Raimond Déjean
	Translated by David Burr, History Department, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA.

Raimond Déjean's process is important but also a bit frustrating. He is called a heresiarch, and other processes suggest that he earned the title. His name appears regularly. People often admit to having aided him during his years as a fugitive, and they often recall things he said to them that obviously made an impression. Nevertheless, two elements make his process hard to interpret. First, in the course of his imprisonment he seems to have moderated his views considerably. The process displays various stages of belief much as an archeological dig simultaneously reveals various levels of history, and it is not easy to sort these levels out. In order to avoid adding to the problem I have tried to adhere strictly to the tenses used in the process rather than steamlining them for easy reading as I did in some other cases.

The second problem is that in at least three places something seems to be omitted. In two of these cases one gathers that he identified a figure from the Apocalypse with a specific person, (in one case John XXII, and perhaps in the other as well) and in the third he apparently went on to describe a specific decision made by John XXII. In these three places I have noted the problem by placing a "sic" in brackets.

Raymond's process is translated from Raoul Manselli's edition in Spirituali e beghini di Provenza, 302-306. A French translation is given in Manselli's Spirituels et Béguins du Midi, 267-271.

Raimond Déjean, apostate from the Order of Friars Minor, orginally from Montréal, once associated with those friars who wore short, skimply habits and did not want granaries or wine cellars, as as we learned in legally valid manner through his confession made in judicial process during the month of October in the year 1325, entered the Order of Friars Minor thirty-three years ago and and remained in it up to the time Lord John XXII became pope. Then, with the other friars who wore short habits and had appealed to the Roman curia, he was cited first before the lord pope and and later before the commissioners appointed by the lord pope. At length, ordered to comply with the wishes of his order and sent by the custode of his province to the convent at Anduze, he remained there for a while.; but hearing that the inquisitor at Marseilles, a member of his own order, was citing his companions to answer heresy charges and forcing them to abjure heresy, he left the convent with another friar. They were then wearing the habits of their order, and continued to do so for some time. Arriving at Béziers, he remained hidden for more than three years in a certain house (which he identifies), along with his companion and some apostate women. Then, abandoning the habit of his order and dressing in the manner of a secular priest, he wandered about both overseas and here, in Provence on the other side of the Rhône as well as in Rouergue and Gascogne.

Again, he associated himself with Pierre Trencavel of Béziers, knowing that he had fled from the prison at Carcassonne where he had been detained as a beguin heretic, and with Guillaume Verrier, Guillaume Sarralier and other fugitive beguins who were then being pursued for the same crime. He joined them in carrying Friar Pierre Déjean's books in Provence. He commonly celebrated mass and engaged in care of souls in Gascoigne. He carried and had exercised control over money, even though it is said (and he himself has admitted) that according to the Franciscan rule friars should have nothing either privately or in common. He asserts that the final and principal reason why he left the order was that the whole question which had been introduced in the papal curia on behalf of himself and his companions had first gone in their favor but then, once it was turned over to the inquisitor at Marseilles, it had returned on their heads by violence rather than justice, because the other friars who constituted the community did not allow them to observe their rule or the totality of the constitutions promulgated by Pope Nicholas III.

Again, he possessed and conserved Friar Pierre Déjean's commentary on the Apocalypse, which was condemned officially by the lord pope, even after he heard that it had been condemned, knowing that he did wrongly.

Again, he heard from Brother Guillaume Giraud that the time would come when an emperor would subjugate the church and rule the city of Rome, which would then be called Babylon the great whore; and that he would confound and destroy the things of Christ insofar as he could.

Again, he heard from some people whom he names that Lord John XXII's constitution granting the Friars Minor granaries and wine cellars was unjust and the friars were not required to obey it. Those who were condemned for refusing to do so were condemned unjustly, and the strictures against them were not binding. He himself did not believe such, though, but instead believed the opposite, or so he said.

Again, he heard from some people whom he names that the beguins burned at Carcassonne should be considered saints and holy martyrs, especially a certain woman burned at Lunel; but he himself did not believe it, or so he said.

Again, speaking to a certain person whom he names, he preached that the pope, whoever he might be, cannot alter a vow of chastity against the will of the person who has vowed it, or alter a vow of evangelical poverty made by someone who has vowed to live without private possessions, as long as the vow was made in proper fashion. He believed this and still believes it, he said, and he will continue to believe it unless the contrary is shown to him through Holy Scripture. He said he believed and still believes that the pope cannot alter a vow or chastity or poverty for any reason as long as the vow was made in proper fashion. Finally, though, he said that he is ready to believe what the supreme pontiff says on this matter and whatever he has said should be accepted.

Again, he asserted that he believed and still believes that the lord pope cannot absolve him or any other friar from the vows of chastity and poverty or place them in the Benedictine order without their still being required to live, because they are always held to observe the aforesaid two vows and cannot be required to break them by papal order.

Again, he said he believes that the pope can dispense the friars from the proscription against holding property in common, but not from that against holding it privately, nor does he believe that the Friars Minor can hold common property in such a way that it is it actually their property as the Preaching Friars can. The latter hold things in common as their own property and can defend it if someone tries to take it from them. The Friars Minor cannot, or at least they should not, he said. He said that the Friars Minor have only the use of what they hold and consume, while the pope has lordship over it. And when it was said to him that the pope had issued a declaration in which he declared that he had no more lordship over the goods of the Friars Minor than he had over the goods of other orders, and when he was asked who he know thought had lordship over those goods, he replied that he did not know what he now thought about it.

Again, he said when asked that if someone whould wish to take away his breviary or tunic he would not defend them or otherwise prevent them from being taken, unless it was a matter of simply asking the perion not to take them. because he felt the breviary and tunic were not his, nor did he enjoy anything in regard to them except use, and he felt he would sin if he defended them.

Again, he said he believed and still believes that the pope cannot give him or any other friar permission to carry and manage money as other orders like the Preaching Friars and Carmelites do, except in case of necessity.

Again he asserted that he believed the lord pope could not take away, totally destroy or nullify the rule of the Friars Minor, or absolve anyone who has vowed to uphold and observe that rule. On the contrary, that person should be required to observe the rule and vow of chastity, poverty and obedience vowed by him.

Again, he said when asked about it that he had never totally accepted and believed the idea that the Friars Minor burned at Marseilles and the beguins burned elsewhere were martyrs and saints. Asked if he thought them to be saved or damned, he replied that he had been amazed at their condemnation and did not unreservedly believe them to be either saved or damned.

Again, he said he believed once that Christ and the apostles never owned anything either privately or in common.like the canons regular or Preaching Friars or Augustinians, but because the pope has declared . . .[sic]

Again, he said he did not consider himself to be excommunicated or irregular or apostate from his order because, as he said, he did not leave his order with the intention of apostasizing, transgressing his vow and rule, or forsaking his obedience, but only with the intention of fleeing the malice of his ministers, of his order and of the inquisitor at Marseilles.

Again, he said he had already heard that Bernard Lion of Montréal had been condemned and burned because he said if the lord pope gave him, who had vowed chastity, a wife, or wished to make him, who had vowed poverty, a canon at Carcassonne and give him a regular clerical income, he did not know if the pope could do that and he would not obey. If, [Raimond] said, Bernard Lion was condemned for this and nothing else - and he had no doubt that Bernard was in fact condemned for the aforesaid - then he believed Bernard was saved and in Paradise because, as he said, he cannot make a man who has vowed chastity take a wife or make a man who has vowed poverty accept a regular clerical income.

This apostate testified after he was captured in Gascogne, and once he was brought to Carcassonne he was charged with even more and greater offenses than those concerning which he had testified earlier. He was commonly considered a heresiarch by others. He refused to acknowledge holding other errors, though frequently asked to do so. He was a fugitive for nine years. When ordered to recant the errors contained in his testimony, he said he would think about it and later do as God instructed him. He said he repented.

Again, he heard from Na Prous or from her companions the following errors: first, that the Holy Spirit was given to Na Prous just as the Son of God was given to the Blessed Virgin.

Again, that the sacraments do not confer salvation.

Again, that the church is spiritually dead.

Again, that we do not need the body of Christ because it is now the time of the Holy Spirit.

Again, that anyone who wishes to be saved must believe Na Prous on all these matters.

He himself, however, did not believe these things, he said; yet he concealed them and neither reported Prous nor aided in her capture.

Again, Friar Raimond once read to a certain person whom he names, and later to another person, from Pierre Déjean's Apocalypse commentary, that the church was adulterous. He believed that, he said, particularly because of its simony. It was not entirely such, but only a part of it.

Again, he read to many people whom he names from the commentary that someone would be like Herod who persecuted the children. He sometimes thought this would be . . .[sic]

Again, he read to other people whom he names this line from the commentary: "The wild boar from the forest lays it waste, and the beasts of the field feed upon it" [Ps. 80:14]. And he was somewhat of the opinion that this this one [presumably Pope John XXII] was the boar, and he would have believed this firmly had evidence not shown him that the contrary was true, for example maintenance of divine worship, attention to justice, love of honor and other things which are evident, as he said.

Again, he said that when asked by some simple people whether the pope can dispense from the rule of the Friars Minor he answered ironically that he cannot, because he felt these people were involving themselves in the business of the Franciscan order. He was in fact unsure on this point for a while, perhaps fifteen days; but coming to his senses he believed that the pope could provide such dispensation.

Again, when he was reading the aforesaid commentary and was asked by a certain person listening to him who that mystical Antichrist was, he replied that it was he who did good and bad at the same time. In reality he does not believe he knows; yet he said that it was . . . [sic], because, as he said, he had read long ago in a theological work that the mystical Antichrist would provide the Friars Minor with regular income. It was perhaps this that prevented him from believing so, because this person took such away in doing as he did concerning the Clementine decretal, for he took away their procurators and humiliated them.

In the sentencing procedure on November 11, 1328 Raimond is listed among those who recanted and were sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. at Carcassonne, on a diet of bread and water. In the case of Raimond it is specified that, since he is more guilty than others he is also to be degraded from all ecclesiastical orders and kept in irons. The recantation is in the Collection Doat, vol. 27, ff. 87r-89v, and the sentence of perpetual imprisonment on ff. 91v-94v, with Raimond's particular case mentioned on f. 93v.

Return to "Heresy and Inquisition" page
Return to "Medieval Sources in Translation" page
Return to "David Burr's Home Page"