was engraved by E. Sadler. Ridolfi, in 1648. There are several copies and versions of the painting, one of which (generally thought to be the autograph version) was sent in 1599 from Cesare d'Este to Rudolph II, Holy Roman Emperor in Prague. In 1649, it was in the collection of Christina of Sweden, who brought it to Rome in 1654. It then passed into the collections of Decio Azzolino, then in 1686 of prince Odescalchi, then in 1721 Philip of Orleans. In 1800, it was in an English collection and in 1876, it was in the Cook collection before arriving in the Kisters collection in Kreuzlingen. Authenticity and Restoration It was thought a total of 6 copies survived around the world and it was possible that the original could have been swapped out at any time during its many exchanges through hands. One duplicate is said to be produced Ludovico Carracci. It was commonly thought that the Kreuzlingen painting was one of many copies painted after the original, but after a restoration in the United States, an authentic signature was discovered and it was determined that this was in fact the autograph work. Marriage Authentication Controversy The portrait was used as evidence to the courts in the 1640s by Francesco I d’Este, the great-great grandchild of Alfonso I d’Este and Laura Dianti through their son, also named Alfonso. Although it would have been allowed by the Church, there was no written record at the time that Duke of Ferrara took Laura as his third wife after the death of his second, Lucrezia Borgia. This painting was used as a point of contention by the Este House who argued against the legitimacy of their relationship. Their argument was based on Issues pertaining to her manner of dress and the treatment of the portrait. The estate argued that Laura’s clothes suggested lustful implications that were not compatible with other portraits of wives within the family. They also argued that the two were not wed because Laura’s portrait was not displayed among the other portraits of wives of the family which were kept in Ferrara. Francesco’s counter-argument was that because the painting was done before their marriage, it should not be counted as evidence against the event occurring and that it was the family’s refusal to recognize the marriage that caused the portrait to be displayed elsewhere, not Alfonso I. Iconography African Page