After making the above comparative study, we are not willing to accept the statement of Amador de los Ríos, so emphatically repeated by Givanel Mas, that the feats of Roger de Flor form the principal source of the Catalan book of chivalry. Nor will we accept the opinion of Denk that _Tirant lo Blanch_ represents nothing else but the figure of Roger de Flor reproduced in the form of a novel. To the conservative statement of Menéndez y Pelayo we shall offer no serious objections, for the latter part of _Tirant lo Blanch_ does bear the stamp of a kind of historical novel in which the heroic expedition of the Catalans and Aragonese and the tragic fate of Roger de Flor is more or less faithfully reflected. But we feel that the resemblance between Roger de Flor and Tirant lo Blanch and their military enterprises is so slight that even his statement must be qualified as misleading. However, had he stated that Tirant’s activities at Constantinople had a true historical basis, and that basis was Roger de Flor’s expedition to the Orient, we should most heartily indorse that statement.
If we have objected to the intimations and declarations that this book of chivalry is a historical novel based on the exploits of Roger de Flor, it is due to the fact that the real deeds of that hero play a very insignificant part in it. Roger de Flor was a brave commander with a remarkable genius for organizing his forces, and for planning campaigns. Muntaner does not describe him a single time as fighting hand to hand in a battle with the enemy. The historical Roger de Flor probably would not have created enough interest and enthusiasm. Moreover, in Tirant’s adventures and fights on the sea, whenever some extraordinary naval strategy was necessary, the credit for it is not given to Tirant, but to some member of the crew who is usually described as an experienced seaman. And yet Roger de Flor was so efficient a sea captain that the officers of the Temple intrusted him with their largest ship. If the author had intended to represent him, surely he would not have denied him the honor of those exploits. It is obvious that he did not regard his hero as an experienced mariner. The hero he had in mind was a knight whose duty called him to the battlefield. Tirant lo Blanch bears a far stronger resemblance to Guy of Warwick than to Roger de Flor. The striking points of similarity of these characters have already been noted. In addition to these points, we may briefly add that Tirant’s religious zeal; his generosity; his refusal to accept rewards; his fighting in tournaments, in personal combats, and on the field of battle; and his love—debased unfortunately—are qualities that are not mentioned in connection with Roger de Flor, but they are all in accord with the career of Guy of Warwick. Such being the case, would it not be far more accurate to say that _Guy of Warwick_ is the principal source? The very beginning of _Tirant lo Blanch_ indicates that its author was intimately acquainted with the English romance. Is it not probable that Guy of Warwick’s activities at Constantinople reminded Martorell of Roger de Flor’s heroic services to the emperor of that same city, whereupon he selected that historical event as a background for a certain part of the career of his hero? It must be remembered that Martorell knew well the exploits of the brave and adventurous soldiers of the Catalan-Aragonese expedition. His conception of military heroism was in great part based on the history, traditional or written, of his people. The spirit that animated its heroes became a part of him, and consequently it was but natural that that spirit should find expression in a literary production in which a military hero is portrayed.