Deliberation of the doctors and masters of Rouen who gave their opinion in conformity with the University of Paris

Then master Raoul Roussel, treasurer and canon of the cathedral of Rouen where he lived, doctor of canon and civil law, gave his opinion that the case had been notably and solemnly debated; that it should be concluded and defined in the presence of the parties; and unless Jeanne returned to the way of truth and salvation, she should be deemed a heretic. He adhered to the decision of the University of Paris.

Master Nicolas de Venderès, licentiate in canon law, arch. deacon of Eu, canon of the church of Rouen, gave an opinion similar to master Raoul Roussel's, adding that one day would be sufficient to conclude, pronounce the sentence, and abandon Jeanne to the secular justice.

The reverend father in Christ, Gilles, lord abbot of Ste. Trinité de Fécamp, doctor of sacred theology, gave the following opinion: on a fixed day the Promoter should ask her if she wished to say anything more; then she should be admonished. Afterwards if she would not retract and return to the way of truth, she should be considered a heretic, sentence must be pronounced and Jeanne given over to secular justice.

Master Jean de Châtillon, doctor of sacred theology, archdeacon of Évreux, declared that those who have not fully considered the matter are bound to accept the opinion of the University

[324]

of Paris. For his own part he accepted it, and in respect of the rest agreed with the abbot of Fécamp

The reverend father in Christ, Guillaume, lord abbot of Cormeilles, doctor of decrees, followed the University of Paris.

Master André Marguerie, licentiate in law and bachelor of decrees, archdeacon of Petit-Caux and canon of Rouen, in view of the admonitions addressed to Jeanne, adheres to the opinion of the University of Paris. Regarding the procedure, he said one day was sufficient to conclude and pronounce the sentence.

Master Erard Emengart, doctor of sacred theology, thought Jeanne should be once more admonished; and if after this she did not return to the path of truth, he agreed to the opinion of the University of Paris.

Master Guillaume Le Boucher, doctor of sacred theology, held to the opinion he had given with other doctors, masters and bachelors, on April 9th; he added that Jeanne should be once more admonished and be informed of the deliberation of the University of Paris.

The lord Pierre, prior of Longueville-Giffard, doctor of sacred theology, gave a similar opinion. Master Jean Pinchon, licentiate in canon law, archdeacon of Jouy and canon of Paris, adhered to the opinion of master Guillaume Le Boucher.

Master Pasquier de Vaulx, doctor of decrees, canon of the churches of Paris and Rouen, accepted the opinion of the University of Paris.

Master Jean Beaupère, doctor of sacred theology, canon of the churches of Rouen and Besançon, accepted the opinion of the University, and in respect of the subsequent procedure referred to us the judges. Master Denis Gastinel, licentiate in canon and civil law, canon of the church of Rouen, said that if Jeanne would not

[325]

obey after being warned he followed the opinion of the University of Paris.

Master Nicolas Midi, doctor of sacred theology, canon of the church of Rouen, thought that the trial could be concluded and sentence pronounced on the same day; for the rest, he held to the result of his deliberations on April 9th with the other doctors and bachelors.

Master Maurice du Quesnay, doctor of sacred theology, thought Jeanne should once more be charitably admonished, and if she did not obey, he accepted the opinion of the University of Paris.

Master Pierre Houdenc, doctor of sacred theology, declared that for the salvation of her body and soul Jeanne should be charitably admonished before the lord judges concluded; if, after these warnings she did not return to the Church she would be obstinate and heretical. For the conclusion he referred to ourselves the judges.

Master Jean Le Fèvre, doctor of sacred theology, held to the opinion he gave recently with other doctors and masters on April 9th, and accepted the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology; he added that Jeanne should be charitably admonished on a day chosen for that purpose.

The religious brother Martin Ladvenu, held to the opinion of master Jean Le Fèvre.

The religious brother Thomas Amouret did likewise.

The venerable and discreet advocates of the archiepiscopal court of Rouen, licentiates in canon and civil law, or both, namely, master Guillaume de Livet, Pierre Carel, Guérould Poustel, Geoffroy du Crotay, Richard des Saulx, Bureau de Cormeilles, Jean Le Doulx, Aubert Morel, Jean Duchemin, Laurent du Busc, Jean Colombel, Raoul Anguy and Jean Le Tavernier, declared that if Jeanne would not obey after she had been admonished to return to the way of truth and salvation

[326]

nor submit to the Church, she should be proceeded against according to the deliberations of the Faculty of Decrees.

The reverend father in Christ the religious Guillaume, lord abbot of Mortemer, professor of sacred theology, declared that Jeanne should be once more charitably admonished; if she would not obey the proceedings should be continued, and he accepted the deliberation of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris.

The religious master Jacques Guesdon, professor of sacred theology, gave an opinion similar to that of the lord abbot of Mortemer.

The religious master Jean Fouchier, doctor of sacred theology, gave an opinion like that of the lord abbot of Mortemer.

Master Jean Maugier, licentiate in canon law, canon of Rouen, thought that Jeanne should be once more charitably admonished and if she would not obey, the proceedings should be continued.

Master Nicolas Couppequesne, canon of the church of Rouen, bachelor of theology, accepted the opinion of the University of Paris.

Master Raoul Le Sauvage, bachelor of sacred theology, adhered to the opinion he lately gave us in the tenor of the letter signed by his hand. He added that Jeanne should be admonished again, in private and in public, before the people: if she would not return to the way of truth and salvation, he referred to the judges for the subsequent procedure.

Master Pierre Minier, bachelor of theology, was of the same opinion as Master Raoul Le Sauvage. Master Jean Pigache, bachelor of sacred theology, gave an opinion according to the deliberation of the University.

Master Richard de Grouchet, bachelor of sacred theology, considered that Jeanne should again be charitably admonished,

[327]

and if after this warning she would not obey the Church she must be deemed a heretic.

The religious person brother Ysambard de La Pierre adhered to the opinion he gave with others on April 9th, adding that Jeanne should be charitably admonished, and that if she would not obey the Church after this warning he referred to us her judges for the method of the subsequent procedure.

Master Pierre Maurice, doctor of sacred theology, adhered to the opinion he gave with other doctors on April 9th, adding that on a certain fixed day Jeanne should be charitably admonished and be informed of the peril she incurred by refusing to obey and submit to the Church; if then she persisted in her disobedience the proceedings should be continued.

Master Thomas de Courcelles, bachelor of sacred theology, canon of the churches of Laon and Thérouanne, adhered to the decisions reached with other doctors on April 9th. On other points he was of the same opinion as the said Pierre Maurice, and added that if Jeanne refused to obey the Church after this warning she should be considered a heretic.

Master Nicolas Loiseleur, canon of the churches of Chartres and of Rouen, master of arts, gave an opinion similar to that of the said Thomas de Courcelles.

Master Jean Alespée, licentiate in law, canon of the church of Rouen, considered that Jeanne must on a certain day be charitably admonished, and if she persisted in her disobedience her trial must be concluded and the sentence pronounced.

The religious master Bertrand du Chesne, doctor of law, superior of the deanery of Lihons-en-Santerre, of the Cluny order, held the opinion of the Faculty of Decrees in the University of Paris.

Master Guillaume Erart, doctor of theology, sacristan and canon of the church of Langres, followed the opinion of the

[328]

chapter of the cathedral of Rouen and of the University of Paris.

Whereupon we the aforesaid judges, thanking the reverend fathers, lords and masters, declared that we should once more charitably admonish the said Jeanne to return to the way of truth, for the salvation of her body and soul, and that we should proceed further to the conclusion of the case and the setting of a day for pronouncing sentence according to their good deliberation and salutary counsel.

[329]