SOURCE: Green, Herman J. “Fromont, a Traitor in the Chansons de geste.” Modern Language Notes 56, no. 5 (May 1941): 329-37.

[In the following essay, Green probes possible historical sources for the treacherous figure of Fromont in Garin le Loherain and related works.]

A character by the name of Fromont plays a rôle of the first importance in Garin le Loherain and throughout the entire Loherain cycle of which Garin forms the nucleus.¹ We also find a Fromont in the principal villainous role in Jourdain de Blaivies.² In Berthe aus grans piés³ a reference is made to this character from the Loherain cycle, while in Gaydon³ there is mention of ‘Fromont dou gaut foillu,’ by which is doubtless meant the forest at Lens where Begon was killed. Langlois, probably on the strength of this, considers him as belonging to the ‘lignage des traîtres.’² Fromonts are mentioned also in Ogier le Danois, Raoul de Cambrai, and Otinel, but in this latter group there is nothing in the poem to indicate whether they are traitors or sympathetic personages. They are merely spoken of as knights who are killed in battle or are present at the court of Charlemagne.² Finally, this traitor appears again in the Dutch poem Les Enfants de Limbourg. Huet believes that here the character is borrowed from the Dutch version of the Loherain cycle.⁴

What is the origin of this notorious personality who left so important an imprint upon the literature of the Middle Ages? Did he have any real existence or was he merely a creation of one of the writers of chansons de geste?

The writer of this article has long been interested in the question of an historical basis for the Loherain cycle. It will be remembered that Ferdinand Lot studied this problem in his article L'Element historique de Garin le Lorrain. He reluctantly came to the conclusion that this historical basis was non-existent.⁵ He was able to identify several very minor characters, ‘des comparses,’ with some real persons of the late 12th century, but admitted that they might be interpolations of copyists.⁶ This subject has also been treated to some extent in my edition of Anseÿs de Mes.⁷ In an effort to clarify this matter a little further I have consulted a number of Latin chronicles in Migne's Patrologia, as a result of which the following was brought to light:

According to the Annals of Flodoard⁸ (894-966?), in the year 941, Fromont, count of Sens, arbitrarily unseated Gerlan, the archbishop of that city, because the latter had shown favor to one Wallon, whose suzerain, Count Herbert of Champagne, had previously expelled Fromont from the same city.⁹

Next there occurred an excommunication launched against Rainard, count of Sens, and his son Rodmundus or Frotmundus. This forms part of a group of works called Appendix Actorum Veterum, forming a supplement to Regino Priemiensis Abbas.¹⁰ Neither the date nor the precise reasons for the excommunication are given. The editor of this chronicle here comes to our assistance, however. Basing his arguments on quotations from two chronicles, i. e. Spicilegium Dacheriani, vol. 10, p. 635, and Chronicon sancti Petri Senonensis, he furnishes the missing information.¹¹

It appears that in 976 the archbishop died, and Rainardus wanted the position to pass into his own immediate family.¹² When, despite the count's delaying tactics, one Seguin was elected and consecrated, the former forbade the new archbishop the approaches to the city of Sens, although this incumbent was the count's own nephew. The prelate's reply was to put the entire province of Sens under an interdict, and to proclaim the aforementioned excommunication.¹³

However, many years later, long after this controversy had died down, the succession to the archbishopric of Sens caused a new tempest, almost exactly similar to the previous one.

In 999 Seguin died. Shortly before this, Rainard had died, and had been succeeded by his son Fromont, who now wished the post for his son Bruno. A number of other ambitious clerics angled for the position, so that a veritable schism occurred.¹⁴ When the electors chose one Leodoric, Fromont resorted to the same tactics which his father had previously employed against Seguin.¹⁴ According to our editor, since the situation was exactly parallel to that of 976, the same excommunication was used, only the names being changed.¹⁵

Then there is an account by Rodulfus Glaber (c. 1048) in which we are told how in 1008 the aforementioned Leodoric found some holy relics that immediately began to perform miracles.¹⁶ Sens became a tourist attraction, therefore very opulent. Because of this new found prosperity the inhabitants grew very arrogant.¹⁶ The worst offender in this respect, however, was the count himself, Rainard, who had succeeded his father Fromont.¹⁷ This Rainard is described as a detractor of the Christian faith and pitiless in his dealings with the poor. Furthermore, he was a renegade and ‘followed the false customs of the Jews.’¹⁸ For this reason the king, who had frequently cautioned him because of his iniquitous ways, was finally persuaded to send a punitive expedition against him, adding Sens to the royal domain. Rainard was then ejected from his city which was sacked and burned.¹⁹

Another chronicler, Hugo de Sancta Maria (c. 1117), recounts the events of the year 999, mentioned above as having led to the excommunication of Fromont of Sens, in somewhat greater detail.

Old Rainard, after having perpetrated many evil deeds, died in 996, and was succeeded by his son Fromont.²⁰ Leodoric, the people's choice for bishop, was opposed by several ambitious candidates. Fromont, ‘who stemmed from a bad race,’ was especially relentless in his opposition because he wanted the appointment of his own son Bruno. Nevertheless, Leodoric was elected.²¹

Upon the death of Fromont, his son Rainard succeeded him. The latter, ‘a worthless infidel, persecuted the Christian Church and its faithful with a fury unheard of from the days of the Pagans to this very day.’ Archbishop Leodoric, not knowing which way to turn, prayed to Christ for His divine intercession.²² Thereupon, at the advice of the Bishop of Paris, Sens was sacked and given over to King Robert and Leodoric. Rainard fled naked from the city. His brother Fromont, who, together with some soldiers, offered continued resistance to the king, was captured and imprisoned in Orleans, where he died.²³ This recital from Hugo de Sancta Maria appears in literally identical form in Ordericus Vitalis (1075-1143).²⁴ It is not important for our purpose to determine which writer copied from the other.

To anyone familiar with the Loherain cycle, the activities of the Rainard-Fromont family in the chronicles have an unmistakably familiar ring:—their being considered renegades and attackers of the Christian religion,²⁵ their arbitrary blocking of appointments to vacant posts,²⁶ their defying of royal and ecclesiastical authority;²⁷ the fact that some members of the family were in holy orders,²⁸ finally, the insistent references of the chroniclers to members of this old family such as Fromont as being ‘natus ex mala radice,’²⁹ or ‘vetulus Rainaldus’³⁰ as dying ‘post multa perpetrata mala.’³¹

If we juxtapose with the above facts the career of the Bordelais clan in the Loherain poem, we find the following: Fromont renounced Christianity and led an army of Saracens from Spain against Christian France;³² the initial quarrel between the Loherains and the Bordelais arose over the disposition by the king of a fief which had suddenly become vacant;³³ both Bernart de Naisil, uncle of Fromont, and Fromondin, son of Fromont, were at one time in holy orders;³⁴ very frequent pejorative references are made in the poem to the treacherous and evil background of Fromont and his family.³⁵

We thus have a three-fold connection—a name, a personality, a pattern of action—the very stuff of which poets, especially those who composed the French chansons de geste, were wont to weave their many-colored fabrics. Is it not therefore possible that this family, which played so important a rôle locally as to invite the interference of the King of France and excommunication by contemporary archbishops, may have left so strong an impression on posterity that the name Fromont suggested itself as an obvious choice for a powerful and scheming traitor when the chansons de geste came to be composed some hundred or hundred and fifty years later?³⁶

If so, why should Fromont have been transported from his native Sens to Flanders and Artois, where we find him in the Loherain cycle?

In the first place, there is considerable resemblance between s and l as they are written in most mediaeval manuscripts, and that may have had something to do with Fromont de Sens becoming Fromont de Lens when the poet was dealing with the latter region. Secondly, there is a somewhat more direct connection between Sens and the city of Metz, which may be called the central city of the Loherain cycle.

In 775 Charlemagne had placed under Angelram, Bishop of Metz, the ‘régale de l'abbaye de Sénones, qui de monastère royal devint ainsi abbaye épiscopale et vint augmenter le domaine temporel de l'évêché.’³⁷ The bishops of Metz extended their power, acquiring civil and criminal jurisdiction toward the end of the ninth century.³⁷ This may account for the shifting of the exploits of Fromont and his family to Metz and the Loherain cycle.

As for the chief opponent of Fromont II, i. e. Leodoric—ought we to infer any connection between him and a priest of the same name in the Garin, who for a moment assumes a fairly important rôle in that poem, i. e. the Abbé Liétris, a member of the Loherain family, who adopts an intransigent attitude when Begon, brother of Garin, is killed in Fromont's forest?³⁸

If it should be granted that the deeds of this Sénonais family are really connected with Garin le Loherain, one might now place its origin at a much earlier date than F. Lot was willing to assign to it,³⁹ even as early as the beginning of the eleventh century. This was the date given by French critics of the early nineteenth century, such as Paulin Paris, Edeléstand DuMéril, and Leroux de Lincy, who based their reasoning purely on archaeological data.⁴⁰ It also corresponds very closely with the dates I suggested in my edition of Anseÿs de Mes, on the basis of certain historical events which I there pointed out.⁴¹

Notes

1. Cf. my edition of Anseÿs de Mes (Paris, 1939), genealogical table and chap. 1; see also Histoire Littéraire de la France, Paris; H. Welter, 1895, xxii, 604 ff. For a discussion of the name Fromont in the chansons de geste see R. K. Bowman, The Connection of the Geste des Loherains with other French Epics and Medieval Genres (New York: 1940), pp. 81-85.

2. E. Langlois, Table des noms propres de toute nature compris dans les chansons de geste (Paris: Emile Bouillon, 1904), pp. 242-243.

3. Berthe aus grans piés, ed. A. Scheler (Bruxelles: Closson et Cie., 1874), p. 91; Gaydon, ed. F. Guessard (Paris: F. Vieweg, 1859), p. 207.

4. G. Huet, “La Version néerlandaise des Lorrains; Nouvelles études,” Romania, xxxiv, 1905, p. 2.

5. F. Lot, L'Elément historique de Garin le Lorrain, in Etudes d'histoire au Moyen-Age (Paris: Cerf et Alcan, 1896), pp. 201 and 215.

6. Ibid., pp. 201 and 211.

7. Anseÿs, chap. VIII.

8. Flodoardus canonicus Remensis—Annales in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae Latinae Cursus Completus, Paris: Garnier Frères, 1879, cxxxv.

9. ‘Gerlanus Senonensis Archiepiscopus urbe sua depellitur a Frotmundo quem Hugo Albus eidem civitati praefecerat, culpato Gerlando quod Waloni faverit, homini Heriberti comitis, qui Frotmundum vel suos a praefata expulerat urbe.’ Ibid., col. 456, year DCCCCXLI.

10. This Appendix was compiled by Stéphane Baluze (1630-1718) and appears in Migne, op. cit., vol. 132, col. 473 ff. For Rodmundum = Frotmundum, see n. 13 below.

11. ‘Quia tamen satis hactenus cognitum non fuit quo tempore ea [i. e. excommunicatio ista] lata sit, quamve ob causam, cum practerea res sit quae maxime pertinet ad institutum nostrum, visum est illam hic recudere cum observationibus nostris.’ Ibid., col. 473. I was unable to locate the chronicles which Stéphane Baluze quotes, viz. the Spicilegium and Chronicon sancti Petri mentioned above. It will be noted, however, in what detail his interpretation is corroborated by other chronicles which I quote below, and of which Baluze must presumably have been unaware, since he does not quote them.

12. ‘Anno DCCCCLXXVI, cum Anastasius Senonensis archiepiscopus obiisset, Ragenardus urbis illius comes, qui pontificatum in familiam suam inferre cupiebat, novi antistitis electionem turbavit spatio quinque mensium.’ Ibid., col. 473.

13. ‘Tandem Seguinus, filius sororis eiusdem Ragenardi, eo invito electus et consecratus apud Autissiodorum est III idus Junii. Venientem deinde eum Senonas Ragenardus aditu urbis prohibuit. Videns hoc autem ipse archiepiscopus ut ait Clarius in Chronico sancti Petri Vivi Senonensis, omnem provinciam interdixit a Kalendis Octobris usque in caput jejunii. Eo igitur tempore facta est ista excommunicatio adversus Ragenardum comitem et Rodmundum eius filium (quem Frotmundum vocat idem Clarius) quia Seguinum, postquam archiepiscopalem benedictionem susceperat, sanctum Sennensis ecclesiae locum ingredi non permiserant, ut legitur in excommunicatione.’ Ibid., col. 473.

14. ‘Post mortem Seguini, quae anno DCCCCLXXXXIX contigit xvi Kal. Novembri, rursum tempestas in Ecclesia Senonensi. Nam cum Frotmundus comes qui Ragenardo patri non ita multo ante successerat, Brunonem filium Senonibus dari vellet episcopum, eodemque tempori plurimi etiam clericorum (ut Clarius ait) id est, canonicorum, ambitionibus episcopatum appeterent, ingens schisma facta est in Ecclesia, quia neque Bruno neque ullus canonicorum qui episcopari volebant ad eam dignitatem pervenire potuit, eligentium votis in Leothericum archidiaconum convenientibus. Ea de causa Frotmundus adversus ipsum commotus, ei post consecrationem ad sedem suam accedenti portas clausit et urbis introitum denegavit, ut legitur apud Tavellum.’ Ibid., col. 473.

15. ‘Cum ergo eaedem tum excommunicandi causae essent quae Seguinum adegerant ista decernere adversus Ragenardum eius filium, placuit uti eadem formula mutatis nominibus.’ Ibid., col. 473.

16. Rodulfus Glaber, Cluniacensis Monachus, in Migne, op. cit., cxlii, col. 655.

17. ‘… nimium quippe flagitiosus effectus, ecclesiae insuper decus, nisu quo valehat foedare tentabat.’ Ibid., col. 656.

18. ‘Judaeorum quoque in tantum praevaricatorias diligebat consuetudines, ut se regem ipsorum suo praenomine, Rainardus quippe dicebatur, suis omnibus imperaret. Cum enim in caeteris mendacissimus, etiam Christianae fidei insidiosus habebatur detractor. Atque ideo pauperum indicia absque ulla promulgahat pietate, penitus humanitate remota.’ Ibid., col. 656. ‘He loved so greatly the customs and prevarications of the Jews that he ordered all his people [to give him] as a prenomen [the title of] King of the Jews (ipsorum). For, since he was in other matters a great liar, he also was held to be an insidious detractor of the Christian religion. He also pronounced against the poor judgments devoid of any [feeling of] pity or humanity.’ See also note 19, ‘Rainardo … judaizante.’

19. ‘Praeterea Rainardo, ut diximus, judaizante, quin potius insaniante, suasum est regi, qui videlicet illum frequenter ob suam improbitatem redarguerat, ut scilicet tantae civitatis principatum regio subjugaret dominio, ne siquidem diutius vires pessimi incrementi sumeret scandalum sacrae fidei. Qua ratione rex compulsus, misit exercitum, qui praedictum Rainardum a civitati pellerent, sibique illam tuendam servarent. Venientes vero qui missi fuerant a rege, ceperunt urbem cum nimia depopulatione, partem etiam eius non modicam incendio cremavere.’ Ibid., 657.

20. Hugo de Sancta Maria, Floriacensis Monachus, in Migne, op. cit., clxiii. ‘Igitur Rainaldus comes vetulus Senonum post multa perpetrata mala defunctus est … cui successit Frotmundus, filius eius …’ col. 862, 863.

21. ‘At clamahat autem omnis populus sibi ordinari domnum Leothericum, nobilissimis ortum natalibus, tunc archidiaconum, omni bonitate conspicuum; sed resistebant quam plurimi clerici, cupientes episcopalem conscendere gradum. Praecipue vero Frotmundus comes, filius Rainaldi vetuli, natus ex mala radice, hoc non permittebat fieri, eo quod haberet filium clericum, nomine Brunonem, volens de eo facere episcopum. Dei autem nutu congregati suffraganei episcopi Senonicae ecclesiae, cum voluntate et auctoritate apostolica, sublato omni timore humano, sollempniter ordinaverunt domnum Leothericum in sede pontificali, ut preesset ecclesiae Senonensi.’ Col. 864.

22. ‘Mortuo itaque Frotmundo comite Senonum, successit ei Rainardus, filius eius, infidelium nequissimus. Hic persecutionem intulit ecclesiis Christi et fidelibus eius, quanta non est audita a tempore paganorum usque in hodiernum diem. Archiepiscopus autem Leothericus nimis angustiatus pro hac re, quo se verteret omnino nesciebat. Totum vero se Domino comittens, in orationibus et vigiliis exorahat Christum ut ei superna pietas auxilium ministraret.’ col. 864.

23. ‘Igitur anno a passione Domine MXV, indictione XIII, X Kal. Maii capta est civitas Senonum ab archiepiscopo Leotherico per consilium Rainardi Parisiensis presulis, et regi tradita Roberto. Rainardus comes eiusdem urbis fugiens nudus evasit. [Nec immerito. Talem enim persecutionem Christianis intulerat, qualis non fuerat audita a tempore paganorum. Quam ob rem predictus archiepiscopus sapienti usus consilio, vi ab urbe compulit exire.] Frotmundus vero, frater eius, et ceteri milites de civitate ingressi in turrim quae est in civitate, obtinuerunt eam. Rex autem oppugnans eam diebus multis, cepit eam et fratrem Rainardi comitis Frotmundum duxit in carcerem Aurelianis civitate; ubi et defunctus est.’ Col. 864.

24. Ordericus Vitalis Historiae Ecclesiasticae in Migne, op. cit., vol. clxxxviii, col. 513.

25. Cf. notes 18, 22, 23 above.

26. Cf. notes 13, 14.

27. Cf. notes 9, 13, 14, 21, 22.

28. Cf. notes 12, 14, 21.

29. Cf. note 21.

30. Cf. note 20.

31. Cf. note 20.

32. Anseÿs, p. 19; also Girbert de Mes, Paris: ms. N, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, 3143, folio 115^r.

33. Anseÿs, pp. 17, 18. In general, throughout the geste the Bordelais display an attitude of open defiance toward the king. At one point, for example, Fromont invades the royal palace with an armed force, attempting to assault the king while the latter is being waited upon at table by the Loherains. (cf. Girbert, op. cit., 93^v.)

34. Anseÿs, p. 20; E. DuMéril, La Mort de Garin le Lorrain (Paris: Franck, 1846), pp. 153, 163.

35. e. g. Queen Blanchefleur taunts Fromont with being ‘du lignage Garlain, Le traïteur qui meurtri son parain,’ Girbert, op. cit. 106^v; another of the Bordelais, Isoré li gris, a relative of Fromont, is reproached as follows: ‘no wonder you are a traitor, in view of your ancestry’ (‘Bien le dois faire; de tel gent es naquis’), Garin le Loherain, ed. P. Paris, Paris: Techener, 1833, i, 171; or again,

    Sire Fromons, ce dist Garins li fiers,
    Bien avez fait quant m'avez acointié
    De traïson, ne vous puis blastengier:
    Garlain vostre aive ne volez forlignier
    Qui son parrain murdrit en un mostier,
    A son signor-lige coupa le chief
    Et son cousin fit en un sac noier.

    Ibid., i, 130.

    In the Anseÿs, Pépin, complaining of Fromont's family, says ‘trop ai en eus trové de faussetez.’ Anseÿs, line 3744.

36. The fact that parts of the cycle have been, rightly or wrongly, ascribed to Jean de Flagy, a Champenois (cf. P. Paris, op. cit. i, xix), that Sens and the Sénonais formed part of the old province of Champagne (cf. P. Joanne, Dict. géog. et admin. de la France, Paris, 1905, vii, 4602), that a linguistic study has revealed many Champenois characteristics (Anseÿs, pp. 63, 67, 68 par. 21 and 23) would seem to lend some support to this hypothesis. M. Charles Bruneau in a letter which I received from him, dated April 24, 1940, remarks of the Anseÿs: ‘certains traits me font songer à la Champagne.’

37. L. Schaudel, Les Comtes de Salm et l'abbaye de Senones aux 12^e et 13^e siècles (Nancy-Strasbourg-Paris: Berger-Levrault, 1921), p. 10.

38. P. Paris, op. cit., ii, 249 ff. This character in the poem is referred to as Liederich by F. Mone, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Teutschen Heldensaga (Leipzig: Basse, 1835), p. 235. He gives as Latin variants of this name: Leudericus and Liedricus; ibid., 235 n. 1.

39. I. e. end of the 12th century; cf. Lot, op. cit., pp. 215, 216.

40. P. Paris, op. cit., i, xviii; E. DuMéril, op. cit., xxxiii, xliv. Leroux de Lincy, Analyse critique et littéraire du roman de Garin le Loherain (Paris: Techener, 1835), p. 87.

41. Anseÿs, p. 61.