tion that exalts the Aragónese in their Italian campaign
at the naval battle of Ponza, represents the culmination
of López de Mendoza’s allegorical works. It is built
upon a complicated image pattern developed through
the use of highly learned language and allusion. Bías
contra Fortuna, written in 1448 as a consolation to mark
the political imprisonment of a cousin by don Álvaro
de Luna, marks the climax of the theme of Fortune in
his work. In contradistinction to the diffi cult allegory
of the Comedieta, Bías, the Greek philosopher who is
the spokesperson for Santillana, makes his views on
Fortune and the world clearly known. The Doctrinal
reveals a fi nal vindictive side of López de Mendoza’s
character, in which he employs Fortune and confession
to make Álvaro de Luna, his dead enemy, denounce his
own transgressions.
When López de Mendoza died in 1458, the event
inspired his contemporaries to write a number of elegies
and other literary compositions to mourn his passing.
See also Boccaccio, Giovanni; Dante Alighieri;
Guzmán, Domingo de; Petrarca, Francesco
Further Reading
Lapesa, R. La obra literaria del Marqués de Santillana. Madrid,
1959.
Nader, H. The Mendoza Family in the Spanish Renaissance,
1350–1550. Rutgers, N.J., 1979.
Schiff, M. La bibliothèque du marquis de Santillane. Paris,
1905.
E. Michael Gerli
LORENZETTI, PIETRO
(c. 1280–1348) AND AMBROGIO
(c. 1290–1348)
The brothers Pietro Lorenzetti and Ambrogio Lorenzetti
were Sienese painters; they represent two of the most
radical and innovative forces in Trecento art. Pietro and
Lorenzetti were probably pupils of Duccio, and they
both enlarged on the study of narrative and pictorial
realism common to Sienese and Florentine art at this
time. Their art manifests an interesting admixture of the
styles of both schools, combining Sienese sensitivity to
color and line with Florentine monumentality.
Relatively few documents regarding the life or artistic
activity of either Pietro or Ambrogio have come down
to us. Although Lorenzo Ghiberti, in the fi rst written
account of Ambrogio, provides a long and enthusiastic
discussion of his work (Commentarii, c. 1450), he never
mentions Pietro in his survey of Sienese artists. Vasari
(Lives, 1568) did not even realize that the two artists
were brothers; he misidentifed one of them as Pietro
Laurati. Reconstruction of their careers has understand-
ably proved to be diffi cult, especially because some
of their most celebrated compositions have been lost.
Although the brothers worked quite independently of
each another, some commissions appear to have been
joint undertakings, and the intensity of each brother’s
exploration of pictorial realism suggests a greater degree
of contact and collaboration between the two than we
now suppose.
Pietro, traditionally considered the elder brother, has
usually been overlooked in comparison with Ambrogio,
who has a greater reputation for invention. However,
Pietro’s own brilliant technical innovation is shown as
early as his fi rst documented work, a polyptych painted
for the high altar of rhe parish church of Santa Maria in
Arezzo (1320). In one portion of the Arezzo Polyptych,
the frame is treated as if it were contiguous with the
architecture of the painted narrative, so that the pilasters
and arches framing the Annunciation are seen as support-
ing elements for the front wall of Mary’s chamber. The
space of this room is seen logically as extending back
from the supporting columns and arches on the surface,
creating an illusion of a box of space extending beyond
the frame. This was an advance in a direct line with the
development of one-point perspective a century later,
and it was an idea to which Pietro would subsequently
return even more daringly. Analysis of Pietro’s forms
in the Arezzo Polyptych reveals a mélange of stylistic
sources infl uencing his art. In the central panel of the
Madonna and Child especially, the Madonna exhibits
a graceful sway and pattern indebted to Duccio; the
pronounced twist of her neck recalls Giovanni Pisano’s
sculptures for the facade of the cathedral in Siena; and
her fi rm support of the child’s solidly rounded body
echoes Giotto’s massive forms.
Important pictorial features are found in Pietro’s most
extensive surviving work, the frescoes in the left transept
of the lower basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. These
narrate the Passion and Resurrection of Christ and the
Stigmatization of Saint Francis; and there is an unusual
section of trompe l’oeil depictions of chapel furnishings,
including an unoccupied pew, a fi ctive altarpiece, and
a niche containing liturgical objects. These frescoes
are undocumented, and their dating has provoked con-
troversy, but most scholars place them c. 1320. Many
scenes, such as the Entry into Jerusalem and the epic
Crucifi xion, continue the Sienese tradition of sensitivity
to color and love of profusion, but they are characterized
by an unprecedented wealth of observation. The Last
Supper, for example, deftly juxtaposes three distinct
types of light in a confrontation of the mundane and the
divine. A remarkably detailed night sky, the fi rst por-
trayal of its kind, meticulously differentiates the light of
the moon, stars, and meteors streaking across the heav-
ens above the structure containing the main scene. This
natural light is contrasted with the artifi cial light of the
hearth fi re in the kitchen, which casts the fi rst shadowsLÓPEZ DE MENDOZA, IÑIGO