s_ had recently been divided by a
schism. Friar Richard, who was then in high favour with Queen Marie,
and who had preached the Lenten sermons of 1430[1935] at Orleans,
stayed behind, on the Loire, with Catherine de la Rochelle. Jeanne
took with her Pierronne and the younger Breton prophetess.[1936] If she
went into France, it was not without the knowledge or against the will
of the King and his Council. Very probably the Chancellor of the
kingdom had asked La Tremouille to send her in order that he might
employ her in the approaching campaign against the Burgundians, who
were threatening his government of Beauvais and his city of
Reims.[1937] He was not very kindly disposed towards her, but already
he had made use of her and he intended to do so again. Possibly his
intention was to employ her in a fresh attack on Paris.

[Footnote 1935: _Trial_, vol. i, p. 99, note. _Journal du siege_, pp.
235, 238.]

[Footnote 1936: This comes from the _Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris_,
p. 271.]

[Footnote 1937: _Trial_, vol. v, pp. 159, 160.]

The King had not abandoned the idea of taking his great city by the
peaceful methods he always preferred. Throughout Lent, between Sully
and Paris, there had been a constant passing to and fro of certain
Carmelite monks of Melun, disguised as artisans. These were the
churchmen who, during the attack on the Porte Saint Honore, on the Day
of the Festival of Our Lady, had stirred up the popular rising which
had spread from one bank of the Seine to the other. Now they were
negotiating with certain influential citizens the entrance of the
King's men into the rebel city. The Prior of the Melun Carmelites was
directing the conspiracy.[1938] There is reason to believe that Jeanne
had herself seen him or one of his monks. True it is that since the
22nd or the 23rd of March it was known at Sully that the conspiracy
had been discovered;[1939] but perhaps the hope of success still
lingered. It was to Melun that Jeanne went with her company; and it is
difficult to believe that there was no connection between the
conspiracy of the Carmelites and the expedition of the Maid.

[Footnote 1938: The Pardon of Jean de Calais in A. Longnon, _Paris sous
la domination anglaise_, pp. 301-309. Stevenson, _Letters and Papers_,
vol. i, pp. 34-50.]

[Footnote 1939: So it appears from Morosini, vol. iii, pp. 274-275.]

Why should Charles VII's Councillors have ceased to employ her? It
cannot be said that she appear