Dr. Katarzyna Krzyżagórska-Pisarek: A Reply to Martin Kemp‟s online essay „Leonardo da Vinci La Bella Principessa. Errors, Misconceptions and Allegations of Forgery.‟1 La Bella Principessa Professor Kemp has written an essay in response to my article „La Bella Principessa; Arguments against the attribution to Leonardo‟, Artibus et Historiae, No. 71, XXXVI, June 2015, pp. 61– 89. In his essay, he lists what he deems a series of errors and misconceptions as well as allegations of forgery in the Artibus article, but says he does not wish to address the issues of attribution I raised. The purpose of his online article is, however, an attempt to undermine my findings. I will answer his points in the order and with the numbered headings used in his text. Prof. Kemp‟s comments were published on the Authentication in Art website. 1 [Martin Kemp] “1) Bibliographical” [KP] Martin Kemp says that most of my material is quoted from the internet and that I make only one reference to his book in my footnote 50. This is incorrect. I make extensive reference to his book on the opening page and further references in footnotes 54, 57, 59 and 64. I have examined it as thoroughly as would be expected of any researcher. I also referred to many other books and articles which were accessed from libraries and not from the internet. These were among others: M. Kemp and P. Cotte, The Story of the New Masterpiece by Leonardo da Vinci: La Bella Principessa, London, 2010; M. Kemp, Leonardo (rev. ed.), Oxford, 2004; P. Silverman, Leonardo’s Lost Princess: One Man’s Quest to Authenticate an Unknown Portrait by Leonardo Da Vinci, New Jersey, 2012; C. Geddo, „A “Pastel” by Leonardo da Vinci: His Newly Discovered Portrait of a Young Woman in Profile‟, Artes, 2008–2009, pp. 67–87; C. C. Bambach, „Leonardo‟s Notes on Pastel Drawing‟, Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. 52, 2008, no. 2/3 („Le tecniche del disegno rinascimentale: dai materiali allo stile‟. Atti del convegno internazionale, Firenze, 22–23 settembre 2008, ed. M. Faietti, L. Melli, A. Nova), pp. 177–204; M. Gregori, „A Note on Leonardo‟, Paragone, LXI, 2009, no. 723, pp. 3–4; D. źkserdjian, „Leonardo da Vinci: “La Bella Principessa” – The Profile Portrait of a Milanese Woman‟ (book review), Burlington Magazine, vol. 152, 2010, no. 1287, June (Attributions, copies, fakes), pp. 420–421; P. C. Marani, „Deux nouveaux Léonard?‟, Dossier de l’art, 2012, no. 195, avril, pp. 58–63; Giannino Marchig, 1897–1983: paintings and drawings, exh. cat. London, 1988; Giannino Marchig, 1897–1983, exh. cat., Geneva, 1985; Giannino Marchig: 1897–1983: dipinti, disegni, incisioni, exh. cat. Florence, Gabinetto disegni e stampe degli Uffizi, 12 March – 5 June 1994 (Italian ed.); J. Cartwright (Mrs Henry Ady), Beatrice d’Este, Duchess of Milan, 1475–1497; A Study of the Renaissance, London, 1910; B. Horodyski, „Miniaturzysta Sforzów‟, Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, 16, 1954, pp. 195–213; ź. McGrath, „Ludovico il Moro and his Moors‟, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 65, 2002, pp. 67–94; L. Syson with L. Keith, Leonardo da Vinci, Painter at the Court of Milan, exh. cat., The National Gallery, London, 2011; Dizionario delle origini, invenzioni e scoperte nelle arti, nelle scienze…, Milan, 1831; B. Berenson, The Drawings of the Florentine Painters, vol. III, Chicago, 1938; Leonardo da Vinci, Master Draftsman, ed. by C. C. Bambach, exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2003; Z. ygulski Jr., „Ze studiów nad Damą z gronostajem: styl ubioru i węzły Leonarda‟, in: Światła Stambułu, Warsaw, 1999 (first published in Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, vol. 31, 1969, no. 1, pp. 3–40). The 2012 Italian version of Kemp/Cotte‟s 2010 book is a translation from the źnglish with the addition of the Sforziad hypothesis. The latter had already been published on the Lumiere Technology website and I discussed it at length. Elisabetta Gnignera‟s text was in Italian so I used the late Prof. ygulski‟s extensive knowledge of historic costume in general and coazzone in particular. The Monza catalogue (2015) was not published when I submitted my paper to Artibus. The 2014 exhibition catalogue from the Galleria Nazionale in Urbino was also unavailable. To my knowledge these later publications have not yielded any conclusive evidence. Prof. Kemp said that I have not addressed any of “the scientific evidence in the two books related to the lower layers of the image, the pentimenti or the condition and retouching in various media” and goes on to say “contrary to Pisarek‟s assertions, the interventions of restorers are documented in both books”. The latter sentence must refer to my “it is also strange that he did not consider that the drawing might have been retouched and repainted at a later time” (p. 79). Prof. Kemp has taken this out of context. I said that he did not mention the restorations in that particular passage of his book Leonardo (p. 210). I not only analysed his art historical arguments in my text, but also all the technical evidence presented by Pascal Cotte – which is to say: – The trois crayons, pen and ink and bodycolour technique on vellum (unprecedented for Leonardo) – The X-rays (inconclusive, in Cotte‟s own words “did not yield significant new findings”, p. 154) – The Carbon-14 dating of the vellum (wide-ranging 1440-1650, not constituting proof in itself as anyone could draw at any time on a blank folio removed from a manuscript) – The quality of the vellum (yellowish “rough animal hide” with visible follicles; the drawing on the rough hair-side of the vellum; does not match the Sforziad‟s fine and well-prepared support; Birago‟s illumination on the smooth skin-side) – The left-hand hatching (dry, timid and mechanical; on the outside of the contour of the profile, unlike in all other Leonardo‟s female portraits where it is on the inside) – The presence of only three single stitch holes (the Warsaw National Library‟s Sforziad has five double stitch holes) – The “knife marks” when the folio was cut off (unnecessary, if the folio has been removed during rebinding) – The retouchings of a later restorer (Marchig) – The fingerprint evidence (no longer valid) – The pentimenti in the same place as in Leonardo‟s Windsor portrait (a negative point, as La Bella Principessa could be based on that drawing). At this point I would like to discuss more scientific evidence presented in the book: On page 109: “The support is probably the fine-grained skin of a calf”. To the contrary, the images show an irregular, grainy surface with visible follicles. Both Cristina Geddo and Nicholas Turner, who nota bene support the attribution to Leonardo, described the vellum as “rough animal hide” and the surface of the vellum as “pitted”. “The portrait was drawn on the smooth „hair‟ side”. To the contrary, the hair-side has follicles so it is the rough side, not the smooth side. Contrary to Prof. Kemp‟s claim that I ignored Cristina Geddo‟s contributions, I quoted her (p. 76), and incidentally she wrote exactly the opposite than Cotte: “Besides the presence of the follicles, the rough unworked surface of the hide and its darkened, somewhat yellowish colour show that the portrait was made on the outer surface of the skin (formerly fur covered) and not on the inner one covering the flesh, which was aesthetically the superior of the two and commonly used as a support for written documents”. I quoted extensively from Cristina Geddo‟s article „A “Pastel” by Leonardo da Vinci: His Newly Discovered Portrait of a Young Woman in Profile‟, Artes, 2008–2009, pp. 67–87, on my pages 62, 76 and 88. On page 114: The discovered “small area of pen marks along the left edge of the support” was described by Cotte as Leonardo‟s “pen trials”. This would surely have no place in a drawing destined for a luxury book presented as a gift to the Sforzas. On page 154: There was a problem with the X-rays: “Because white chalk (calcite or calcium carbonate) does not absorb X-rays to any great extent, the luminous zones of the sitter‟s face ought to have appeared grey in the X-ray. On the contrary, however, they appear very white here, indicating the presence of a significant amount of dense material in the chalks area – which seems to contradict all the physical evidence considered so far.” Cotte attributed this anomaly to the technician over-exposing the plate (could it be the presence of lead white?). This certainly confirms his observation that X-rays “are vulnerable to diverse interpretation”. [MK] “2) Provenance” [KP] I did not say anywhere in the text that the Marchigs (his wife was Polish) were involved in forgery of any description. What I did say was that Giannino was familiar with Leonardo‟s technique as a restorer and a “Leonardesque painter”. He was probably able to make such a drawing if he had wanted to, but as he had not tried to sell La Bella Principessa as a work by Leonardo, there was no forgery. Prof. Kemp does not explain, however, why the drawing had no provenance prior to Marchig‟s ownership, and, as my colleague Michael Daley has pointed out, both Kemp and the drawing‟s owner, Peter Silverman jointly searched Berenson‟s archive in hope of finding some pre-Marchig record but found none. [MK] “3) The assertion that there is an „almost total absence of close comparisons with unimpeachable works by Leonardo.‟” [KP] The phrase above was quoted from David źkserdjian‟s article “Leonardo da Vinci: „La Bella Principessa‟ – The Profile Portrait of a Milanese Woman”, The Burlington Magazine, vol. 152, 2010, no. 1287, June (Attributions, copies, fakes), pp. 420–421. I used the same Leonardo comparisons as Kemp, but where he saw striking similarities, I saw possible imitation. As to Cecilia Gallerani, although the structure of the eye looks comparable, it is round, soft and alive in Leonardo‟s portrait, and dry, linear and lifeless in La Bella Principessa. The iris is drawn as a flat disc and the eyelid is marked with clear cut lines, unlike in nature. Cotte wrote on p. 177: “Leonardo, for example, consistently made the bottom of the eye‟s iris coincide exactly with the edge of the lower eyelid”. This is not always the case. In Portrait of a Woman in Windsor or in La Belle Ferronnière the iris does not touch the lower eyelid, while in some works by Leonardo‟s followers it does. [MK] “4) The lack of records of Leonardo making the drawing” [KP] Martin Kemp wrote that all Leonardo‟s known works are “unrecorded in his writings”. Leonardo does in fact mention two Madonnas in a sheet of sketches (Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degi Uffizi, Żlorence, 446 ź) inscribed: “…1478, I began the two Virgin Marys”, possibly referring to the Benois Madonna in St. Petersburg. He also mentions in a note his sculpture of the Sforza Horse (Ms. C, fol. 15v; R 720; B 44; V 53). And in an undated letter (about 1491-95), he writes together with De Predis about being underpaid for the Virgin of the Rocks. The 16th century record in the Zamoyski collections Kemp refers to applies only to the Sforziad, not to the drawing, which was never recorded there. [MK] “5) „The entirely unusual for Leonardo medium of vellum commonly found in manuscripts led Prof. Kemp and his colleagues, including David Wright, Emeritus Professor of Art History at the University of South Florida, to search fifteenth-century codices for an excised illumination.” [KP] Kemp writes that “the author‟s narrative of an extensive search is imaginary.” Yet Dalya Alberge wrote in her article “Is this portrait a lost Leonardo?” in The Guardian, on 27 September 2011: “źarlier this year, he [Kemp] embarked on what he describes as a „needle-in-a-haystack‟ search for a 15th-century volume with a missing sheet. […] Against the odds, Kemp tracked the volume down, to Poland‟s National Library in Warsaw.” [MK] “6) Forging a Leonardo? “The study of antique art led him [Marchig] to make numerous trips to Spain and London and then return to his studio overlooking the Arno in Florence, where he is remembered for being a Leonardesque painter, in reference to the style of Leonardo da Vinci” [KP] This is a direct quotation from an exhibition catalogue Giannino Marchig: paintings, drawings, engravings, Florence, Gabinetto disegni e stampe degli Uffizi, 12 March – 5 June 1994 (English ed.). The only time I used the word „forgery‟ in my article was in this context (p. 78): “It is worth noting that the drawing‟s vellum was C­14 dated rather widely 1440–1650, which according to Kemp „greatly diminishes the possibility of the portrait being a clever forgery‟. I would like to disagree with this opinion, as a blank folio removed from a period (dated) manuscript would be the perfect material for making a forgery or an imitation.” To be clear, I only said that “we have to accept the possibility that La Bella Principessa could be a skilful compilation of various portraits by Leonardo (two in the Louvre, one in Windsor) and other artists (de Predis), as well as a sculpted bust by Gian Cristoforo Romano, also in the Louvre.” [MK] “7) Pisarek‟s reliance on Julia Cartwright” Cartwright‟s work is the only one specifically on Bianca Giovanna Sforza I could find in the English language, and she plausibly identified Bianca in Portrait of a Woman by Ambrogio de Predis in the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan. Cartwright‟s identification of The Portrait of a Musician as the portrait of Galeazzo Sanseverino, Bianca‟s husband, appears reasonably convincing. The companion portrait in the Ambrosiana could then be showing his wife Bianca, but she looks very different to La Bella Principessa. Also Professor Carlo Pedretti called the Ambrosiana portrait “a probable portrait of Bianca Giovanna, the illegitimate daughter of Żrancesco Sforza” in his Leonardo: The Portrait, 1999, (p. 23). As there are no secure portraits of Bianca Giovanna, the Principessa hypothesis is not supported by any evidence either. [MK] “8) Bianca Maria Sforza and earlier scholarship” Even if the identification with Bianca Maria Sforza and the earlier dating of the drawing „pre- dates the research into the Sforziad‟, as stated by Kemp, we still have the problem of the too „archaic‟ style for the dating in the 1490s. Prof. Kemp suggested the date c. 1494–1496, while Prof. Vezzosi and Nicholas Turner proposed the much earlier date c. 1481–1482, because of the rigid style of the drawing, which date would exclude Bianca Giovanna as the sitter. Kemp does not explain why Vezzosi and Turner identified La Bella Principessa as Bianca Maria Sforza, even if she looks so different to her other known likenesses. [MK] “9) Cutting out the portrait from the Sforziad in Warsaw” [KP] There is no evidence that the folio was ever in the Sforziad and was removed during rebinding. But if it were so, there would be no need to cut out the folio so roughly (the knife had slipped), only to remove it as a complete sheet. A complete sheet (two folios) is indeed missing in the book, which would eliminate the need for excision. If the folio had been removed during rebinding for its beauty or high value by the Zamoyski family, it would have been recorded in their collections, but there are no such records. Kasia Wo niak‟s research has not found any evidence to this effect. Her hypothesis that the drawing went to the Czartoryski collections in Puławy where it was identified as by Leonardo is also so far unsubstantiated. There were no such records in the Czartoryski collections. The late Director of the Czartoryski Museum, Prof. ygulski Jr. never mentioned the existence of a Leonardo drawing in their collections. The Bona Sforza drawing listed in the 1815 inventory of the Temple of Sybil in Puławy and mentioned by Wo niak as the possibly misidentified Bianca Giovanna Sforza, refers to a miniature watercolour on vellum illustrated in D. Dec and J. Wałek‟s, Czasy! Ludzie! Ich dzieła! : teatr obrazów księżnej Izabeli Czartoryskiej : obrazy i miniatury z Domu Gotyckiego i Świątyni Sybilli w Puławach, Cracow, 20101, listed there as no. 99. „Polish, 16th century‟. There is no connection between my article in Artibus et Historiae and the interests of the National Library in Warsaw. [MK] “10) The foliation of the Sforziada and inserted paper pages” [KP] Prof. Kemp himself used the word “codex” to describe the Sforziad in his book Leonardo: Revised edition, 2011, p. 256: “this tender and refined formal portrait in ink and coloured chalks on vellum has been cut from a codex (a book), namely the copy of the Sforziada in Warsaw produced for Galeazzo Sanseverino.” The three folios missing in the Warsaw Sforziad were originally left blank, as in the other copies of the book in Paris or London. Cristina Geddo described the drawing‟s “apparent crudeness in the preparation of the parchment” and “the rough unworked surface of the hide” (A Pastel by Leonardo da Vinci… reprinted in P. Silverman, Leonardo’s Lost Princess, pp. 219-220). This is definitely not true of the Sforziad‟s parchment. I have seen the Sforziad on two occasions. Once in the summer 2012 and in March 2016; the parchment is whitish, finely grained and of high quality, as expected in a luxury book destined for the Sforzas. My illustrations Fig. 7, 10 and 11 show the same page, which is indeed an inserted paper page. It looks so similar to the vellum pages that a mistake was easily made. The Fig. 6 and Fig. 8 are vellum pages, and they also look very similar in colour and texture, and are quite different from La Bella Principessa vellum. Kemp states that I inaccurately said that his “reconstruction of the insertion of the drawing in the Warsaw Sforziad looks unrealistic, as it is facing a printed page”. He wrote that “The reconstruction shows that the portrait would have faced a blank page”. This is incorrect. His “Żig. 12 – „Hypothetical Reconstruction of La Bella Principessa as folio 6r” in the online article “La Bella Principessa and the Warsaw Sforziad” faces a printed page. [MK] “11) Iconography” [KP] According to Kemp, Bogdan Horodyski‟s pioneering research on the Sforziad I support “has been superseded in the light of more detailed knowledge of Sforza court iconography and analyses by later scholars, including Wright”. Horodyski suggested Gian Galeazzo Sforza and his offspring, such as Bona Sforza, the later owner of the book in Warsaw, as the recipient of the Sforziad. But according to D.R.E. Wright in his article on the Lumiere Technology website (which has now been removed), M. L. Evans, and E. McGrath, the Warsaw Sforziad was destined for Galeazzo Sanseverino, Bianca‟s husband. So why is Galeazzo Severino‟s profile absent on the Warsaw frontispiece by Birago, where Ludovico‟s is found in London and Gian Galeazzo‟s in Paris, the recipients of the other two other Sforziads? Moreover, Galeazzo Sanseverino was not part of the Sforza dynasty, and Bianca was illegitimate. All the precious copies of the Sforziad on vellum were dedicated to members of the Sforza family. Horodyski‟s reading of the symbolic content of the Birago frontispiece more logically points to the death of Gian Galeazzo: the lack of the recipient‟s profile as emblem; the missing figure of Gian Galeazzo in the boat with Ludovico il Moro; the tears in the handkerchief; the sarcophagus; the broken shield with the initials GZ; the crest with one half with arms of Milan and the other of Aragon for Gian Galeazzo. After my defence of Horodyski‟s interpretation, an Italian scholar Carla Glori published online a new detailed iconographic study of the illumination: The Illumination by Birago in the Sforziad incunabulum in Warsaw: in defence of Horodyski’s thesis and a new hypothesis. I am quoting her extensively below. She said: “The incunabula with the illuminations now in London and Żlorence were the property of Ludovico il Moro, given the recurrence of the central upper figure of a moor, and the presence of the ensign of the Duke of Bari with his devices called “la scopetta” (the little broom) and “I due fanali” (the two beacons). The Paris and Warsaw incunabula were the property of Duke Gian Galeazzo Sforza and his family, because they are reproducing the devices of Gian Galeazzo himself and of his father, Galeazzo Maria.” The sieve, which was said to be the emblem of Galeazzo Sanseverino, was Gian Galeazzo‟s personal device (created by his father) called “il buratto” (a sieve held by two hands) with the motto TAL A TI QUAL A MI, as illustrated by the “Cassone dei tre Duchi”, Sforza Castle, Milan,1479-1494. Glori added that the sieve device (“il buratto”) is duplicated in symmetrical position in the central area of the Warsaw illumination. She concluded that “the Warsaw illumination was dedicated to the memory of the deceased Gian Galeazzo Sforza and his family, and that it was certainly dated after his death (1494)”. Her argument against the Sanseverino coat of arms or imprese supposedly identified in the Birago‟s illumination includes: – The missing Aragonese “A” in the device of the “three intertwined rings with diamonds” appearing on the Warsaw illumination – The missing Sanseverino NOSTRO È IL MESTIERE motto – The fact that the hybrid coat of arms of the Warsaw illumination does not correspond to the coat of arms of the Sanseverino dynasty; it should be silver/white not gold/yellow. “źvery armorial certifies that the field (“campo”) of the Sanseverino coat of arms was “SILVźR” (white), while the field (“campo”) of the coat of arms in the illumination of Warsaw is “GOLD” (yellow)”. “According to Horodyski‟s logical and symbolical interpretation, the emblem is an artistic fusion of the traditional emblem of the city of Milan with the yellow and red lines of the Aragona coat of arms.” – The reference of the initials “GZ” (appearing in the ducal documents and iconography, also on the „Cassone dei Tre Duchi‟) to the memory of the deceased dukes Galeazzo Maria and Gian Galeazzo, not Galeazzo Sanseverino. – The absence of any reference to Galeazzo Sanseverino and his biography such as the tournament lance of the famous jouster, while the ducal arms on the “Cassone dei Tre Duchi” are present: the round shield, the quiver with arrows and the sword. The depicted starry armour on the left is not the typical armour of a jouster. It is empty as Gian Galeazzo is dead, and it is almost identical to the one worn by him in the Paris illumination. – The presence of a body of heraldic devices celebrating the Visconti-Sforza dynasty and referable in particular to Galeazzo Maria Sforza and his son Gian Galeazzo such as the greyhound/the tree/the divine hand (Żrancesco Sforza); the “capitergium” device (a bandage with a knot) dedicated to Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of Milan, celebrating the Visconti dynasty; the rising waves (“onde montanti”); the three intertwined rings with diamonds (“i tre anelli intrecciati con diamante), by Muzio Attendolo, the founder of the Sforza dynasty: it was probably given to him in 1409 by the Marquis of Ferrara Niccolò II d‟źste after the conquest of Reggio źmilia. They are not emblems of Bianca Giovanna as was advanced, but of members of the Sforza family in general. According to Glori, “we have no evidence that the incunabulum now in Warsaw was confiscated in Milan during the French invasion. In 1517 Antonio de Beatis saw some precious incunabula in the Royal Library of Blois, but he did not cite the Sforziad as being amongst them in his autograph manuscript XF28 of the National Library in Naples. It is plausible that the incunabulum now in Warsaw was a wedding gift to Bona Sforza from her mother Isabella; I propose also the hypothesis that she received the gift from her aunt Caterina Sforza, probably when she left Milan with Isabella after the downfall of Ludovico il Moro.” [MK] “12) Betrothal and Marriage” [KP] Although the word „betrothal‟ might have been more appropriate than „marriage‟ in the case of Bianca Sforza, others also wrote that her „wedding‟ (or nuptials) took place in 1490 or late 1489. Julia Cartwright in her Italian Gardens of the Renaissance and Other Studies, 1914, (reprint 2013) wrote p. 174: “On the 10th of January, 1490, the wedding [of Bianca and Galeazzo] was solemnised in due splendour in the Castello of Milan (…)”. Edward McCurdy in The Mind of Leonardo da Vinci, New York, 2013, wrote “Bianca Sforza, a natural daughter of Ludovic who in 1489, while still a child, was married to the famous captain Galeazzo di Sanseverino.” p. 301. Wikipedia entry for Galeazzo Sanseverino also says “He was married to Bianca, illegitimate daughter of Ludovico Sforza, in 1489.” [MK] “13) The Technique” [KP] It was Prof. Kemp himself who said that Leonardo never worked on vellum in his book on La Bella Principessa; The Story of the New Masterpiece… p. 35: “There are no other known works by Leonardo on vellum, but there is previously neglected evidence of his interest in making coloured images on prepared animal skin.” Nicholas Turner also wrote in his online Statement concerning the portrait on vellum by Leonardo, p. 3: „Also apparently unprecedented [for Leonardo] is the use of vellum or parchment as a support for the new portrait.‟ Cristina Geddo also wrote: “The use of parchment was until now unknown in the work of Leonardo (…)”, in P. Silverman, Leonardo’s… p. 226. In reference to Jean Perréal and dry colouring, the quotation in full is as follows: “Piglia da Gian de Paris il modo di colorire a secco e‟l modo del sale bianco e del fare le carte impastate, sole e in molti doppi, e la sua casetta de‟colori”. The translation for carte impastate as „paste-board‟ is not anachronistic, as it was used as early as 1760 in Joseph Baretti‟s A dictionary of the English and Italian languages, Vol. 1: “Cartone [composto di piu carte impastate insieme] paste-board.” I have only inspected the vellum of the Sforziad in Warsaw, not the vellum of the drawing, but both Geddo and Turner have described it as “rough animal hide”. This is most certainly not what you will find in the Sforziad in Warsaw. [MK] “14) Dimensions” [KP] According to Kemp and Cotte, the dimensions of the vellum pages of the Sforziad vary from 33.0 to 33.4 cm in height, while the drawing is 33 cm high. I have carefully checked the dimensions with the Librarian in March 2016. All the pages are at least 33.4 cm high and more, up to 33.7 cm. The size of 33 cm would be too small for the book. What I discovered in 2016 is that the 5 holes in the book are in fact all double holes. Each of the 5 holes is two small holes, between which a string passes. The distance between the two small holes is about 3 mm. These double holes were never mentioned by Kemp or Cotte. According to the conservator who was present at the time of my last visit, this is the binding that follows the original binding, as there is no damage of any kind. So in total there were as many as 10 small holes, not 3 single ones as in the drawing. I measured the distances between the 3 holes that Kemp and Cotte measured in La Bella Principessa. The measurements were taken from the middle of the double holes. The distance between the bottom hole and the middle hole is 11.35 cm in the Sforziad, while in the drawing it is 11.06 cm. The distance between the middle hole and the top hole is 11.7 cm in the Sforziad, while in the drawing it is 11.44 cm. [MK] “15) The profile and the cartoon portrait of Isabella d‟Este” Fig. 1. A comparison of La Bella Principessa with Leonardo da Vinci‟s Portrait of Isabella d’Este, c. 1499–1500, Paris, Musée du Louvre. [KP] The portrait of Isabella d‟źste shows the face in profile but the body in three-quarter view, unlike La Bella Principessa. The former is also unfinished, rendered softly with the sfumato effect, fluid in execution, while the shading is on the inside of the profile. La Bella Principessa is shown in full profile with an unusually long neck, highly finished, straight, rigid and linear, while the rather timid shading is on the outside of the profile. The similarities between the two profiles are only superficial. The use of the word „repaint‟ was an incorrect translation of the Żrench word „repentir‟, which means pentimento. I would like to mention that I have a good grasp of drawing techniques as I also trained as a copyist of old master paintings and art restorer in Paris. [MK] “16) Left-handedness” [KP] I disagree that “the left-handed execution cannot undermine the attribution”, as it indicates the intention to imitate Leonardo. None of his collaborators or followers was left- handed so the drawing is either by him or by an imitator/forger. [MK] “17) The costume” [KP] The simplified and flatly rendered dress as well as the coazzone hairstyle show similarities with the sculpted busts by Gian Cristoforo Romano (Bust of Beatrice d’Este) and Francesco Laurana. But this could be a negative point, as the drawing could be based on some of these busts. Incidentally, the opening in Laurana‟s sculptures differs from that in La Bella Principessa. In the former it is a wide horizontal cut facilitating the movement of the arm, while in the drawing it is a triangular hole, which does not seem to play such a role. Fig. 2. Clockwise from left: Leonardo da Vinci, Head of a Woman, c. 1488–1490, National Gallery, Parma; Gian Cristoforo Romano‟s sculpture, Bust of Beatrice d’Este, c. 1491, Paris, Louvre; Leonardo, Portrait of a Woman in Profile, c. 1489–1490, Windsor .  Fig. 3: Gian Cristoforo Romano, Bust of Beatrice d’Este, c. 1491, Paris, Louvre What was not mentioned is that the knot on the sleeve of La Bella Principessa differs from other knots in Leonardo‟s paintings and drawings. The closest match can be found in the sleeve of the Beatrice d‟źste sculpted bust by Romano. Fig. 4: A comparison of the knots on La Bella Principessa’s dress and Gian Cristoforo Romano‟s Bust of Beatrice d’Este, c. 1491. [MK] “18) The fingerprint” [KP] The fingerprint evidence which was originally published in the book as “strongly supportive of Leonardo‟s authorship” is now considered invalid. It was not possible to compare the palm imprint to Leonardo‟s other examples, and it was described as perhaps unintentional as it is single and isolated, unlike in the execution of Cecilia Gallerani, where many imprints were found where the blending of hues had taken place. [MK] “19) On Method” [KP] The “accumulative build-up of different types of evidence” against the attribution to Leonardo is also strong. The main arguments against Leonardo‟s authorship were not addressed by Prof. Kemp in his reply. Her are some of the points in question: Why is the shading/hatching on the outside of the profile unlike that in other Leonardo portraits of women where it is on the inside? Why is the hatching so timid and mechanical and only to the front of the face? Why is the portrait in full profile if in other female portraits by Leonardo the face is in profile but the body is in three-quarter view? What is the significance of the hand writing on the reverse of the drawing and why was it not investigated? Why are there pen marks (“pen trials”) on the vellum if the drawing was to be inserted in a prestigious book destined for the Sforzas? Why is the vellum of the drawing, described as yellowish “rough animal hide”, said to match the whitish, smooth and well-prepared vellum of the Sforziad? How a drawing executed on a “rough animal hide” could be part of the luxury book of the Sforziad? Why are there only three single stitch holes in the drawing‟s vellum if there are five double holes in the binding of the Sforziad? Why was the folio roughly cut off with a knife if the drawing was said to be removed during rebinding? Why was the drawing executed on the rougher hair-side of the hide? Why is the size of the drawing smaller that the pages of the Sforziad if the drawing was untrimmed? Why is the neck so unusually long and the nose so short? Why is the costume so schematic? Why La Bella Principessa looks so similar to the sculptural Bust of Beatrice d’Este by Cristoforo Romano? Why the knot on the girl‟s dress is so similar to the knot on the bust of Beatrice and unlike other Leonardo‟s knots? Why the style of the drawing is so „archaic‟ and rigid if the proposed date is c. 1495-96? Why didn‟t Marchig‟s friends, the illustrious art experts Bernard Berenson and Roberto Longhi, attribute the drawing to Leonardo? Why is there no provenance that could be established for the drawing prior to Marchig‟s ownership in the 1950s? In the field of attributions the level of inconsistencies and contradictions always undermine any evidence in favour of a proposed attribution. [MK] “20) The damaging allegation in the opening to Pisarek‟s article that the owner was to set up „non-profit-making foundation for multi-disciplinary Classical and Renaissance studies near Florence, to be headed by Professor Martin Kemp‟.” [KP] I made no such allegation. This was a direct quotation from an article by Simon Hewitt who nota bene supports the attribution to Leonardo. This information was published in an Antiques Trade Gazette in 2009. The article can be found here. In my article I wrote instead p. 64: “Prof. Kemp and his colleagues are no doubt genuinely convinced of the authenticity of the drawing, as well as highly enthusiastic about the rediscovery.” This shows that I in no way question Prof. Kemp‟s integrity on this matter, only the methodology and the results of the proposed attribution.