Saint's Prison - Chapter 40

Descendants of the Conqueror

Feeling an unpleasant sensation as if being watched, I faced my diary. Time is short. I must organize everything one by one.

I let my eyes run over the text in the diary.

(Does the part “…the vow” signify a symbol? Or perhaps, it’s a person’s name, no, maybe a place name.)

As long as there’s a vow, there must be an entity that establishes it. And there must also be a subject that adheres to it. A name derived from tradition is likely attached to it.

I traced the first sentences.

“One, thou shalt not… see.”
“Two, thou shalt not speak to…”
“Three, thou shalt not touch…”

These three pertain to sight, hearing, touch—the senses that humans govern are uniformly restricted. The way the monastery’s people act, as if the person named Amal doesn’t exist, probably stems from these three sections. In other words, they consider sensing the girl’s existence itself taboo.

“…thou shalt not…”
“Five, thou shalt not leave here…”
“Six, thou shalt not… together…”
“Seven… thou shalt not…”
“Eight, thou shalt…”
“Nine, thou shalt observe all.”
“Ten…”

The next five sentences are mostly illegible due to the smudging. The only ones that form a complete sentence are the fifth, “thou shalt not leave here,” and the sixth, “thou shalt not do… together.”

“Here,” indicating a place, is in the fifth. It seems to be referring to a place, probably the monastery. Considering the context, “thou shalt not leave the monastery” fits neatly.

When I think back, when I spoke to Francesco about wanting to go to the city, he said there were complicated circumstances that made it impossible.

The complicated circumstances might be rooted in the vow, suggesting that one cannot leave the monastery.

The sixth, “thou shalt not do… together.” This probably continues with some prohibited joint action. However, considering the first three stanzas, which made Amal’s existence itself taboo, it seems unlikely that anyone could act together with her in the first place. So why was there a need to explicitly include such a phrase? “Together” could mean someone/something other than Amal…

“…Is the vow not solely about making Amal taboo?”

That’s right. This vow isn’t just forbidding Amal; it’s something more, shrouding something else in a veil…

I had thought the vows were shackles imposed on the monastery’s people, with Amal as their object. However, as I unravel the vows, it seems they target Amal while focusing on something beyond her.

“Nine, thou shalt observe all.”

By observing these, the monastery keeps its secrets. And the royal family is deeply involved with the vow. Both the sacred and the secular hide what lies beyond Amal.

I closed my eyes gently, reeling in my memories. Various words raced through my mind, appearing and disappearing.

Monastery. Crawling things. Amal. Knights. Past tragedies. Johanna. Paganism. Persecution. Royal authority. Hidden secrets. Benedictine monk. Heresy. Otherworldly. Vows. God. Ring. Umbilical cord.

In that moment, the scene I saw in the chapel flashes back. A burning village. Screams and shouts, and words of a curse.

“O Conqueror, swear upon the red cross, and offer. Offer thy womb, thy child, thy blood.”

The Conqueror is a monastery knight, the red cross is Christ.

“Offer the blood of the Conqueror’s child.” It could be interpreted as a command to sacrifice the descendants of the monastery knights.

…No, wait. If that’s the case, then Johanna, a descendant of the monastery knights, should be the target. However, in reality, Johanna is the one pointing the sword at Amal. What does this mean?

I then reconsider the content of the Crusades.

The Crusades did have small expeditions where individual lords led their troops to the Holy Land, but fundamentally, they were led by the Pope or kings. Of course, reclaiming the Holy Land was the goal, but it also included the preaching and conquest of pagans, and the subjugation of heretics.

Perhaps Amal is also a descendant of the monastery knights or of those who led them… for instance, a blood relative of the royal family or someone related to them.

If so, it would explain why the king protects Amal. Because she is a descendant of the royal family who led the persecution of heretics and the preaching and conquest of pagans, she is considered suitable for sacrifice. And the church, the instigator, was tasked with monitoring her.

However, this consideration likely contains many contradictions and discrepancies. I’m neither a historian nor a detective, so reaching the truth is like climbing a steep mountain.

Still… I must act to eliminate the impossibilities one by one, to get even a little closer to the truth. I feel that doing so will lead to protecting Amal.