An argument can be made for the world’s most famous painting being a portrait of Caterina Sforza …

Mrs Soest has, so to speak, excessively furnished her thesis with proof; let me cite some of her topics in a very rough outline: the mark of Caterina’s origin, that is the Sforza and Medici emblems, in the embroidery of “Mona Lisa’s” dress; numerous contacts of Caterina’s biography with Leonardo’s; various statements in Leonardo’s manuscripts referring to Caterina; de Beatis’ note narrowing Leonardo’s sitter down to Caterina; “Mona Lisa” bearing a strong resemblance to Lorenzo di Credi’s “Caterina Sforza”; and everything else falling into place – the mourning dress, the lack of jewelry, the lifeless landscape, the fact that the painting wasn’t handed over to a patron …

Indeed, Mrs Soest’s arguments are consistent with the contents of the painting and with its history. Not to mention a psychological element: Caterina Sforza, Italy’s legendary virago, was a ‘male’ and enigmatic character – and so is “Mona Lisa”.

Soest’s thesis, first published in 2002, has meanwhile made other scholars change their ideas. For example, Prof. Carlo Pedretti, the originator of the ‘Pacifica Brandani thesis’ (ed. 1957, 1959) and famous for his studies in Leonardo’s work, pays attention to Soest’s proof of the ‘sovrapponibilita dei lineamenti’ in Leonardo’s “Mona Lisa” and Lorenzo’s “Caterina Sforza”, and a “Mona Lisa” sitter named Caterina Sforza seems to be a possibility to Pedretti now; and Prof. Ernesto Solari – while holding Soest’s thesis in high esteem: “Mi sembra piu convincente invece l’ipotesi di Magdalena Soest …” – ca. between 2006 and 2009 took the view that some Bianca Sforza was “Mona Lisa”, but then distanced himself from that thesis of his – to adopt Soest’s.