Treating of the one comic character in the piece, the servant of Ollantay, and referring to his frequent use of puns and expressions with double meanings, the General contends that his wit is Andalusian, and that it is contrary to the genius of the Quichua language. In reality, the speeches of this servant, Piqui Chaqui, are so thoroughly native and of the soil, his allusions and double meanings are so hidden, that no Spaniard--no one but a native--could have written or even conceived them. In one of the Quichua plays, written by Spanish priests, in my possession, there is a “gracioso” named Quespillo, whose fun is broad and without a sign of _double entendre_. If Quespillo is a Spanish creation, Piqui-chaqui is as certainly of native conception. This is one strong proof that _Ollantay_, differing so completely in all respects from the Quichua religious dramas prepared by Spanish priests, is of pure native origin. Next, General Mitré compares a simple speech of Urco-huaranca, the general of Ollantay, with an enumeration of forces in Homer; a reference to his services, made by Ollantay, to some speech in the Spanish drama of the Cid Campeador; and the election of Ollantay by his army, to an election by the Prætorian guard described by Tacitus. These allusions are too far-fetched and vague to need special replies; but they require wonderful erudition on the part of General Mitré’s imaginary Spanish author. Rumi-ñaui, in order to make Ollantay think that he had been ill-treated by the Ynca, mutilated his face. Zopyrus, in the story told by Herodotus, for a similar purpose, cut off his nose and ears, which Rumi-ñaui did not do. Nevertheless, General Mitré jumps at the conclusion that the idea must have been copied from Herodotus. It will be remembered that the story of the mutilation of Rumi-ñaui is preserved on an ancient piece of Ynca pottery. General Mitré then quotes a speech of Ollantay, when he receives the Ynca’s pardon, from my book, a text which he had all along repudiated, in order to use the Dominican text as better suited to his purpose. His criticism on this speech is sound, but the lines I inserted were evidently interpolated by the person who arranged the drama for acting. I had, consequently, placed them in brackets as doubtful, and noted their omission by Von Tschudi and Barranca, a fact which the General does not mention. The passage is not authentic, and would be omitted in a properly revised version. It is in fact omitted by Zegarra. But this use, by General Mitré, first of one text and then of another, as it happens to suit his purpose, is not conducive to the proper object of criticism, namely, the discovery of truth. It shows also that his critical essay is premature, and that it should not have been attempted until all the versions had been critically examined and collated, and an authoritative text established.