The Mussulmans shut up in Archas still held out against the Christians. Although the army was encamped in a fertile country, they soon began to experience the want of provisions. The poorest of the pilgrims were reduced, as at Antioch, to feed upon roots, and dispute with animals the leaves of the trees and the grass of the fields. The numerous clergy which followed the army sunk into the deepest distress. Such as could fight went to ravage the surrounding country, and lived on pillage; but those whom age, sex, or infirmities would not permit to carry arms, had no hope but in the charity of the Christian soldiers. The army freely assisted them, and gave up to them the tenth part of the booty obtained from the infidels.
A great number of the Crusaders yielded to the fatigues of the siege, and perished with misery and disease, whilst many fell by the hands of the enemy, who defended themselves with obstinate valour. Among those whose loss was most regretted, history has preserved the name of Pons de Balasu; he was highly esteemed in the army for his intelligence, and up to his death had written the history of the crusade, in conjunction with Raymond d’Agiles. The Crusaders also gave their tears to the memory of Anselm de Ribemont, count de Bouchain, whose piety and courage are much praised in the chronicles of the times. Contemporary authors relate his death as attended with such wonderful circumstances as deserve to be preserved, because they afford a strong idea of the spirit which animated the Crusaders.
One day ’we follow the relation of Raymond d’Agiles) Anselm saw enter into his tent young Angelram, son of the count de St. Paul, who had been killed at the siege of Maarah.[146] “How is it,” said he, “that I see you still living whom I saw dead on the field of battle?” “Know,” replied Angelram, “that they who fight for Jesus Christ do not die.” “But whence comes that strange splendour with which I see you surrounded?” Then Angelram pointed out to him in the heavens a palace of crystal and diamonds. “It is thence,” he added, “that I derive the beauty which surprises you; that is my abode, and there is a much more beautiful one being prepared for you, which you will soon inhabit. Farewell; we shall meet again to-morrow.” At these words, adds the historian, Angelram returned to heaven. Anselm, struck with this apparition, the next morning sent for several ecclesiastics, and received the sacraments; and, although in full health, took leave of his friends, telling them he was about to quit the world in which they had known him. A few hours afterwards, the enemy having made a sortie, Anselm flew, sword in hand, to meet them, and was struck on the forehead by a stone, which, say the historians, sent him to the beautiful palace in heaven that was prepared for him. This marvellous recital, which was credited by the Crusaders, is not the only one of the kind that history has collected. It is useless to remind our readers that extreme misery always rendered the Crusaders more superstitious and credulous. Although the siege of Archas had no religious aim, and even turned the pilgrims aside from the principal object of the holy war, it was not thence less abundant, according to Raymond d’Agiles, in miracles and prodigies of all sorts. The belief of the people was frequently supported by the most enlightened of the leaders, who found it necessary to warm the imaginations of the soldiers to preserve their authority. Every day fresh parties were formed in the Christian army, and the most powerful were always those who circulated a belief in the greatest number of miracles. It was during the siege of Archas that doubts arose among the pilgrims about the discovery of the lance which had had such an effect upon the courage of the Crusaders at the battle of Antioch, and the camp of the besiegers became all at once divided into two great factions, strongly opposed to each other. Arnold de Rohés, according to William of Tyre, a man of dissolute manners, but well versed in history and letters, was the first who dared openly to deny the truth of the prodigy. This ecclesiastic, who was chaplain to the duke of Normandy, drew into his party all the Normans and the Crusaders from the north of France; whilst those of the south ranged themselves on the side of Barthélemi, who was attached to the count de St. Gilles. The priest of Marseilles, a simple man, who himself believed that which he wished others to believe, had a new revelation, and related in the camp that he had seen Jesus Christ attached to the cross, cursing the incredulous, and devoting to the death and punishment of Judas the impious sceptics who dared to search into the mysterious ways of God. This apparition, and the menaces of Christ, highly excited the imaginations of the Provençals, who had no less faith, according to Raymond d’Agiles, in the tales of Barthélemi, than in the evidence of the saints and apostles. But Arnold was astonished that God should only reveal himself to a simple priest, whilst so many virtuous prelates were in the army; and, without denying the intervention of the divine power, he was not willing to admit any other prodigies than those performed by the valour and heroism of the Christian soldiers.
As the produce of the offerings made to the depositaries of the holy lance were distributed to the poor, the latter, who were in vast numbers in the army, were not sparing in murmurs against the chaplain of the duke of Normandy, and they attributed to his incredulity, and that of his partisans, all the evils that the Crusaders had suffered during the siege of Archas. Arnold and his party, which increased every day, on the contrary attributed the misfortunes of the Christians to their divisions, and to the turbulent spirit of a set of visionaries. Amongst these debates the Crusaders of the northern provinces reproached those of the south with want of bravery in fight, with being less anxious for glory than pillage, and with passing their time in ornamenting their horses and mules.[147] The latter, on their side, did not cease to reproach the partisans of Arnold with their want of faith, and their sacrilegious railleries, and, without ceasing, opposed new visions to the reasonings of the incredulous. One had seen St. Mark the evangelist, another the holy Virgin, and both had attested the veracity of the priest of Marseilles. Bishop Adhemar had appeared to a third, informing him that he had been kept several days in hell for having entertained some doubts of the truth of the holy lance.
These recitals only served still more to inflame the minds of the army, and violence often came to the support of trickery and credulity. At length Barthélemi, seduced by the importance of the part he was made to play, and perhaps, also, by the miraculous tales of his partisans, which might strengthen his own illusions, resolved to terminate all debates by submitting to the ordeal by fire. This resolution restored calm to the Christian army, and all the pilgrims were convoked to be witnesses of the judgment of God. On the day fixed ’it was Good Friday), a funeral pile, made of branches of olive, was erected in the middle of a vast plain. Most of the Crusaders were assembled, and everything was prepared for the terrible ordeal. The flames had already mounted to a height of twenty cubits, when Barthélemi was seen advancing, accompanied by the priests, who walked in silence, barefooted, and clothed in their sacerdotal habits. Covered by a simple tunic, the priest of Marseilles bore the holy lance, surrounded with floating streamers. When he arrived within a few paces of the pile, one of the principal of the clergy pronounced in a loud voice the following words: “If this man has seen Jesus Christ face to face, and if the apostle Andrew did reveal the divine lance to him, may he pass safe and sound through the flames; but if, on the contrary, he is guilty of falsehood, may he be burnt, together with the lance which he bears in his hands.” At these words all the spectators bowed, and answered as with one voice, “Be the will of God accomplished.” Barthélemi threw himself on his knees, took Heaven to witness the truth of all that he had said, and, after recommending himself to the prayers of the bishops and priests, rushed through the funeral pile at a part where an opening of two feet wide had been made for his passage.
The numerous spectators lost sight of him for a moment, and many pilgrims, says Raymond d’Agiles, were beginning to lament him, when they saw him appear on the side opposite to that by which he had entered. He was immediately surrounded and pressed upon by an innumerable crowd, who cried out “miracle,” and were eager to touch his vestments. But Barthélemi was covered with mortal wounds. He was carried in a dying state to the tent of the count of Thoulouse, where he expired a few days after, still protesting his innocence and veracity. He was buried beneath the spot where the funeral pile had been erected. Raymond of St. Gilles and the Provençals persisted in regarding him as an apostle and a martyr. The greater number of the pilgrims allowed themselves to be satisfied with the judgment of God,[148] and the miraculous lance from that time ceased to work miracles.[149] In vain the Crusaders from the southern provinces endeavoured to substitute for it the ring and cross of of Adhemar; they attracted neither the devotion nor the offerings of the pilgrims.
Whilst the Crusaders were detained before the fortress of Archas, they received an embassy from Alexius. The Greek emperor wished to impose upon the Latins, by promising to follow them into Palestine with an army, if they would allow him time to make the necessary preparations. Alexius in his letters complained of the non-performance of the treaties by which he was to be made master of the cities of Syria and Asia Minor that had fallen into the hands of the Christians; but he complained without bitterness, and showed so much circumspection in his reproaches as proved that he likewise had some wrongs to repair. This embassy was but ill received in the Christian army. The leaders accused the Greeks of the death of the count of Hainault, and reproached the emperor with his shameful flight during the siege of Antioch. They despised his complaints, and gave no faith to his so often broken promises.
The Latins hated Alexius ever since the siege of Nice. Hatred guided them on this occasion better than the most clear-sighted policy could have done; for in the end, if we are to believe their historians, they learned that the emperor of Constantinople maintained a secret understanding with the caliph of Egypt, and that his design was to retard the march and the progress of the Christian army.
The caliph of Cairo, who was governed by the same policy as Alexius, kept up relations with the Crusaders which circumstances rendered more or less sincere, and which were subordinate to the fear which their arms inspired. Although he negotiated at the same time with the Christians and the Turks, he hated the former because they were the enemies of the prophet, and the latter because they had deprived him of Syria. His object was but to profit by the war, so as to regain his possessions and extend the limits of his empire. For several months he had been master of Jerusalem, and as he trembled for his new conquest, he sent ambassadors to the Christian army. This embassy arrived in the camp a short time after the departure of the deputies of Alexius.
It was accompanied by the deputies whom the Christians had sent into Egypt during the siege of Antioch. On their arrival at Cairo they had at first been well received by the caliph; but as soon as he learned that the Christian army was in a desperate situation, they were thrown into dungeons, and only owed their liberation to the triumphant march of the Christian army, which filled the East with the fame of its victories. Their unexpected return gave the greatest delight to their brothers and companions. They listened with emotion to the account of their captivity, and loud cries of indignation arose throughout the army against the caliph of Cairo.