine publishers.Leonardo most certainly knew Poliziano,and would have known him when visiting Clarice’s household.And surely he might have learned latin and greek faster than the children…He later helped with a representation of Poliziano’s‘Orfeus’ in Mantua in 1490,probably out of friendship,before the better known one in Milan later on. 9) Conclusion We certainly have enough elements to conclude that MM1/MM2 is indeed Clarice Orsini. The visual testimony given by Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio,Domenico Puligo is rather clear and confirmed by provenance. On attribution,I also think there are enough elements to conclude it is a work by Leonardo da Vinci.Both ‘Anonimo’and Leonardo indicate his proximity to Clarice –even if indirectly- in their writings.Leonardo mentions a Madona he is working on at that same time,and there is a preparatory drawing to show it. Stylistically it certainly is quite different from the Madona Benois,which might be the other Madona he mentions,and my guess is that if indeed it is the other one he would have started it a few years before.In the following addendums,I will discuss various topics,stylistic aspects,scientific examination,which are consistent with a work by the great master as well as other clues. Of course, it is eventually up to people much wiser than I to make that determination.Perhaps I should mention though that just like Clarice,I do have the des Baux family in my ancestry…  More research of course would be welcomed . The finding of MM1 can help shed some light on a number of questions or assumptions.MM1/MM2 was obviously an important painting for the Medici family .It may also have influenced stylistically a number of artists, Puligo, De Sarto perhaps Raphael and others, even as it looks to have been somewhat unfinished. 10) Addendums A) Some stylistic notes/movement B) Notes on Vasari’s portrait of Lorenzo C) Back of panel/additional notes on provenance D) Scientific examinations E) Notes on other Medici portraits F) Late work by Leonardo for Verrochio G) Renaissance A) Some stylistic notes/movement Leonardo in 1481 was commissioned to paint an Adoration of the Magi by the monks of San Donato in Florence. The work was never finished and Leonardo left for Milan in 1482, but the painting was saved in storage by the monks and aside from possible repaints later on,offers a rare glimpse into Leonardo’s underpaint technique at the time, which was close to when the portrait of Clarice was done. A comparison of MM1 with the Madona done by Leonardo for that painting is interesting. The similarities in the drawing are quite obvious.For instance the neck line and the hair along the neck on the left, or the clothing line along the body on the right. When it comes to representation of movement in painting, two famous paintings,both from the20th century come to my mind. One of course is from Picasso, and the other from Magritte and both have been also immensely successful artists.Aside from the fact that one would be described as ‘cubist’, while the other one is ‘surrealist’,they share interesting characteristics.It could be said from the woman on the left that she looks like she just turned her head.And it is clear from looking at that horse and rider that they are enjoying a stroll in the forest.The movement is not just suggested,it is represented. In both paintings one could just as well use some words such as odd,or absurd, and even impossible to describe some of the scene. Yet it transforms a static image into a dynamic one where the movement is clearly perceived. This is obviously the intent with the odd position of the hand in MM1.The hand of Leonardo’s the Musician also holds the music sheet in an ‘odd’ manner. Tobias and the Angel is a painting done by Verrochio and workshop.It was inspired by a similar scene done by Antonio del Pollaiulo. Prominent Leonardo scholars have identified the fish and the dog has having been painted by Leonardo. In the scene, Raphael the Angel is carrying the vessel containing the burnt entrails of the fish. The box is held in a quite odd,or absurd manner.It does not match the delicate,but rather normal way the box is held in Pollaiulo’s painting.I think we may attribute this to Leonardo as well. B) Notes on Vasari’s portrait of Lorenzo Vasari made a portrait of Lorenzo de Medici commissioned by Ottaviano de Medici in 1533 [19]. That is the year Ottaviano married Francesca Salviati, daughter of Lucrezia and granddaughter of Clarice Orsini.Ottaviano was a distant cousin from a minor branch of the Medicis.The painting was certainly meant to celebrate this union and the illustrious relatives close to his wife and mother in law.The Duke of Florence at the time was Alessandro nicknamed Il Moro.While he was supposed to be the illegitimate son of Lorenzo de Medici Duke of Urbino,himself father of Catherine de Medici queen consort of France, the credible rumor was that in fact he was the illegitimate son of another Medici, Pope Clement VII,with a dark complexion servant.As such,he would not have been a descendant of Lorenzo the Magnificent and his wife Clarice Orsini. Tensions within the Medici clan ran so high that he was eventually assassinated in 1437 by another cousin.The intent of Vasari in planning the painting was recorded in a note that he presented to Duke Alessandro for approval,as would be expected.There is no indication that making this portrait was ever the idea of Duke Alessandro to start with.The painting is allegorical and Vasari explains clearly his intent in his note . He wants to: “illustrate the great qualities of this extremely rare, very unique citizen”, Lorenzo the Magnificent. He mentions also “the vase of all virtues”, which is next to Lorenzo and from which hangs a mortuary mask that Vasari describes as : “clean and very beautiful”; the reward of all virtues”. My first remark is that Vasari did not represent Lorenzo‘s face in a flattering manner.It was done posthumously of course,and it seems that Vasari used Lorenzo’s portrait on a medal as a model, but not quite exactly.Let s say that there would have been an exact copy possibility for his facial features,or a flattering rendition.He chose, after visiting Alessandro,a slightly caricatural rendition. But it is the mask hanging from the spout that is troubling.In his note it was supposed to be “ clean and very beautiful”.On the spout protruding through the eye socket it says “the reward of all virtues”.The actual painting does not match the stated intent.It was customary among patrician families in Florence at the time to have mortuary masks made,modeled on the deceased faces . Given the intimacy shown in the painting,where the face from the mask seems to be whispering in Lorenzo’s ear, it can only be two persons.His brother Giuliano who was killed,stabbed in the cathedral and left bleeding to death, or his wife Clarice.The mask looks perhaps somewhat androgynous,but rather more feminine. However what Vasari represented with lesions from the nose to the lips is some kind of a disease, when Giuliano suffered stab wounds. Clarice is known to have died from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis untreated can affect all organs,including the skin, and someone who had a cleft palate would have been more vulnerable to the spread of tuberculosis around her nose.Especially since there were no efficient treatments for tuberculosis at the time. Here is a picture of a young female patient with nasal tuberculosis. From the look of her dentition she may also have had a cleft palate. Vasari obviously got caught up in this Medici power struggle.He did say some elogious things about Lorenzo in his book -published years after Alessandro was gone. He did years later paint a fairly similar portrait of Lorenzo, much closer to the model from the medal –‘Lorenzo receives tributes from the ambassadors’ in Palazzo Vecchio, but Alessandro was gone then, and Lucrezia an old woman. Vasari himself was an important man,well married, and he did work for Alessandro‘s successor –who was not a descendant of Lorenzo and Clarice but married to another Salviati daughter- but quite a few years later (1544). It is odd that Vasari did not mention Lorenzo,or Clarice or Angelo Poliziano, easily recognizable in the Botticelli painting. He seemed to have never mentioned Clarice again after doing this mortuary  mask of her in this painting. Perhaps this is the reason. B) Back of panel/Additional notes on provenance Bellow are two pictures, one showing the reverse of the panel on which is painted the famous Mona Lisa in the Louvre museum. On the right is the reverse of MM1. The similarities are obvious.Both are painted on poplar panels -MM1 was not formally tested for this, but the carbon 14 testing indicated 1460 as first possible date for age of wood- and both have traces of liquid white paint in the back,probably an indication of a similar,and rather unusual technique. Some work may have been started,and left as is,on the reverse of MM1. Both have a handwritten H in the back (see picture bellow of MM1) There is a slight calligraphic difference,which certainly shows it is not from the same hand,but it may have had the same meaning. Together with MM1 was a portrait of Clement VII,signed on a piece of vellum glued to the back by “Seb del Piombo”.It does bear a similar H in the back as well.There was also a Madona and child panel by Andrea della Robbia. As indicated, these works were in the Montmorency estate -and descendants-. More precisely in the estate of the François Henri de Montmorency line. His father had been decapitated ,he had killed someone in a duel, and he was raised by his aunt and her husband Henri de Bourbon. Another uncle, named Henri as well was the one who married Maria Felicia Orsini,cousin of Marie de Medicis wife of the French king Henri IV. Catherine de Medici who had been queen of France before Marie had been married to Henri II of France.She had her own house in Paris where she had her large collection of portraits,including many from her Medici family.[20] The H in the back probably stands for Henri.Catherine de Medici had been raised in part by Clement VII and he is the one who arranged for her marriage to the king of France.Sebastiano del Piombo is known, towards the end of his life to have sent a portrait of Clement VII to her along with two other paintings carried from Rome by his son. How exactly did those work of art dear to the Medicis end up with the Montmorencys is open to some speculation.A fairly logical explanation would be as a consequence of the struggle of Marie de Medici,who became queen of France shortly after Catherine,with her own son the king Louis XIII.She ended up fleeing France.Her best allies left,who did help her,were her cousin Maria Felicia and her husband Henri de Montmorency.She may have left some of her belongings with them. He ended up being executed,in the same year that Marie de Medici fled,and his inheritance went to his brother in law Henri de Bourbon who raised Francois Henri de Montmorency.The line of succession from there is clear. Even though Catherine de Medici owned so many portraits, it is not known what has happened to them. My guess is that a number of them are in museums now,perhaps with an H manuscript in the back.The fact that the H is all there is in the back of the Mona Lisa is unusual for art work known to have been in the inventory of the french royal family.I take it as a clue,along with MM1 and the other pieces that it may have been in the collection of Catherine. D) Scientific examinations. The infra red reflectography as well as the pigment studies was conducted by the Courteauld Institute in London Here are some pictures from their report showing the different coats of paint as well as a chart showing the chemical analyses of the pigments they did. MM1 was painted with several levels of thin glazes,consistent with a work by Leonardo, perhaps closer to what he did with the Musician (some of his paintings have a larger number of coats) E) Notes on other Medici portraits On the left is a portrait of Lorenzo de Medici Duke of Urbino, who was the father of Catherine de Medici.Painting by Raphael.And on the right is Henriette, daughter of Marie de Medici and queen of England,represented as St Catherine. The original was painted by Anthony Van Dyck,and only copies are known at the present.  The portrait of the Duke of Urbino is somewhat atypical of other works by Raphael.It had been attributed to others in the past (including Sebastiano del Piombo).The odd manner with which the Duke is holding that box,which we cannot find in other works by Raphael, was probably a factor. F) Late work by Leonardo for Verrochio One painting from the Verrochio workshop where Leonardo is known to have participated stands out.It is the Baptism of Christ. This painting was started in 1472.Vasari mentioned that Leonardo painted the angel on the left and made such a marvelous angel that it prompted Verrochio to quit painting. Recent studies,including scientific examination [22] concluded that Leonardo did in fact do more than the angel,such as most of the background,painted in oils and that this dated from 1476. Or later:Verrochio in fact obtained a commission for a sculpture in Venice in 1479 and did not paint after that.He passed away before being able to complete the sculpture. Vasari was therefore most probably correct when he said Verrochio quit painting after that,but the assumed date of completion of the painting was not. Leonardo is certainly the author of the hands of Christ,which appear in that three dimensional view,owing to a perfect isometric drawing,clever use of light and shade and sfumato .[23] This is certainly consistent with a trip to Venice in that year,and learning much more than the use of oils from Antonnelo da Messina.  G) Renaissance The term Renaissance was first coined by Vasari, and later used by French historian Jules Michelet to describe the art and humanities movement which followed the middle age period in Italy.Renaissance indeed as greek and latin philosophical texts were reconsidered as well as classical beauty in art, architecture,sciences etc. And the most prominent figure of the Renaissance period is Leonardo da Vinci A roman ring, dating from the 1st century AD was recently discovered in a tombstone in Italy. It was on the finger of a mother who had lost her son,and the word used by many to describe the quality of the portrait is holographic.It was carved in wax and inserted in a crystal rock intaglio.The ring is now in the National Archeological Museum in Rome. (Palazzo Colonna Barberini) Alain Prot july 2023 [1]Intermarriage in the Orsini family https://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/feminae/DetailsPage.aspx?Feminae_ID=16902 [2] Encyclopedia. Marriage of Lorenzo https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/medici-clarice-de-c-1453- 1487#:~:text=She%20and%20Lorenzo%20were%20married,Florence%20on%20June%204%2C%201469. [3] Letter of Lucrezia describing Clarice https://www.academia.edu/42690719/Giovanni_Tornabuoni_and_His_Relationship_with_the_Medici_ Family [4] Vasari Lives of the most eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects about 1550 https://archive.org/details/livesofmostemine03vasauoft/page/n61/mode/2up [5] Hermann Ullmann 1893 Sandro Botticelli https://archive.org/details/sandrobotticelli00ulma [6] Germain Butaud Genealogy of the Magis : the legendary origins of the de Baux family https://academia.edu/resource/work/7273694 [7]Consanguinity as a causal factor in oro facial abnormalities https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221803425_Consanguinity_and_occurrence_of_cleft_lippalate_ A_hospital-based_registry_study_in_Riyadh [8]Catalogo generale dei Beni Culturali, Santa Maria Maddalena, Dipinto, ca 1515-1519. Domenico Detto Puligo, 1492/ post 1527. Accessed on 01/09/22. https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/HistoricOrArtisticProperty/0900196344 [9] Alighiery , Dante “Divine Comedy Purgatory , Canto XXIII, 101,102 [10] Keith Christiansen, Joachino Barbera , Andrea Bayer Antonnelo da Messina https://www.academia.edu/79123778/Antonello_da_Messina_Sicilys_Renaissance_Master [11] Boshini La Carta del Navegar Pitoresco, Venezia 1660 p. 324 [12] Dario Covi Verrochio and Venice 1469 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3050321 [13] Cornelio Fabriezy Il Codice Anonimo Gaddiano https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010251044 [14] Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci Page 1383 ‘at Pistoia’ and pn same sheet text 663 ‘ On pictures of the Madona’ https://interconnected.org/more/davinci/1378.html [15] Poliziano letter to Lorenzo from Pistoia https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/irm/id/28/ [16] Leonardo da Vinci s letter to the Duke of Milan https://www.openculture.com/2014/01/leonardo-da-vincis-handwritten-resume-1482.html [17] Vincent Delieuvin Messina portrait of Sforza Maria http://mini- site.louvre.fr/trimestriel/2019/l%C3%A9onard_de_vinciGB//files/assets/common/downloads/publication.pd f?uni=644e289fa9d8f45c544c67470056de02 [18] Claudia Bischetti correspondence Clarice Orsini note 37 https://books.openedition.org/esb/2772?lang=en [19] Monica Alderotti - Uffizi Gallery, concerning Vasari s portrait of Lorenzo de Medici https://www.uffizi.it/en/artworks/vasari-lorenzo-de-medici-portrait [20] Chantal Turbide the Catherine de Medici collection https://www.racar-racar.com/uploads/5/7/7/4/57749791/_racar_30_1_2_04_turbide.pdf [21] Medici family tree from The Museum of Florence and Maria Salviatti from Emma Micheletti “the Medici of Florence” Florence,Scala 1980 http://www.museumsinflorence.com/musei/genealogic_tree.htm [22] Jill Dunkerton “Leonardo in Verrochio’s workshop:re-examining the technical evidence National Gallery Technical Bulletin ,2011 https://www.jstor.org/stable/42616226?read-now=1&seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents [23] isometric figure drawing tutorial video (basic) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJf_YE-txbM