Page:Tirant lo Blanch; a study of its authorship, principal sources and historical setting (IA cu31924026512263).pdf/100

 *guage with ease. When he drew his material from Lull's and from Metge's works (see pp. 79-89), did he translate it into Portuguese and then turn it back into Catalan without consulting the corresponding passages in the sources? If such was the case, there would have been a greater difference in the parallel passages. But a man who is a master of the two languages would never take that trouble. And why should he try to make the passages exactly alike? Now, what was Martorell to write about? About a great hero whose name was Tirant lo Blanch and whose deeds were so much admired by Prince Ferdinand. But this Tirant lo Blanch is not a historical personage, he is an imaginary individual, a literary character. If the Catalan Tirant had not yet been written, if there was not even such a literary character, how, then, could the Prince have become so enthusiastic about him?

The strongest argument in favor of a Portuguese original is the fact that de Galba states that he translated the final fourth part from the Portuguese. But we must remember that Martorell says that he will translate the Portuguese into Catalan, and for that reason de Galba was obliged to say the same. But the same style, vocabulary, method of composing the work, the point of view and characteristics of the author are in evidence throughout the book. For this reason it may seem that Martorell wrote the whole work in Portuguese and then translated three-fourths of it into Catalan. He died and de Galba completed it. But if the latter had translated the fourth part, we feel that we should have been able to discover some differences in style, spelling and vocabulary, and an absence of some of the favorite expressions of Martorell. If he had composed that part we should not have had much difficulty in detecting it. Consequently we cannot believe that Tirant lo Blanch was first written in Portuguese, and then translated into Catalan.