The five parallel passages given above indicate that Martorell had Lull’s work before his eyes at the time that he was writing the part that treats of the meeting of young Tirant and the hermit and their conversation concerning the order of Chivalry. The first passage from the _Libre del Orde d’Cauayleria_ is an excellent example of the author’s method in selecting a foundation on which to base the various and numerous activities of his hero. The passage is important, for it has furnished an interesting manner of introducing Tirant lo Blanch to the reader, and, moreover, it may have been the author’s starting point. The corresponding passage from Martorell’s work reveals that the source was followed very closely. It is an easy matter to pick out the part of it that he needed to change in order to make it suit his purpose. The details of the latter part give evidence that he consulted the source probably more than once, and that the modifications which we find there are not necessarily due to the processes of translation. The same may be said of the second parallel passages. But the other three are so very nearly alike that the translation theory must be given up. Let us remember what we are asked to believe. We are told that _Tirant lo Blanch_ was translated from the English. Then these passages were translated from Lull’s work (written in Catalan), first into English, then into Portuguese, and finally back into Catalan. And in all these various processes the passages in their final form are practically the same as the original. Is not this a marvelous achievement? We cannot believe the author’s ingenious representations. We are convinced that _Tirant lo Blanch_ was not translated from the English. And since that is the case, is it not probable that it was not written in Portuguese? We admit that by translating from the Catalan into Portuguese, and then back again into Catalan, the resulting passages might not be so very different. But we cannot believe that they could be so similar to the original after two translations. Then, how do we account for the changes? A comparative study of Lull’s style and language and that of Martorell shows that there was considerable difference between them. Of course, it was not the latter’s intention to copy the material word for word. He recast it, adapting it to his style and vocabulary; in other words, he took in general merely the ideas and expressed them in his own way. If Lull’s manner of expression in certain cases agreed with his own, he did not make any changes. He added or omitted incidents at his own pleasure. Sometimes he made a reproduction, and at other times a copy with only such alterations as were necessary to make the passages conform to his own style, which presumably he considered an improvement over the original. Some few changes may have been caused by misreading or in the process of copying. Now and then we get the impression that he made certain alterations in order to avoid