Chapter 7 The Second Holy Cabinet and the Holy Grail-3

Emma Jung was an academic, lecturer, and wife of renowned Swiss psychologist Carl Jung.She has pointed out that the literary form of the legend of the Holy Grail was formed at the end of the twelfth century in a manner that was both sudden and surprising. Emma, ​​who has written a definitive study of the Holy Grail legend (for the Jung Foundation), argues that there must be something significant behind the legend's sudden and dramatic outpouring of literature. matter.In fact, she even suggested that Chrétien de Troyer's Tale of the Grail and Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parsifal—the two earliest works in this style— , "Almost like a groundwater vein gushing out suddenly." What exactly is this "groundwater vein"?

I think the answer lies in the historical period when the "Legend of the Holy Grail" began to spread.It was, after all, the age of the Crusades—a time when Europeans first came into close contact with Arab and Jewish culture; a time when Christian armies occupied Jerusalem for 80 years (from AD 1099 to 1187). Latin regained the holy city).Just in 1182, 83 years after Christian armies captured Jerusalem, Chrétien wrote his own story of the Holy Grail.Wolfram von Eschenbach began work on Parsifal shortly after the fall of Jerusalem. Therefore, I find it difficult to deny the conclusion that these early revisions of the Grail legend must have been based on some event that had already taken place, or must have been based on some source that was discovered at a time when Jerusalem was completely controlled in Europe. hands.

I read the contents of Parsifal very carefully to see if there was any evidence to support my speculation, and I found that Wolfram mentioned a mysterious informant several times in it. , named "Kyot"--according to Wolfram, he relied heavily on information from this man, who was fortunately a baptized Christian--otherwise, this The story will remain untold.No non-religious art can reveal to us the nature of the Holy Grail, or the means of understanding its mysteries. This is undoubtedly the only place in Parsifal in which the German poet hints that Parsifal may have other secrets.It is quite possible that this "other mystery" is a real theme behind the beautiful fictional symbolism of this work, the "Ark of the Covenant".For this, I am very satisfied.

While studying the scattered references to "Cyute" in the book, it occurred to me that this looming figure (whose identity has never been clarified) might have also introduced Wolfram to the hiding place of the Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia secret.There is one place in the book where he is called "Cyute, who sent us the true story," so he is a very important character.But who is he? The book Parsifal itself contains several obvious clues.In one place "Cyute" is said to be a "master", in another his native language is French.However, beyond these hints, there is little further to be said in the book.So I went to the scholars and found that some of them identified "Cyute" quite definitely as a French poet of the twelfth century.The man was Guyut de Provins, who had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem shortly before the Arabs reconquered it; he may also have been associated at one time with the court of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I.

I noticed this latter fact because I knew that Frederick I (Frederick Barbarossa), like Wolfram, was a German (until he was chosen emperor in 1152, he was Grand Duke of the Duchy of Svibia in southwestern Germany).I also know (see the previous chapter of this book) that the letter of "John the Prester" in 1165 to various Christian kings specifically mentioned two recipients, and one of them was this Frey. Derek I. On further investigation, I also learned of another circumstance - which turned out to be of crucial significance: Quyut l Guyut was closely related to the Knights Templar, and Emma Jung in her According to his study, Knight Templars were regarded as "guards of Solomon's temple".I also know that it was from Solomon's Temple that the Ark of the Covenant mysteriously disappeared in the days of the Old Testament.Later, I was thrilled to discover that in Parsifal, Wolfram describes the Guardians of the Grail as "Templars" and heaps praise on them:

A noble Brotherhood...they protect the peoples of the nations by force, and as a result, the Grail is only seen by those who have been called to Monsavash to join the Brotherhood of the Grail. Were the "Templars" described by Wolfram the same famous armed sect of the same name? I found out: the word translated into English as "Templars" is "Templeit" in the Middle High German used in Parsifal.Although some scholars have disputed the meaning of this word, they still agree that this word "is obviously one of the variants of Templarius, Temlpier, and English Templar"; The Brotherhood of Knights who serve the Holy Grail", so it is possible "to be the same order as the Order of the Templars".

Then it occurred to me that a guidebook I used to visit Chartres Cathedral had this sentence: "Wolfram von Eschenbach is said to have been a Templar, but we don't know that yet." evidence." Upon further investigation, I have been able to attest that there have been persistent rumors of this claim.I also learned that some reputable scholars have suggested that the German poet may have personally visited that holy site, Jerusalem, during the writing of Pale Sifal. Are they digging for hidden treasure? I became very interested in an assertion made by Emma Jung that the Templars in Wolfram's day were "conceived as guardians of Solomon's Temple".

I didn't understand at the time why this was the case.However, when I began to research this sect, I found that the full name of this sect (that is, "Christ and Poor Knight of Solomon's Temple") comes from the fact that its headquarters in Jerusalem are located in the Moiya Mountain. on top of a hill - where Solomon's Temple was built until it was destroyed by the Babytians in 587 BC.That temple was built in the 10th century BC, and its express (actually only) purpose was to be, as the Bible says, "the place where the ark of the covenant of the Lord rested." So, it seems to me that there's a very real sense in which these knights associate themselves with Solomon's Temple, where they also associate themselves with the Ark.This feeling intensified when I set out to investigate the remarkable history of the sect.

I learned that the Knights Templar was founded by nine French nobles who visited the holy land of Jerusalem in 1119 AD, when European armies had captured Jerusalem for 20 years. The 12th-century historian, Archbishop William of Tyre, records that "the most important and famous" of the nine were "the venerable Huey de Bejan and Godfrey de Saint-Ome you". I checked further and found an interesting situation.In fact, Huey de Bejan was the first "Grand Master" of the Templars.He was born in a village called "Béjan", eight miles from the city of Troyer in the old Champagne County of France.Not only that, it is said that the nine founders are all from that same region.There are a few coincidences in this:

— During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the city of Chartres (where the cathedral is located) remained in Champagne. —One of these founders, Anare de Monteba (who later became the fifth "Master") was uncle of St. Bernard of Clervaux, and himself a native of Champagne .This influential circle had a special interest in both Gothic architecture and the legend of the Holy Grail. ——The city of Troyer is very close to the birthplace of Huey de Bejan, the first Templar master, and it is also the hometown of Chrétien de Troyer, the "inventor" of the story of the Holy Grail .

- Huey de Bejan was a cousin of the Count of Champagne, who joined the Templar Order in 1125. —When Chrétien de Troyer rose to fame towards the end of the twelfth century, his chief patron was the Countess of Champagne. There was nothing interesting about this series of coincidences, and I went on to examine the early history of the Templar order. There are still many peculiar circumstances, but perhaps the most peculiar is the way in which the nine original knights were received by King Baldr I of Jerusalem in 1119.At that time, as soon as they arrived in the holy city, they told the king that they wanted to establish their own headquarters on the Temple Mount.But the king only recently turned the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount into his palace.It is quite strange that the king immediately agreed to the request of the knights, and allocated a large part of the former mosque to them exclusively, and the outskirts of that place were close to the famous "rock rotunda", that is, Original site of Solomon's Temple. A major archaeological excavation later revealed that the knights lived, ate, slept and worked on this all-important site ever since.In fact, after they came to that place, they almost never left for nearly seven years, and they firmly refused any outsiders to enter there.In public, they declared that their mission in the Holy Land was to "keep the road from the sea to Jerusalem free from bandits".However, I have found no evidence that anything was done to accomplish this mission during the first seven years they were there.On the contrary, during this period, as one authority noted, "the new sect appears to have had little activity".What's more, based on simple logical reasoning, it can be known that on a road of nearly 50 miles, these nine people can hardly protect anyone.Their numbers did not increase until the Count of Champagne joined in 1125.Not only that, when the Templars came to Jerusalem, an earlier and much larger armed sect, the "Knights of St. John", had already taken on the task of protecting pilgrims. Therefore, I can only draw this conclusion: Huey de Bayan and his companions must have another hidden purpose.It has already been mentioned that, during the first seven years of their sojourn in Jerusalem, they confined most of their activities to the area around the Temple Mount - which gives a very strong feeling that their real motive must be connected with that particular site . Their operations have been secretive from the start, so I have found no hard evidence of what they did there.Still, it looks like they might at least be looking for something.I later learned that they did use the time they lived on the Temple Mount to conduct extensive excavations.This reinforced my above suspicions. Today's Temple Mount houses Islam's third and fourth most sacred sites, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, so modern archaeologists were never allowed to work there.However, in recent years, just south of the Temple Mount, Israeli archaeologists have been able to move freely.There, they discovered the exit of a tunnel they believe had been dug by the Knights Templar in the 12th century.These archaeologists stated in their official report: The tunnel extends about 30 meters inward from the south wall, and is then blocked by some stones and debris.Even though we knew it would continue to extend, we had decided in advance that no excavations would be carried out within the Temple Mount without the approval of the relevant Muslim authorities, as it is currently under Muslim control.The Muslim authorities only allowed us to measure and photograph the exposed parts of the tunnel, not to excavate of any kind.At the end of this work... we sealed the exit of this tunnel with stones. This is all that is known about the Templar Tunnel, or that is all that can be said so far.Archaeologists can only confirm that the tunnel has been extended for a while, but they can't follow it.It occurred to me, however, that the tunnel ran inwards from the south wall, probably to the center of the sacred area, probably just under the rotunda, to El-Ak, some 100 meters to the north. Sa Mosque. I found out that the name "The Dome of the Rock" came from the fact that it contained a huge stone, which the Jews called "Shetiyyah" (literally "the cornerstone").Solomon's Temple was built on this site in the mid-10th century BC, and the Ark of the Covenant rested on this "foundation stone," the floor of the inner sanctum.In 587 BC, the Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians, and most of the Jerusalemites were exiled.However, there is no evidence that those occupiers took the Ark at that time.Instead, the Ark seemed to have turned into thin air and disappeared without a trace. A legend then spread that offered a possible explanation for the Ark's disappearance—an explanation accepted by most of the Jews.The legend speaks of the sacred relic being hidden in a sealed secret crypt beneath the "foundation stone" just moments before the Babylonian raiders broke into the inner sanctum. This legend is recorded in various Jewish and Hebrew scriptures, and in a well-known book of Revelation.That apocalypse is called "Baruch's Vision".In the 12th century AD, these things were still circulating in Jerusalem. It occurred to me that the Templars might easily learn the details of this alluring legend.Not only that, but after a little digging, I've proven that they knew the details of the legend well before 1119 (the year they officially arrived in Jerusalem). In 1104, accompanied by the Count of Champagne, the founder of the sect, Huey de Bejan, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.At that time, the two returned to France from the holy city, and they are said to have been together in 1113.Three years later, Huey went to Jerusalem alone, and then returned to France. This time, he joined the other eight knights who went to the Holy City with him in 1119, thus forming the core of the Templar Order. The more I think about the context of these events, the more likely it seems to me that Huey and the Count of Champagne, during their pilgrimage in 1104, did hear about the startling possibility that the Ark of the Covenant might have been destroyed. Hidden somewhere inside the Temple Mount.If this is true, I presume, is it not equally probable that they then made a plan to find the relic?Doesn't that explain the decisiveness of the nine knights living on the Temple Mount in 1119?Doesn't that explain the peculiarities of the sect's early activity? In the authoritative work of Emma Legge on the "Tale of the Holy Grail," I found indirect evidence in support of the above supposition.In an appendix to the book, the psychoanalyst argues that the European occupation of Jerusalem in the twelfth century was inspired (at least in part) by the belief that the city contained Monuments, they are powerful, sacred, and precious.she says: The ingrained notion of a "hidden treasure" served as a pretext for the call to liberate the Holy Sepulcher.It provoked resounding echoes, and provided the crusaders with an incendiary impetus, if not one that it did create. There is nothing more precious and sacred than the lost Ark of the Covenant—possibly regarded as the highest reward in a century so often obsessed with rediscovering religious relics.Therefore, I think that the motive of Huey de Bejan and his supporter, the Count of Champagne, was indeed to find the Ark of the Covenant. For this reason, they created the Templar Order and took control of the Temple Mount.This is not only possible, but very likely. But if that's the case, they haven't achieved that goal.In the twelfth century, one expert noted, "the valuation of a famous treasure is extraordinary."What's more, an ancient artifact as unique as the Ark of the Covenant will also give its owner immense power and privileges.It can be seen that if the Templars have found the Ark, then they must successfully bring it back to Europe.But that didn't happen, so I can draw a fairly safe conclusion that they didn't find the Ark. Still, there are rumors that during the seven years of extensive excavation on the Temple Mount, they did find something.None of these rumors have any academic support, but some of them are intriguing.A cryptic tome that attempts to explain the real activities of the Templars in Jerusalem from 1119-1126 states: The real mission of the nine knights was to scour the region to obtain real antiquities and manuscripts that contained the essence of the secret legends of Judaism and ancient Egypt, some of which dated back to the time of Moses... There is no doubt that they accomplished On this special mission, the knowledge they gained from their discoveries was orally passed on to the... secret circle of the Templars. Nothing in the literature supports this fascinating assertion.However, there is another place in the same book that caught my interest.It was a name I had heard several times before I began my research—St. Bernard of Clervaux.The book says (again without any evidence) that he sent the nine knights to Jerusalem. I already knew that Bernard was the nephew of one of the nine founding knights of the Templar Order.I also know that he joined the Cistercian order in 1112; he was made abbot in 1115; The Templars had arrived in Jerusalem.I therefore think that it is possible that he played an important role in establishing the mission of the Templars, and it would be extremely unwise to dismiss this so easily.This doubt amplified greatly when I set out to investigate the activities of the Templars after their strange first seven years. Is it a deal? At the end of 1126 AD, Huey de Bejan suddenly left Jerusalem and returned to Europe.He was accompanied only by André de Monbarde, uncle of St. Bernard.The two Templars arrived in France in 1127, and in January 1128 they participated in one of the most significant meetings in the early history of the Templar Order, the Church's "Troyer Assembly", which clearly stated a goal : Efforts to gain official church support for the Templars. Three aspects of this important conference particularly intrigued me.First, it was held in the hometown of the poet who created the story of the Holy Grail a few years later; second, its presiding officer was St. Bernard, because he was Secretary General at the time; third, the Congress of Troyer During this period, it was Bernard himself who drafted the official constitution of the Knights Templar, which would later guide the evolution and development of the sect. So, if my suspicions are correct, the original nine knights may have been planning to excavate the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.Whatever else they found there, though, by 1126 it was clear to them that they would not have found the primary target of their expedition, the Ark of the Covenant.Having realized this, they must consider their own future, especially if the result makes them lose their reason for existence-do they cease to exist as a sect, or continue to move forward steadily? History shows that, in 1126, they did experience a crisis of identity.As a result, they overcame the crisis, determined to continue their steady progress, and St. Bernard became a strong supporter in their cause. During the Troyer Conference, Bernard drew up the rules of the Templar Order and won the church's full support for the development of the sect.Since then, in a series of sermons and fervent odes (such as "The New Soldier"), Bernard has enthusiastically promoted the young sect, thus using his privilege and influence to defend its achievements. The results were spectacular.New members poured in from all over France and later from other European countries.Wealthy patrons donated land and money to the cult, and the sect's political power followed.By the end of the 12th century, the Templars were already extremely wealthy, operating a very complex international banking system and owning real estate all over the world. All this was in a sense due to the participation of St. Bernard in 1128, and also to his continued strong support in the years since.Was he doing it for the Templars out of pure altruism?Did the Templars give him something in return? In the 1230s, Gothic architecture suddenly and mysteriously emerged in France.Bernard had been the greatest promoter of Gothic architectural codes, and there had always been a rumor that the Templars had acquired some sort of esoteric source of ancient lore in Jerusalem.With these points in mind, I can't help but wonder if this is a deal at all. To be sure, the knights did not find the Ark.However, if they did unearth some scrolls related to Solomon's Temple itself when they excavated the Temple Mount.Manuscripts, blueprints, or blueprints, so what?What if these discoveries contained some long-lost architectural secrets about geometry, proportion, balance and harmony that the builders of ancient pyramids and other great monuments knew?What if the Templars had shared these secrets with St. Bernard in return for his enthusiastic support of the order? These speculations are not without foundation.On the contrary, one of the peculiarities of the Templars is that they were once brilliant architects. In 1139, Pope Innocent II (whose campaign also happened to be enthusiastically supported by St. Bernard) granted the Templars the unique privilege of building their own church.They later took full advantage of this privilege - they built beautiful churches, often of circular design, like the Temple Church in London, which became typical testimonials of Templar activity. These knights were also proficient in military architecture, and the castles they built in Palestine were exceptionally well-designed and impregnable.Chief among these magnificent fortresses is Atlet Fortress (also known as Bereland Castle or Pilgrim Castle).I found out that the fortress was built in 1218 by the 14th Master of the Templars, William of Chartres, whose name already revealed his association with the great Gothic cathedral . Atlit Fortress is located on a long and narrow piece of land south of Haifa (the port city in northwestern Israel - Translator's Note), surrounded by the sea on three sides.In its heyday, it had plenty of fruit trees, plenty of fresh water, vegetable gardens, and even its own dock and berth, complete with a 200-foot breakwater.Although it was often besieged by the ancient Arabs, it never fell and provided shelter for 4,000 people.Built on exceptionally deep foundations, its massive walls are more than 90 feet high and 16 feet thick—and so well built that most of them are still intact today. In 1932, archaeologist C. N. Johns conducted a thorough excavation of this site.He concluded that the skills of these Templar architects and masons were astonishingly advanced by medieval standards and indeed "exceptional" even by modern standards. The Templars also built some temples in Jerusalem.They maintained their headquarters on the Temple Mount until 1187, when the Muslim general Salah al-Din recaptured the inner sanctum.I learned that a German monk named Theoderic made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1174.According to his records, at that time, all the buildings within the scope of the Rotunda were still under the control of Templar soldiers". He also said: They guard all the buildings that belong to them... At their feet are some steles erected by King Solomon... And at their feet are domes, arches, and roofs of all kinds...According to our estimate, they have 10,000 horses and its driver. In fact, those "stone tablets" were not erected by Solomon, and their age can be traced back to the Herodias Dynasty (about the time when Christ was born).The domes, arches and roofs, however, were built by the Templars themselves, for they were the first and only people to keep horses in these subterranean halls at the time when they made extensive extensions to them. Theoderic's account of the sighting of the Temple Mount in 1174 continues: On the other side of the palace, the El-Aqsa Mosque, the Templars built a new house, its height, length and width, all its ceilings and lounges, stairs and roofs, all greatly enlarged. beyond the traditions of the place.Its roof is really high, so that if I were to say its true height. My audience would hardly believe me. Sadly, the "new house", which Theoderic mentioned in 1174, was demolished in the 1950s.At that time, Muslim authorities renovated the Temple Mount.Still, the evidence of the German monk has its own value.And what I found most valuable was his clear and precise tone of voice.He evidently viewed the Templars' architectural skills as almost supernaturally advanced, and he was particularly impressed by the soaring roofs and arches they built. Reading these observations of his, it occurred to me that these high roofs and arches were also prominent features of Gothic architecture, and that Chartres, and some other cathedrals in France of the twelfth century (I know, were seen by some visitors as "Scientifically ... far beyond what the knowledge of the time allowed") embodies this formula, and it is by no means a coincidence. This brings me back to St. Bernard of Clervaux.A more thorough study of his life and thoughts has confirmed my earlier impression that he had exerted a great, though indirect, influence on the iconography of the Gothic cathedral.This is because most of the assemblages of those carvings, as well as the stained glass windows of the cathedral, were influenced (especially after his death) by his sermons and writings.Indeed, during his lifetime he often objected to the unnecessary image reliefs in churches, saying: "There is absolutely no decoration in them, but only proportions." I knew that this architectural emphasis on proportion, harmony and balance was the key to the strange magic of Gothic architecture.And as I became more acquainted with the thought of St. Bernard, it dawned on me that it was in this respect that his influence on the design of Chartres, as well as other cathedrals, was most profound.Admirable new techniques were used on those magnificent buildings, such as ribbed vaults, pointed arches, and high buttresses.This allowed architects to use the perfection of geometry to express complex religious ideas. Indeed, in a very real sense, the Gothic cathedral of the twelfth century fused architecture and faith into a new synthesis.St. Bernard summed up this synthesis when he asked "What is God?" and answered his own rhetorical question with a startling sentence.His answer: "God is length, breadth, height and depth." I already knew that Gothic architecture was born in Chartres Cathedral when the north tower of Chartres Cathedral was started in 1134 AD.Now I understand that this was no coincidence. In the years before 1134 St. Bernard had formed a particularly close friendship with Geoffrey, Archbishop of Chartres, inspiring the latter not only to accept the rules of Gothic architecture with "extraordinary zeal" but also "almost every day Negotiate with those architects." Interesting in itself, but the significance of this information for my research lies in the fact that the "years before 1134" were also the years after the "Conference of Troyer".At that meeting, St. Bernard won the official support of the Church for the sect of "Christ and the Poor Knight of Solomon's Temple".Historians have never been able to adequately shed light on exactly how Gothic architecture exploded in France in the 1230s.And my previous inference (that there may be a role of Templars in it) now seems more credible. Going through all the evidence I have so far gathered, I am satisfied that it is indeed possible that the Templars excavated on the Temple Mount some kind of collection of ancient knowledge concerning architecture; The knowledge learned was passed on to St. Bernard in return for his support. Not only that, but the Templars' interest in the Ark of the Covenant, and their association with Wolfram and Chartres, is also completely tied to two cryptographic "maps".And I think I have identified these two "maps": one carved in stone in the north corridor of Chartres cathedral, the other compiled in the plot of Parsifal. The appearance of these "maps" shows that Ethiopia is the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant.So the question I now have to answer is: How did the Templars come to the conclusion that this holy relic (which they spent seven years digging in Jerusalem without finding it) was really brought to Ethiopia What about?What actually prompted them to think this way? One plausible answer, I found, was Jerusalem itself—an exiled Ethiopian prince who lived there for at least 25 years before returning to proclaim his kingdom in 1185.Less than Ic years later, Wolfram began writing his Parsifal, and work began on the north tower of Chartres Cathedral. ethiopian prince in jerusalem The prince who had been in exile in Jerusalem for so long was Lalibela. I became interested in him because he was mentioned in the "Letters of John the Priest" mentioned in the previous chapter of this book.That letter was written in 1165, and I know that in 1177 Pope Alexander III wrote a personal letter to "Priest John" in reply to a special application made by the latter through his envoys, that the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem Altars and chapels are built in churches. The "Encyclopedia Britannica" said: "The only real recipient of this pope's reply can only be the king of Ethiopia." Therefore, I naturally want to find out who the reigning king of Ethiopia was in 1177. After studying the matter, I found out that the king was a man named Harbe, and that the Pope's dispensation was not given to him, but to his successor, Lalibela. Neither Habe nor Lalibela belong to the legendary descendants of King Solomon and Queen Sheba through Menelik I.Instead, both men belonged to a usurping dynasty.That dynasty was called the Zagwe Dynasty, which ruled Ethiopia from about 1030 to 1270 AD, and the descendants of King Solomon finally regained the throne in 1270. Little is known about that period in Ethiopian history, but I can still confirm that the Solomon dynasty was interrupted around 980 AD by a coup d'état by a tribal chieftain named Gudit.She has always adhered to the Jewish faith.It is said that her main motive for launching the coup was a strong desire to get rid of the Christian dynasty.At any cost, she attacked the city of Axum, razed most of the ancient city's buildings, and succeeded in killing the emperor of Solomon's line there.Two princes were also killed, but the third escaped death and fled far to the south in the province of Saua, where he married a wife and had children, leaving roots for the old dynasty, but their situation is not as good as before up. Gudit was the head of a large tribal federation called the "Agao"—to which the Farasa, the true black Jews of Ethiopia, belonged.Historians have never been able to ascertain whether she left a direct successor, but agree that within 50 years of her death, most of the northern peoples of Ethiopia were united under the Zagwe monarchs. Like Gudit, he belongs to the elite of the Agao Federation. Like the Gudit dynasty, the early Zagwi dynasty was also a Jewish dynasty.However, if this is the case (which has not been proven), then the dynasty converted to Christianity long before Prince Lalibela was born.Prince Lalibela was born around 1140 in the ancient mountain town of Roja, in today's Volo province. Lalibela is the half-brother of King Harbe.From the moment his mother saw a swarm of bees surrounding his little bed, it seemed he was destined to become something big.According to legend, her mother remembered an ancient belief that bees could foretell the future of great people, and was controlled by the prophetic spirit, who couldn't help calling out "Lalibela" - the name literally means "bee sees". Out he is a monarch". Hence the name of the prince.哈贝害怕那个预言会危及自己的王位，便企图把拉利贝拉杀死在摇篮里。第一次谋杀失败后，哈贝便在几年当中一次次加害拉利贝拉，最终竟然用致命的毒药使年轻王子全身瘫痪，沉睡不醒。 埃塞俄比亚人传说，拉利贝拉沉睡了三天，其间，他被天使送到了第一、第二和第三重天堂。在天堂，全能的上帝当面告诉他不必担心自己的性命和未来的王位。上帝为他指明了目标，他因此得到了上帝的赐福。 拉利贝拉从幻觉中醒来后，便设法逃出埃塞俄比亚，到耶路撒冷避难。不过，他毕竟得到了平安，等时机一到，他将以国王的身份重返自己的出生地罗哈。不仅如此，他还注定要在那里建造一些壮观的教堂，世人还没有见过与之相似的教堂。于是，上帝给拉利贝拉详细的指导，告诉他建造教堂的步骤、每座教堂的样式及位置，甚至还有教堂的内外装修。 在一件有文字记载的事情上，传说和历史出现了巧合：拉利贝拉的确曾在耶路撒冷长期流亡，他同父异母的哥哥哈贝却继续占据着埃塞俄比亚的王位。我了解到，这段流亡生活开始于1160年前后（拉利贝拉当时想必是20岁左右），结束于1185年——那年，拉利贝拉成功地回到了家乡，废黜了哈贝，宣布自己是国王。 从此，拉利贝拉王朝便有了可靠的编年记载，一直持续到公元1211年。他建都于罗哈，那是他的出生地，现在被按照他的名字命名为"拉利贝拉"。也许是为了让自己幼年那个幻觉完全变成现实，他一登基就马上动工兴建了11座壮观的独体教堂——所谓独体教堂，就是由一整块火成岩雕凿出来的教堂（我在1983年到阿克苏姆旅行的几个星期后参观过那些教堂，发现它们依然是现存信仰的圣地）。 拉利贝拉也没有忘记自己在圣城耶路撒冷的25年寄居生活——他试图在罗哈一拉利贝拉再现那座圣城的许多特征。例如，穿过罗哈的那条河被改名为"约旦河"；那11座教堂之一，"贝塔·高尔戈萨"也是特别为了象征耶路撒冷圣墓教堂而设计的；它附近的一座小山被称为"德布拉·蔡特"（意为"橄榄山"），以象征基督被捕的地方。 这位埃塞俄比亚国王并不满足于将国都建成一个"新耶路撒冷"，在他统治的整个时期，他还都一直竭力保持着与耶路撒冷之间的联系。我发现，这并不是新举措。从公元4世纪晚期开始，埃塞俄比亚的东正教僧侣就在圣城永久扎下了根基。 正是为了增加并巩固这种存在，哈贝才向教皇亚历山大三世提出了要求，请他思准在圣墓教堂里建造一个祭坛和礼拜堂。他的请求没有什么结果，只是教皇在1177年写了一封颇具伸缩性的书信，对哈贝的提议作出了答复。但10年以后，这件事却出现了两项重大的进展：一是1185年拉利贝拉夺取了埃塞俄比亚王位；二是1187年萨拉丁把十字军赶出了圣城，并迫使耶路撒冷的埃塞俄比亚居民，连同其他的东方基督教徒，逃往塞浦路斯。 皇家史书上说，这个事变使拉利贝拉深感不安。1189年，他的使臣设法说服了萨拉丁，同意让埃塞俄比亚人返回圣城，并且第一次同意赐给他们自己的一个主要活动场所——创造十字礼拜堂，它就在圣墓教堂里。后来在相对晚近的时期，这些特权再次失去了。 我了解到，其结果就是：阿比西尼亚的朝圣者不得不在这座礼拜堂的屋顶上做礼拜，他们在那里建了一个修道院。他们在耶路撒冷还拥有另外两座教堂，在旧城的中心还拥有一处主教官邸，从那里只需步行几分钟，就可以到达圣墓教堂。 无论是在外交内政的策略方面，还是在建筑表现及精神发展方面，拉利贝拉王朝都代表了扎格维王朝权力和业绩的最高峰。 拉利贝拉死后，这个王朝便急剧衰落了。公元1270年，他的孙子纳库托·拉布终于被迫向耶库诺·阿姆拉克交出了王位，而后者自称是所罗门的后裔。从此一直到海尔·塞拉西于1974年被革命推翻，除了一位以外，埃塞俄比亚的历代君主都属于一个皇家谱系，它可以通过门涅利克一世追溯到耶路撒冷的所罗门同王。 巧合的模式 回顾我所了解到的拉利贝拉那个昙花一现的王朝，我理解到了一点：它完全符合我已经辨认出来的那个诱人的巧合模式，即与十字军、圣殿骑士和12世纪相关的巧合： ——12世纪最初一年（更准确地说是11世纪最后一年，即1099年），耶路撒冷被十字军攻陷。 ——1119年，圣殿骑士教的九位创始骑士（他们都是法国贵族）到达耶路撒冷，并在所罗门圣殿原址住了下来。 ——1128年，克莱沃的圣·伯纳德在特罗耶会议上为圣殿骑士教争取到了教会的官方支持。 ——1134年，沙特尔大教堂北塔楼动工，它是历史上第一个哥特式建筑的先例。 ——1160年，拉利贝拉王子，未来的埃塞俄比亚国王，为逃避其同父异母的哥哥（他当时在位）的迫害，来到耶路撒冷过政治流亡生活。 ——1165年，出现了一封据称是"祭司王约翰"写的书信，其中宣布了一系列耸人听闻的消息，例如他军队的数量、他的财富和权力等等。这封写给"诸位基督教国王"的书信开始在欧洲流传。 ——1177年，教皇亚历山大三世对上述书信作了答复，但具有重大意义的是飞他在回信中提到自己后来还收到了另外一封信——那是"祭司王约翰"的申请信，要求教皇恩准在耶路撒冷圣墓教堂里建造一个祭坛。看来，这封信是这位"祭司王"的使者们呈交给教皇的。在教皇的私人医生菲利浦访问巴勒斯坦期间，这些使臣曾经和他谈过话。这位提出申请的"祭司王约翰"，只能是拉利贝拉同父异母的哥哥哈贝，此人1177年依然在位。 ——1182年，圣杯故事首次出现在文献中（因而也是首次出现在历史上），即出现在克雷蒂昂·德·特罗耶的一部未完成的叙事诗里。 ——1185年，拉利贝拉王子离开耶路撒冷，回到埃塞俄比亚，成功地废黜了哈贝，夺取了王位。他登基后，几乎立即就开始在国都罗哈建造了一批壮观的独体岩石教堂。罗哈后来按照他的名字改名为拉利贝拉。 ——1187年，耶路撒冷被穆斯林苏丹萨拉丁的大军攻陷，十字军被赶走，而圣城的埃塞俄比亚居民被迫暂时去塞浦路斯避难（其实，耶路撒冷陷落后，一些圣殿骑士也去了塞浦路斯，他们买下了这个岛，并曾一度在那里建立总部）。 ——1189年，拉利贝拉国王派去见萨拉丁的密使们设法说服了这位穆斯林将领，让埃塞俄比亚人返回耶路撒冷，并赐予他们一种从未有过的特权（1177年哈贝国王向教皇申请的，就是这种特权）——在圣墓教堂里建造一个礼拜堂和祭坛。 ——1195-1200年期间，沃尔夫拉姆·冯·埃森巴赫开始写作《帕西法尔》。他延续了克雷蒂昂·德·特罗耶的工作，并在书中把圣杯变形为石头，还把许多埃塞俄比亚的因素结合在了故事里，不但特别提到了"祭司王约翰"，而且特别提到了圣殿骑士。 ——就在同一个时期，沙特尔大教堂北走廊动工，其中的雕刻塑造了埃塞俄比亚的示巴女王、圣杯（其中装着石头）以及约柜的形象。 可见，圣殿骑士、哥特式建筑、圣杯以及一种观念，即世界上某个地方有一位非欧洲的基督教国王，名叫"祭司王约翰"，这些全都是12世纪的产物。还是在12世纪，就在《帕西法尔》成书和沙特尔大教堂北走廊建成以前，埃塞俄比亚一位未来的基督教国王拉利贝拉返回祖国，在耶路撒冷寄居了25年后登上了王位。 在我看来，根据我了解到的全部情况，这一切事情之间必定被某种共同因素引人入胜地联系在了一起，只是这种因素被隐藏在了历史中，或许是因为它被故意掩盖了起来。 圣殿骑士寻找约柜，先在耶路撒冷，后在埃塞俄比亚。支持这个推测的证据将会为我们揭示那种隐秘的共同因素——它就是一根复杂链条上被遗失的环节，那根链条就是我已经辨认出来的那些相互关联的事件、思想和人物。 我知道，我至少在目前已经把调查推进到了与耶路撒冷有关的部分。然而，对埃塞俄比亚的调查又如何呢？那里是否真的存在一些证据表明，圣殿骑士们当年曾到那里去寻找过约柜呢？他们后来是否会把追寻的结果通过沃尔夫拉姆，用密码的方式编制成了他那个神秘的象征，即"被称为圣杯的石头"呢？ "背叛的圣殿骑士……" 第一个突破，发生在我收到一个英译本的时候。它就是那封据说出自祭司王约翰之手的书信的全文译本，该信是他于1165年写给诸位基督教国王的。 教皇亚历山大三世在1177年给祭司王约翰写了回信（我现在已经知道，那是一份真实的文件，其实是写给拉利贝拉同父异母的哥哥哈贝的）。与这封信不同，学者们对祭司王约翰1165年写的这封信的真实性产生了极大的怀疑。它的日期虽说是真的，但学者们认为它最不可能出自任何一位真正的"祭司王约翰"之手——所以，这封信便被看作了一个蓄意的骗局。 当我阅读这封信时，便明白了个中原因。 如果此信作者的话可信，那么，他的"国土"上除了拥有其他一些物产以外，还有"像绵羊一样大的野兔"、"被称为格立芬（古希腊神话中鹰头狮身的有翅膀怪兽——译者注）的大鸟，能将一头牛或一匹马轻易地抓到巢穴里"、"头上长角的人，他前面只有一只眼睛，而背后有三、四只眼睛"、"其他的人则长着像马那样的蹄子"、"弓奇手上半身是男人，下半身是马"；此外，还有青春之泉以及一片"含沙的海"，而"来自它的每一块残片……都会变成宝石"；还有"生命之树"和"长着七个头的怪龙"，等等。在这位祭司王约翰的国土上，几乎所有能梦想出来的神话怪兽和神奇宝物，都似乎应有尽有。不过，信中却只字未提那方土地究竟在哪里，只是泛泛地提到了"许多被叫作印度的地方"。 在本书前一章里，我已经引用过那些说法了（而我现在知道，它们所指的地方，与其说是印度次大陆，不如说很可能就是埃塞俄比亚）。不仅如此，这些分散在各地的奇禽异兽还似乎属于这个真实的世界：例如"大象"和"单峰骆驼"；此外，那"前面生着一只角的"独角兽，则听上去很像犀牛——常常听说犀牛有时能"杀死雄狮"，这就似乎更能使它成为神话般的野兽了。 这类细节使我想弄清，此信作者除了欺骗之外还知道什么——其实，他很可能直接地了解埃塞俄比亚，因为那里当然都能见到骆驼、大象、狮子和犀牛。我注意到，信中的一段把"马其顿的亚历山大国王"和"高戈与玛高戈"相提并论，这就更加深了我上面的那种怀疑。因为我记得，埃塞俄比亚的一部非常古老的手稿里说到亚历山大、高戈与玛高戈时，也使用了一模一样的说法。那部手稿名叫《正义集革》（Lefafa Sedek），据说，它直到19世纪才传到了阿比西尼亚国外。 另一个引起我兴趣的问题是：这位"祭司王约翰"在信中宣称，他的基督教王国里有大量的犹太人——看来这些犹太人处于半自治状态，经常与国王交战。这个说法同样具有某种埃塞俄比亚色彩：公元10世纪以后，古迪特领导的犹太人起义曾一度推翻了所罗门世系的王朝；而当时埃塞俄比亚的犹太人与基督教徒之间的冲突，其实已经持续了好几百年。 所以，信中所说这一切尽管有不少出自幻想、并显然是杜撰的成分，我还是不能把它们看作彻头彻尾的欺骗。何况在我看来，这封信的首要目的大概是恫吓作为收信方的欧洲军队，使他们望而却步。在这方面，我尤其注意到了信中反复提到"祭司王约翰"军队的人数。For example: 我们拥有……42座城堡，皆为世上最坚固、最美丽的城堡，有许多人在保卫它们。我们还有10000名骑士，6000名空手，15000名弓箭手，以及40000名步兵……无论何时投入战争……我们皆知前方有40000名修士以及数量相同的骑士在前进。其后是20万步兵，其中还不包括辎重马车及运送武器军火的大象和骆驼队。 这分明是在炫耀武力，不过，其中最值得注意的是此信与另一件事情的密切关联，即它充满敌意地特别提到了圣殿骑士。在一段显然是写给"法国国王"的话里，这封信暗示说： 你们当中有些法国人，属于你的血统，亦是你的下属。他们很善于和阿拉伯人相处。你信任他们，认为他们愿意并将会帮助你，但他们皆为骗子与叛徒……你若是勇敢无畏，胆量无匹，那就祷告吧，切莫忘记处死那些背叛的圣殿骑士。 读着这封奇异书信其他部分中的这些不祥暗示，我对自己提出了一个问题：在1165年，"祭司王约翰"这个角色的真正当选人是否会有一种动机，即：其一，吹嘘自己战无不胜的军事力量，以恐吓欧洲军队的总体；其二，尤其要低毁圣殿骑士，要求把他们"处死"？ 我的答案是：哈贝在1165年曾是埃塞俄比亚扎格维王朝的统治者，他肯定应当是教皇亚历山大三世1177年那封回信的收信人"祭司王约翰"。 我认定哈贝就是1165年那封被看作骗局的书信的真正作者，其理由之一是它的措辞及用语。随着考察的深入，我已经发现，扎格维王朝的所有君主都喜欢在其一连串的头衔里使用一个埃塞俄比亚的术语"Jan"。这个字源于"Jano"，指的是一种略带红色的紫色长袍，只有贵族才能穿。"Jan"的意思是"国王"或者"陛下"，并很可能和"约翰"（John）的这个字相混。其实，完全有可能正是由于这一点（以及由于扎格维王朝的几位统治者同时也是祭司），才首先造出了"祭司（国）王约翰"这个用语的。 不过，我之所以怀疑是哈贝，还有一个更有力的理由。他在1165年毕竟正面临着一个已经萌发的政治难题。当时，哈贝同父异母的弟弟拉利贝拉（此人最终废黜了哈贝）被当作异己，已经在耶路撒冷流亡了五年。我认为，这五年的时间已经足以使拉利贝拉结识圣殿骑士，并和他们交上朋友了。他甚至可能请圣殿骑士们帮助他推翻哈贝，而后者也许听说了他们这个计划。 我想，这样的情况并非完全不可能产生。不久之后，哈贝就请求教皇恩准在圣墓教堂的特权（这是"祭司王约翰"王国的一些"上层人士"在巴勒斯坦向教皇提出的要求）。这个举动表明哈贝当时已经定期向耶路撒冷派遣使臣。因此，这些使臣就有可能搜集到那个情报，即1165年拉利贝拉和圣殿骑士正在酝酿一个阴谋。 如果历史果真如此，那就无疑可以最终找出那封信的一个说法的原因，即它暗藏杀机，暗示法国国王说：如果他处死"背叛的圣殿骑士"（当时，大部分圣殿骑士都是法国人），那将会是个上策。至少根据这个假定，"祭司王约翰的书信"就有可能是哈贝在耶路撒冷的间谍们炮制出来的，是一个精心策划出来的计策，其目的在于打破圣殿骑士和拉利贝拉王子之间的勾结。 这显然是一种引人入胜的推理逻辑。不过，它又是一种容易出错的推测。如果不是在《帕西法尔》里看到了某些段落，它们似乎证实了圣殿骑士和拉利贝拉的确结成了此类联盟（哈贝所害怕的正是这样的联盟），我就绝不想沿着这条思路继续考察下去。 "在非洲深处……" 《帕西法尔》的写作时间，是在拉利贝拉把哈贝赶下埃塞俄比亚王位之后。这本书里有几处直接提到了圣殿骑士，他们被描写成了"寻找圣杯帮"的成员。 我发现，令人感兴趣的是一个特别的暗示。沃尔夫拉姆在书中几次做出了这样的暗示，那就是：圣殿骑士有时被派往海外去完成某种使命——那种使命极为秘密，与赢得政治权力有关。For example: 圣杯上面写着文字，要求上帝赋予一个远方民族的任何一名圣殿骑士……绝不可问及他的姓名及世系，而必须帮助他们获得自己的权利。向他提出此类问题后，那里的人民便不再能够留住他。 类似的段落还有： 倘若一方国土失去其主人，其人民看到上帝愿意帮助其民众，而向圣杯帮要求一位新主人，他们的祷告使必会实现……上帝已秘密地派出了那些人。 这个段落虽然很有意思，但引起我注意的却是后面的另一页文字。那是"圣杯帮"一位成员的长篇独白，其中提到"在非洲深处……经过罗哈"骑马驰骋。 我发现，学者们曾尝试性地把"罗哈"确定为桑皋施蒂里亚的罗希斯特堡（奥地利南部一个州的地名——译者注）。但我认为，这种地点偏差完全是错误的：书里的上下文已经暗示出它在非洲，而我也很难赞同那种推断的理由。 不过，我知道一个情况，而德国和英国大学里研究沃尔夫拉姆的专家们却可能并不知道，那就是："罗哈"（Rohas）是埃塞俄比亚最遥远的高原上一个小镇的旧称。这小镇现在名叫"拉利贝拉"，为的是纪念这位出生在这里的伟大国王。公元1185年，他成功返回这小镇时，将它定为了国都。 这些研究中世纪德语文学的专家也不会有理由意识到：正是这同一位拉利贝拉，曾寄居耶路撒冷25年，与一个军事宗教教派的圣殿骑士们过从甚密，而该教派的总部就设在所罗门圣殿的原址上。这些骑士对任何一位打算夺取王位者都怀有特殊的兴趣，只要那个国家自称拥有那只失踪的约柜，而创建圣殿骑士教的本来宗旨就是保卫约柜。 因此，我现在必须提出这样一个问题：1185年拉利贝拉返回埃塞俄比亚、废黜哈贝时，是否有证据表明可能有一队圣殿骑士在伴随着他？ 当时我想，我不会轻易得到这个问题的答案。但幸运的是，我在1983年为埃塞俄比亚政府编写那本书时，曾去过拉利贝拉镇，并且保留着当时的实地考察笔记。因此，我便仔细地研究这些笔记。我几乎立即就看到了一个有趣的情况，这使我很吃惊。 我曾注意到，在由岩石凿成的贝塔·米里亚姆教堂（这是供奉圣母玛利亚的另一座教堂）的天顶上，"有一排已经褪色的红漆画的十字军式样的十字图案"。当时我做出的评论是："它们看上去丝毫不像一般的埃塞俄比亚十字——回亚的斯亚贝巴后要考察一下它们的来源。" 当时我甚至为这些"十字军式的十字"之一（它向外伸展出三角形的架臂）画了一幅粗略的速写。尽管我已经不记得自己曾经做过，但当时我显然还对此做了进一步思考。后来，我在那幅速写下面用不同颜色的钢笔注上了一个术语："croix pattee（法语：交叉十字架——译者注）。" 1983年时，我还不知道，圣殿骑士教的标志就是红色的"croix pattee"，那是该教派于1128年在特罗耶会议上得到官方教会承认之后采用的。但到1989年，我已经知道了这一点。不仅如此，我还了解到圣殿骑士教在其全部历史上都参与了建造宏伟教堂的活动。 我心中几乎是不可避免地随之产生了一些更进一步的问题。经过相当长的一段被遗忘时期，拉利贝拉建造的这11座由整块岩石雕凿的教堂，现已成了埃塞俄比亚历史上最高级的建筑成就（这实际上是联合国教科文组织的见解）。不仅如此，它们还笼罩着某种神秘的气氛。准确地说，埃塞俄比亚国内还有另外一些由整块岩石雕凿的教堂，但其中没有一座能和这些教堂相媲美。 其实，无论是从整体立意、工艺水平还是从审美表现上看，拉利贝拉的独石教堂都是绝无仅有的。没有任何一位专家能断定它们是如何雕凿出来的，并且一直有谣言说有些外国人参与过它们的建造。一些学者认为，拉利贝拉国王当年曾经雇用了印度人或者埃及的基督教徒做石匠。相反，埃塞俄比亚的传说却把这些工程说成是天使的作品！但我现在不得不自问：建造拉利贝拉教堂的真正工匠，是否就是那些圣殿骑士呢？ 我在1983年的实地考察笔记当然描绘了一个梦幻般建筑群的图景： 这些教堂就像高耸的大厦。它们建成800年以来一直是现存信仰的圣地。不过，强调一点也很重要：它们根本不是以传统方式建造的，而是在它们矗立的红色火成岩上直接开凿出来的。它们因此而显得是非人力所为——这不仅指它们的规模，而且指它们的工艺和构思。 只有做了仔细的考察以后，才能领悟它们所代表的全部成就。这是因为，正如那些中世纪的奥秘一样，当时的人们曾竭力掩盖它们真正的性质——其中一些教堂几乎被完全掩埋在了深深的沟壑里，另一些则被隐藏在开凿出来的巨大山石四口中。把它们连接在一起的，是一个山隧道和狭窄通道组成的、扑朔迷离的复杂迷宫，其中还有些旁支逸出的地窖、壁龛以及走廊——那是个凉爽的、布满青苔的地下世界，阴暗潮湿，一片寂静，只有僧侣和执事们从事他们无时限的供奉活动时的脚步，才会在其中发出模糊的回声。 其中有四座教堂完全独立，只有基座和周围的岩石相连。它们的尺寸和构造尽管迥然有别，但都采用了巨型山石的形式，雕刻十分精确，完全模仿通常的教堂建筑。在周围开凿出来的深陷场地上，它们完全是各自独立的，其中最令人惊叹的是贝塔·乔吉斯教堂（供奉圣乔治）。它兀然独立， 坐落在离其他教堂相当远的一个位置上。它矗立在一个深深的、几乎呈井形的深坑中央，高达40多英尺，其内部和外部都很像十字架。它内部的圣殿有个无可挑剔的圆顶，而教堂的全部做工也都是一流的。 以上我只简要抄录了我1983年的笔记。那份笔记最后提出了以下的问题，作为结论： 不考虑传说中的所谓"天使的帮助"，拉利贝拉的这些奇迹究竟是怎样创造出来的呢？说实话，今天谁都不知道真正的答案，因为如此大规模、如此完美地开凿和雕刻山岩的技术，早就消失在历史的迷雾中了。 1989年夏天，我重新翻阅了六年前写下的那份笔记。我对其中所说的"迷雾"几乎没被澄清感到不满，对当时还有那么多问题在等待我去弄清也感到不满。我本能地产生了一种强烈的感觉：圣殿骑士们可能参与了建造拉利贝拉这些复杂建筑的活动。但事实却是，没有什么证据支持我这个见解，只有我在圣玛利教堂（即贝塔·米里亚姆教堂）天顶上看到的那些红漆"十字军式十字"——圣玛利教堂是那四座独立的教堂之一。 尽管如此，这些教堂的来源当时的确依然是个谜团。学者们无法解释它们是如何被雕凿出来的，无法解释谁是它们的建造者，这些都反映出了这个谜团。拉利贝拉镇的一些居民古怪地坚信天使参与了这些教堂的建造工作，这也曲折地反映出了这个谜团。现在，我研究1983年的实地考察笔记时发现，这个不解之谜当中还包含着另外一些内容。 我当时的笔记说，在圣玛利教堂内部，一位僧侣曾带着我来到了掩蔽的内殿门口，并让我看一根高高的立柱。以下就是我当时对这根立柱的描述： 它的直径大约和一个大型树桩相同，从岩石地面耸起，消失在幽暗的上方。它的外面螺旋式地完全裹着一条市带，那布带非常古老，已经辨不出颜色，只剩下一条条褪了色的染料的痕迹。那僧侣说，这根立柱是神圣的，那上面的铭文是拉利贝拉国王本人的手迹。这些铭文显然揭示了建造这些独石教堂的秘密。我问是否可以揭开裹在立柱外面的布，这样我就能读到这些秘密，但那位可怜的僧人却被吓坏了。他对我说："那是渎神的行为啊。那块布从来没被揭开过。" 使我焦躁不安的是，我的笔记只写了这么多。当时我又针对那些"十字军式的十字"草草写了几句，就离开了圣玛利教堂，去了这个建筑群的下一座教堂。 1983年，这个破旧的随身笔记本曾和我一起到处旅行。我现在合上它的时候，只是对自己当年那么缺少好奇心感到事后的恼火。拉利贝拉镇有那么多的东西值得调查，可当时我却没有调查。我本来应当在那里提出许多问题，但我却没有提。大量的黄金机会当时曾经自动出现在我面前，却被我忽视了。 我相当灰心，便把注意力转到了一大堆第一手和第二手的参考资料上，那是我搜集的有关埃塞俄比亚的资料。我搜集的那些影印资料，虽然大部分都很有价值，却都是些互不相关的学术论文。然而，其中的一本书却似乎很可能为我提供些有用的东西。这本书的书名是《印度地方的祭司王约翰》，是1520-1526年间葡萄牙驻埃塞俄比亚大使原文著述的英文译本。这本书的作者就是弗朗西斯科·阿尔瓦雷兹神甫，长达五百多页，于1540年在里斯本出版，1881年由英国阿尔德莱的第九代斯坦利男爵译成英文。 我面前这个英译本的版本比较新，是1961年由哈克吕特协会出版的。这本书的编者是伦敦大学的教授C·F·白金汉和G·W·哈廷福德。他们说，阿尔瓦雷兹"不是罕见的愚蠢就是个无法置信的……善心、老练而富于判断力的人……他完全不像一般旅行家那样说谎，而后者常常试图夸大自己的见闻"。这样一来，这本书就被学者普遍看作了一部"令人极感兴趣的著作……包含着无比丰富的细节，是关于埃塞俄比亚历史的一部非常重要的资料"。 我脑子回想对这本书的这些热情洋溢的评价，打开了它第一卷的第205页。在这里，阿尔瓦雷兹写到了他亲身探访拉利贝拉镇的情况。他先用很长篇幅逐一描述了那些教堂，读到这些文字，我只能赞美作者观察的仔细和他简明的语言。最使我惊讶的是，阿尔瓦雷兹访问拉利贝拉镇和我1983年对那里的访问。两者虽然间隔了四个半世纪，但那里的变化却是那么微乎其微。书中甚至还提到了圣玛利教堂那根立柱外面的布条！对那座教堂的其他方面做了一番叙述以后，这位葡萄牙旅行家又写道："此十字式教堂交叉处穹顶下有一立柱，其饰纹有如以蜡翻制而成。" 阿尔瓦雷兹谈到，所有这些教堂都"完全是在现有的岩石上精工开凿"的。他在书中的一处赞叹说： 我已倦于更多描写这些建筑了，因为我认为，我若再写下去，读者便不会相信。这又因为，读者阅读我已写下的文字后，会责备我在撒谎。因此，我凭上帝起誓，因他赋予我力量：我所写的一切皆为真实，未做丝毫增添渲染，且我未记述的东西更多得多。我将舍去它们不写，如此它们便不会被当作谎言而使我受责。我想让世人知道这般壮观的景象，这愿望是何等强烈啊。 阿尔瓦雷兹无疑就像一个优秀记者，在他那次访问即将结束时，与几位年长资深的僧侣谈了话。值得一记的是，那次访问是在那座教堂建成仅仅三个半世纪之后进行的。这位葡萄牙旅行家对目睹的一切都感到惊异，便问那几位僧侣，是否知道开凿和雕刻些独体巨石教堂用了多少时间，这些工作是由谁完成的。他得到的回答（当时其中还没有充斥着后来的迷信说法），