CHAPTER V

OTHER MATERIAL FROM GUY OF WARWICK

But let us now return to the English romance, for it contains other features that have been reproduced or at least utilized in the composition of the Catalan book of chivalry. The Auchinleck MS. contains a kind of sequel to _Guy of Warwick_, which bears the title, _Reinbrun, Gij sone of Warwicke_. In this sequel we are told that Reinbrun was stolen by foreign merchants. Heraud, the faithful companion of Guy before the latter’s pilgrimage, went in search of the lad, and while he was on his way to Constantinople a tempest drove to the shores of Africa the ship on which he was making the voyage. There the Saracens seized him and brought him before Emir Persan, who ordered him to be thrown into prison. In a doleful lament Heraud spoke of himself as a doughty knight, and this was overheard by a keeper, who reported it to the emir. Now it happened that at that very time King Argus was making war upon Persan, and had captured all his possessions except the very city in which Heraud was held a prisoner. The emir sent for Heraud and asked him to assist in the defense of the city. His request was granted, and in the first battle with the enemy he fought so skillfully and so valiantly that Persan rewarded him by making him his steward.

The reader will readily see the striking resemblance between this incident and that part of the analysis which deals with the shipwreck of Tirant on the shores of Barbary. Tirant, like Heraud, was driven by a tempest to the hostile shores of Africa, cast into prison, released therefrom because of his fighting abilities, and practically became the leader of an army which was on the defensive. This incident Martorell then developed, and Tirant finally became the conqueror of Barbary.

In the analysis we have told how Tirant went to Jerusalem and from there to Alexandria, where he ransomed Christian captives. It seems probable that this incident is based upon the following narrative of the English romance. Guy of Warwick made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and from there he went to Antioch. Here he met a pilgrim who was in great distress. It was Earl Jonas of Darras, who related to Guy how he, his fifteen sons, and others had fought a body of Saracens and had defeated them. They pursued them as far as Alexandria, when suddenly a strong band of the enemy attacked him and his men, and after a heroic but useless fight he was compelled to surrender.

To the king we yolden ous al and some That we might to ransoum come, To save our lives ichon.[52]

[52] Auchinleck MS., p. 422.

And thus they fell into the hands of Triamour, King of Alexandria. Earl Jonas then told how the sultan held a great festival which was attended by this king and his son, Fabour. The latter killed the son of the sultan over a game of chess. The sultan promised the king that if he should engage in combat with the black giant, Amoraunt, and slay him, both he and his son should go unpunished. Triamour asked for a respite in order that he might find a substitute, and it was granted. He asked his prisoner, Earl Jonas, if he knew any one who might be able to slay the giant. The names of Guy and Heraud were mentioned. The king then sent him in quest of these knights, promising him that if he should be able to bring either one of them, he and his fifteen sons should regain their liberty, but if, on the other hand, he returned without Guy or Heraud, they should all be hanged. Jonas had made a diligent search for the English knights, not only on the continent, but even in England. Alas! it was all in vain. The period of the respite was one year and forty days, and the end of the term was near. Guy, without revealing his identity, offered to undertake the fight with the giant. They went to Alexandria and Guy was presented to the king as a pilgrim who was willing to meet the black giant in mortal combat. In response to the king’s invocation, “Mahoun me helpe and turmegaunte,” Guy replied:

“Nay, but Mary is sonne, That for us on the rode was done: He be myn helpe for his mercye;

................................

For I the sey well sikerlye That Mahoun hath no poweste Nother to helpe the ne me.” Quod the kyng, my frende so dere, I wyll make a covenaunte here. If thou myght the Geaunte sloo, And bring me out of my woo, Thi god for the love of the Grete honour shall haue of me.

All crysten that I haue taken here Shall be delyuered with good chere. In all my lond of Alexaundre Men shall not the Crysten dere. There shall be none in hethenes, Man ne woman more ne lesse, That is of crystiante But he here shall delyuered be.[53]

[53] Caius MS., p. 451.

The combat took place at the sultan’s court. When Guy beheld the horrible giant, he declared that it was the devil and no man. After a long and fierce fight, Guy cut off his adversary’s right arm, then his left, and finally his head. Let the reader note the following coincidences: Guy and Tirant both made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; from there they came to Alexandria; the ransom of prisoners is mentioned in _Guy of Warwick_, and the ransom of captives is a fact in _Tirant lo Blanch_. Martorell did not reproduce this story, but he seems to have retained the words Jerusalem, Alexandria, and ransom of Christians, and from these he developed his own story. In the lines quoted above, Guy’s fervent religious spirit is brought into prominence, and at the same time a struggle for supremacy between the Christian and the Mohammedan religions is suggested. In _Tirant lo Blanch_ also, the hero is filled with religious zeal and fervor, and under his leadership Christianity triumphs in all Barbary.

We have pointed out above the more important points of resemblance in _Guy of Warwick_ and _Tirant lo Blanch_. Let us now mention a few of the minor ones.

In the English romance, the following words are spoken of Felice:

She was therto curteys and free ywys, And in the .vii. arts well learned withoute mys. All the .vii. artis she kouthe well, Noon better that euere man herde tell.[54]

[54] Caius MS., p. 7.

In _Tirant lo Blanch_ the empress confesses that she cannot argue as well as Carmesina, “per yo no hauer studiat les liberals arts com ma filla.”[55]

[55] ... because I have not studied the liberal arts as my daughter has. _Tirant lo Blanch_, chap. clxxxii, col. 2.

When Guy made his confession of love to Felice, he said:

Bot thou haue mercy on me, Myself y shall for sorwe slee.[56]

[56] Caius MS., p. 23.

When Tirant made his confession to the princess, he said: “puix lo meu cor ha tant fallit que es stat causador de tant agreujar la vostra singular persona e percaçar tant de mal per a mi, ab la mia ma plena de cruel vengança ans que lo sol haja passat los columnes de Hercules yol partire en dues parts....”[57]

[57] ... since my heart has been so delinquent that it has been the cause of afflicting so grievously your excellent personage and producing so much pain through me, with my hand full of cruel vengeance I shall cut it in two before the sun has passed the columns of Hercules. _Tirant lo Blanch_, chap. cxxix, col. 3.

In _Guy of Warwick_, Oisel beholds her betrothed, Tirri, lying before her as if dead, and in her despair she utters these words:

A, leman Tirri, In wroched time mi bodi thou say, When thou shalt for me day. Dye ich-il forth with the: For sorwe lives no may y be. Bot y may dye ichil me quelle: Len to libbe is nought mi wille.[58]

[58] Auchinleck MS., p. 278.

Let us compare with these lines the words of Carmesina, while lamenting over the lifeless body of Tirant:

Puix la fortuna ha ordenat, e vol que axi sia, los meus ulls no deuen james alegrarse, sino que vull anar a cercar lanima de aquell qui solia esser meu Tirant en los lochs benaventurats hon reposa la sua anima si trobar la pore: e certament ab tu vull fer companyia en la mort.[59]

[59] Since fortune has ordained and wills it so, my eyes will never more be gladdened, but I will go to seek the soul of him who used to be my Tirant in the blissful places where his soul reposes if I can find it: and indeed I wish to be thy companion in death. _Tirant lo Blanch_, chap. cccclxxiii, col. 2.

And in another lamentation she utters these words: “Si la sperança de morir nom detingues, yom mataria.”[60]

[60] ... if the hope of dying did not deter me, I should kill myself. _Ibid._, chap. cccclxxv, col. 1.

In the analysis we have observed how Carmesina pleaded with Tirant not to permit his amorous nature to interfere with his martial spirit. In the English romance, Felice justifies her attitude towards Guy in the following manner:

And if y the had mi loue yiue And wille it the whiles y liue Sleuthe wolde the so oercome, That thou woldest nomore armes doon, Ne come in turnement nor in fighte. So amorous thou wolde bee anone righte.[61]

[61] Caius MS., p. 65.

We have described in the analysis the scene in which Carmesina throws herself on the corpse of Tirant. Let us compare with it the following lines which picture to us the grief of Felice at Guy’s death.

She sowned on her lordys bere, And kyst hys mouth with wepying chere. Hys fete, hys hondys she kyssed then, So dyd many an other man. All that with her commyn were Mad mornying and sorry chere.[62]

[62] _Ibid._, p. 621.

The love story in _Tirant lo Blanch_ forms an important part of the book. Surely the origin of this feature cannot be attributed to the career of Roger de Flor. On the contrary, the above comparative study presents strong evidence that the love affair between Tirant and Carmesina was developed by Martorell from elements drawn from _Guy of Warwick_. But unfortunately the author ascribed to the Capita Major so passionate a nature that in some of the love scenes we are disgusted at the actions of the protagonist. The character of Tirant is admirable in almost all respects, but in the pursuit of his immoral desires it is detestable. In our amazement and disappointment we ask ourselves why the author endowed his hero with such low and immoral cravings. Tirant’s conduct towards the princess reminds us of a passage in the English romance wherein the treacherous steward, Morgadour, falsely accuses Guy of having dishonored the daughter of the Emperor of Constantinople. The passage reads as follows:

Sir, quoth he, y shall the telle: Thy shame noo lenger couere y nelle. A souldiour thou hast with the, That thinketh for to shende the. Thy doughter, that so fair is, He hath leyn by, ywis. In-to hir boure with strength he yede: By thy doughter his wille he dede.[63]

[63] Caius MS., p. 187.

This incident may have prompted Martorell to ascribe to Tirant the rôle of a passionate lover, and we feel that he adopted the suggestion without any hesitation whatever. Boccaccio’s influence was powerful in those days, and the incident afforded great possibilities for emulating the famous Italian writer. If this conjecture be true, our censure of the author must be limited to a reproach for having so easily and so shamelessly followed that influence. But Martorell keeps in close touch with real life. It may be that such conduct of knights had come to his notice directly or indirectly. If that is the reason why the obscene features were introduced, our condemnation will not be extremely severe. But if it was his purpose to present to us an ideal hero, then the author is deserving of the most scathing denunciation possible, for he must have been as morally weak as the hero he asks us to admire. He seems to take a delight in describing unbecoming and immoral scenes. Not only does he give vivid narrations of Tirant’s efforts to attain the “compliment de amor,” but he also makes bold descriptions of the liaison between the empress and Hypolite; the relations of Diaphebus and Stephania; 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 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.

From the above comparative study of _Tirant lo Blanch_ in relation to its sources, viz., Lull’s _Libre del Orde d’Cauayleria_, Muntaner’s _Chronica_, and the English romance, _Guy of Warwick_, we are convinced that these sources have furnished important ideas and material to Martorell. The features drawn from Lull’s work are few, but, on the other hand, they have been subjected to very little change. It is important, however, for it seems to have provided a starting point for the author. Guy of Warwick has yielded more concrete material than the other two sources, but it has been modified to suit the pleasure and to meet the needs of the author. Muntaner’s _Chronica_ did not furnish as many ideas and suggestions as _Guy of Warwick_, but the martial spirit of the Catalan and Aragonese warriors pervades a large part of the work.

It is not in our power to divine with certainty the plan as originally conceived by the author when he began his work. However, it is evident that he was intimately acquainted with Lull’s work and the English romance from the very beginning. It is quite probable that Martorell’s purpose was to make a hero of the squire who had received instructions pertaining to knighthood from the hermit, as related by Lull. This hermit reminded him of Guy of Warwick, whom he greatly admired, and he could not resist the temptation to reproduce that part of the English champion’s career which led to his retirement to a hermitage. Then, as we have already observed, the squire who is now Tirant lo Blanch meets the hermit, William of Warwick, after which he continues his way to the English court. A little more than a year later he returns to the hermit, and the latter is informed of the important events that took place in London. After a few days’ sojourn, Tirant returns to his native land, Brittany. His career is very promising, for he has been proclaimed the greatest knight in the exercises of arms at the English court. And now what is the young hero to do? Martorell had perhaps from the beginning of his work rather definite ideas in regard to his hero’s career. Still it is quite possible that he had made no fixed plan in advance, but selected the various spheres of Tirant’s activities during the course of the composition of his book. However that may be, Tirant’s career finally resolved itself into the following distinct spheres of operation: he succored the Knights of St. John on the island of Rhodes; after that, he joined the expedition of the King of France against the infidels; then he went to the aid of the Emperor of Constantinople; next he conquered and christianized Barbary; and finally he returned to Constantinople and reconquered all the lost territory of the Grecian empire. And now the question arises: Are all these various spheres of operation based on real historical events?