and the revolting plan by which Viuda Reposada succeeded in making Tirant believe that Carmesina was unfaithful. But we may be doing the author a grave injustice. Possibly these immoral scenes were intended to have a moral effect. It may have been the purpose of Martorell to disgust the readers with these scenes. Possibly it was a protest against the immoral conditions that prevailed in his time.
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
