Mr. Markham thinks that Garcilasso, writing when he did, and not consciously exaggerating, was yet less trustworthy (though ’wonderfully accurate’) than Christoval.  Garcilasso, however, is ’scrupulously truthful.’[23] ’The excellence of his memory is perhaps best shown in his topographical details....  He does not make a single mistake,’ in the topography of three hundred and twenty places!  A scrupulously truthful gentleman, endowed with an amazing memory, and a master of his native language, flatly contradicts the version of a Spanish priest, who also appears to have been careful and honourable.

I shall now show that Christoval and Garcilasso have different versions of the same historical events, and that Garcilasso bases his confutation of the Spanish theory of the Inca Creator on his form of this historical tradition, which follows: 

The Inca Yahuarhuaccac, like George II., was at odds with his Prince of Wales.  He therefore banished the Prince to Chita, and made him serve as shepherd of the llamas of the Sun.  Three years later the disgraced Prince came to Court, with what the Inca regarded as a cock-and-bull story of an apparition of the kind technically styled ‘Borderland.’  Asleep or awake, he knew not, he saw a bearded robed man holding a strange animal.  The appearance declared himself as Uiracocha (Christoval’s name for the Creator), a Child of the Sun; by no means as Pachacamac, the Creator of the Sun.  He announced a distant rebellion, and promised his aid to the Prince.  The Inca, hearing this narrative, replied in the tones of Charles II., when he said about Monmouth, ’Tell James to go to hell!’[24] The predicted rebellion, however, broke out, the Inca fled, the Prince saved the city, dethroned his father, and sent him into the country.  He then adopted, from the apparition, the throne-name Uiracocha, grew a beard, and dressed like the apparition, to whom he erected a temple, roofless, and unique in construction.  Therein he had an image of the god, for which he himself gave frequent sittings.  When the Spaniards arrived, bearded men, the Indians called them Uiracochas (as all the Spanish historians say), and, to flatter them, declared falsely that Uiracocha was their word for the Creator.  Garcilasso explodes the Spanish etymology of the name, in the language of Cuzco, which he ’sucked in with his mother’s milk.’  ’The Indians said that the chief Spaniards were children of the Sun, to make gods of them, just as they said they were children of the apparition, Uiracocha.’[25] Moreover, Garcilasso and Cieza de Leon agree in their descriptions of the image of Uiracocha, which, both assert, the Spaniards conceived to represent a Christian early missionary, perhaps St. Bartholomew.[26] Garcilasso had seen the mummy of the Inca Uiracocha, and relates the whole tale from the oral version of his uncle, adding many native comments on the Court revolution described.

To Garcilasso, then, the invocations of Uiracocha, in Christoval’s collection of prayers, are a native adaptation to Spanish prejudice:  even in them Pachacamac occurs.[27]