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
