Many editions, including those of Rodríguez Marín, here read «el que lo compuso», but the correction is unnecessary, since the pronoun le was used for all masculine direct objects by Castilian and northern writers (Hayward Keniston, The Syntax of Castilian Prose [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937], 7.132). Cervantes also uses «le» as the masculine direct object pronoun in the comment on Lofrasso's book, quoted below, I, 40 («abriole» [el papel]), and II, 4 («no sé yo quién recibe gusto de no tenerle»).
I would not wish to take the Don Quijote-Sancho priest-barber parallel too far; but certainly the barber becomes more like the priest as Part I progresses, although the corresponding change in the priest does not occur. They have both read romances of chivalry, as we can tell from Chapter I, 1, but the priest is much more familiar with them, as well as better educated in general. As Don Quijote is a knight, and single, so the priest also practices a demanding profession with a high social standing, and is celibate.
We can also mention the people Don Quijote meets on his primera salida, and, of course, the galeotes, «gente que recibe gusto de hacer y decir bellaquerías».
By Riquer and Montolíu, for example; also William E. Purser, Palmerin of England. Some Remarks on this Romance and on the Controversy concerning its Authorship (Dublin, 1904), p. 204: «No one will deny that he [the priest] is merely the channel through which Cervantes expresses his own views»; Stephen Gilman, «Los inquisidores literarios de Cervantes», Actas del Tercer Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas (Mexico: El Colegio de México, 1970), p. 6: «los juicios que expresan [the priest and the barber] son los de Cervantes». In this paper, without wishing to accept some of his more general remarks, much less his affirmation that Cervantes wrote the Quijote to criticize the drama of the time, Gilman has made a real contribution by calling attention to the religious imagery in the examination and condemnation, which explains the personification of various of the books.
Sydney Cravens has suggested that the priest's otherwise inexplicable censure of Queen Pintiquinestra was because of her name («Feliciano de Silva and his Romances of Chivalry in Don Quijote», Inti, No. 7 [Spring, 1978], 28-34, at p. 32).
«Mas versado en desdichas que en versos» can be taken as a comment on Cervantes' poetry, as well as on his life.
Por su camino supports the interpretation that por su estilo in the comment on the Tirant means «in its own way», and has nothing to do with Martorell's use of language.
Palacín, Rodríguez Marín, and Montolíu all mention Lofrasso, although they do not all draw this conclusion from the passage. That the novel of Lofrasso was in fact a very inferior work is confirmed by Juan Bautista Avalle-Arce, La novela pastoril española, 2nd edition. (Madrid: Istmo, 1974, pp. 176-83, who says (pp. 177-78) «resulta increíble que estas opiniones de Cervantes se puedan entender en sentido favorable... La crítica ha actuado con rara unanimidad y ha condenado nuevamente a Lofrasso al equivalente literario del infierno dantesco. ¡Bien hecho!» [I am surprised to see that Edward Aylward believes that «gracioso» and «disparatado» are favorable terms («gracioso», to him, means «tener gracia»), and that Cervantes is praising Lofrasso in the Viaje del Parnaso, when Mercury makes him cómitre of the boat so he can whip the other poets with his verses; Mercury calls him «pobretón» and «ignorante», and the narrator calls him «marchito y laso». Mercury wants to save him from the waves because of the quantity of the verse which he wrote, fearing worse seas if he is thrown overboard. It is most significant that Lofrasso does not appear among the poets praised in Chapter II of the Viaje. (Edward Aylward, «The Influence of Tirant lo Blanch on the Quijote», Dissertation, Princeton, 1974; abstract in DAI, 35 [1974], 1085A).]
I hope that Frank Pierce would agree with this statement, for although, in his article cited in n. 337, he says that the sexual element in the Tirant is «pervasive», he admits that it is restricted to the parts dealing with the court of Constantinople. He is more concerned with the type of presentation -natural and accepting- rather than the quantity of sexual scenes.
It should be noted that the emphasis on the sexuality of the Tirant began in an attempt to find an explanation for the necedades the priest finds in it, other than the one given below.
«Martorell», p. 322.