Polignac, Jacqueline du Roure, Vicomtesse de Client of la Voisin and Lesage, alleged to have sought to bewitch the King. Fled France to avoid arrest January 1680
Poligny, Anne Executed July 1681 for having aided Mme Lescalopier to poison her husband
Poulaillon, Mme Marguerite de Client of la Bosse and la Vigoreux arrested February 1679 on suspicion of having sought to poison her husband. 5 June 1679 judged by Chamber. Sentenced to banishment but confined in workhouse
Primi Visconti, Giovanni-Battista Italian visitor to court who arrived in France 1673. Acquired reputation for psychic powers. Wrote memoirs of his time in France
Racine, Jean Playwright, alleged by la Voisin to have poisoned his mistress Thérèse du Parc in 1668
Romani Friend of Blessis and la Voisin. Alleged to have planned to poison Mlle de Fontanges by disguising himself as silk merchant and selling her poisoned gloves
Roure, Claude Marie, Comtesse du Alleged to have been client of la Voisin and Lesage and to have sought death of Louise de La Vallière. Questioned by commissioners 1 February 1680. Discharged March 1680
Saint-Maurice, Thomas Chabod, Marquis de Savoyard ambassador to France 1667–73
Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroy, Duc de Author of memoirs and courtier
Sainte-Croix, Gaudin de Former army officer and lover of Mme de Brinvilliers. Helped arrange murder of her relations and supplied her with poison. Died of natural causes 30 July 1672
Sandosme, Denise Hanged July 1681 for having supplied Mme Lescalopier with poison
Savoy, Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Ruler of Italian state who died suddenly 12 June 1675
Sévigné, Marie, Marquise de Devoted mother and celebrated letter writer
Soissons, Olympe, Comtesse de Known as ‘Mme la Comtesse’. Niece of Cardinal Mazarin, married in 1657 to Prince Eugene of Carignan-Savoy, a cousin of the Duke of Savoy who was subsequently created Comte de Soissons. Reputed to have been a lover of the King at one point. On the King’s marriage she was appointed Surintendante of the Queen’s household (equivalent to the English post Mistress of the Robes). In January 1680 she fled France after a warrant had been issued for her arrest. La Voisin had alleged that about fourteen years earlier the Comtesse had visited her and voiced threats against the King and Louise de La Valliere. Died 1708 in Brussels
Soubise, Anne de Rohan-Chabot, Princesse de Alleged by Saint-Simon to have been mistress of King
Sourches, Marquis de Courtier who kept journal
Spanheim, Ezechiel German diplomat who in 1690 wrote description of court for Elector of Brandenburg
Termes, Roger, Marquis de Cousin of M. de Montespan who detained the alchemist Blessis in his chateau. Later arrested on suspicion of having tried to poison King
Thianges, Gabrielle, Marquise de Eldest sister of Mme de Montespan
Tingry, Marie Louise Charlotte, Princesse de Lady-in-waiting of Queen, alleged to have had an affair with her brother-in-law, the Maréchal de Luxembourg
Trianon, Catherine Successful divineress and close associate of la Voisin. Alleged by Marie Montvoisin to have been involved in plot to murder King. Died early 1681 in Vincennes
Trichâteau, Marquis de Friend and correspondent of Comte de Bussy
Vanens, Louis Alchemist arrested December 1677. Suspected of having poisoned the Duke of Savoy in 1675
Vassé, Marquise de Court lady alleged by la Bosse and la Filastre to have wanted to kill her husband. Never brought before Arsenal Chamber
Vautier, and wife Associates of la Voisin alleged by Marie Montvoisin to have been involved in her mother’s plot to kill the King
Vertemart, Mme Marie Client of la Voisin who had come to her in hope that she could procure death of her husband. Subsequently emerged that she had asked la Voisin to obtain her a place in the household of Mme de Montespan
Vigoreux, Marie Divineress arrested January 1679 on suspicion of supplying poisons. Died under torture May 1679
Vivonne, Antoinette, Duchesse de Sister-in-law of Mme de Montespan who was alleged to have been a client of la Filastre and several other divineresses. Lesage claimed that la Filastre had aborted her child and offered up the foetus to the devil
Voisin, Catherine Wife of Antoine Montvoisin. Leading divineress, arrested March 1679. Confessed to several murders and incriminated numerous associates. Burnt alive February 1680
GLOSSARY
Brodequins
Instrument of torture which crushed the legs of the victim between planks that were tightened by having wedges hammered in
Chambre Ardente, also known as Chambre de l’Arsenal
Special commission established by the King in 1679 to investigate and judge cases of poisoning. Its sessions were held at the Arsenal in Paris
Chambre des Comptes
Legal Chamber charged with overseeing the handling of the royal domain; also the chamber where documents relating to grants of nobility or pensions were registered
Châtelet, the
Court of first instance for the Paris area. Its active head was the Civil Lieutenant of Paris
Conseiller
See Parlement
Cour des Enquêtes
See Parlement
Intendant
Royal agent who performed many administrative tasks in the provinces
Lettre de Cachet
Sealed letter enshrining direct expression of royal will. Most usually used to order the arrest of a named individual
Maîtres de Requêtes
Judges whose jurisdiction related to execution of council decrees and appeals relating to council procedures. Often entrusted with extraordinary commissions by the King
Parlement
Regional High Court. The Parlement of Paris had jurisdiction over one third of all France; the remaining areas of the country were covered by provincial Parlements such as the Parlement of Rouen. The Paris Parlement had its seat at the Palais de Justice and was staffed by approximately 200 officers. It was divided into several chambers, the most ancient and prestigious of which was the Grand Chambre, presided over by the Premier Président of the Paris Parlement. In addition the Chamber had nine Présidents à mortier, twelve Conseiller Clercs and twenty-five Conseillers. Besides this, there were in the Parlement of Paris three Chambres des Enquêtes and two Chambres des Requêtes, each with its own complement of Présidents and Conseillers. There were also additional chambers, such as the Tournelle and the Chambre des Vacations, which were staffed by rotation with officers from other chambers.
Only the Premier Président of the Parlement was appointed by the King and could be removed from office. The other officers of Parlement purchased their places, which then became their property. In return for the payment of an annual fee to the Crown, the officers had the right to transmit the places to their heirs. Partly in consequence of their independence from royal control, the magistrates of Parlement formed a wealthy and socially cohesive caste, who considered themselves no less grand than the ancient nobility.
Criminal cases involving the aristocracy were heard directly by Parlement. The highest in rank, such as dukes and peers and royal officers, were entitled to be tried by the Grand Chambre. The cases of lesser members of the nobility came before a joint session of the Grand Chambre and the Tournelle. It was more usual, however, for Parlement to act as the highest court of appeal.
Apart from its judicial responsibilities, Parlement had the right of registering royal edicts. During the civil wars of the Fronde, the Parlement of Paris had sought to exploit this and had become a source of opposition to the Crown. However, once Louis XIV assumed personal control of government, he acted to curb the power of Parlement. Although he respected the magistrates’ privileges as hereditary office holders, he restricted their means of expressing political dissent. Most notably, in 1673 he denied Parlement the right of making any remonstrance before registering legislation
Rapporteur
Judge who presented a summary of the evidence uncovered by the investigating magis
trate to all the judges appointed to hear a case
Sellette
Stool on which defendant sat during trial and final interrogation by judges
Tabouret
Stool on which duchesses and other high-ranking ladies were entitled to sit in the presence of the Queen
FOREWORD
The Affair of the Poisons was the name given to an extraordinary episode which took place in France during the reign of Louis XIV. In 1679 fears that poisoning had become widespread led to drastic action. What followed seemed to show that there was a serious problem, for an investigation suggested that many people were indeed using poison and black magic to rid themselves of enemies. Numerous arrests and executions resulted, with torture being widely used and suspects including distinguished individuals from the highest ranks of society.
The prelude to the Affair of the Poisons was the Brinvilliers murder case. In 1676 the Marquise de Brinvilliers was executed after being convicted of poisoning three members of her family. While there was satisfaction that this woman had been brought to justice, the case aroused fears that similar crimes were being committed by people of comparable social standing and that these were going undetected.
Shortly after this the authorities received information that Louis XIV himself was at risk of poisoning. Although these warnings came from a dubious source, they were taken seriously. Determined to protect the King from this hidden menace, the Chief of the Paris Police remained on constant alert for every sign of danger.
When two fortune tellers from Paris were arrested on suspicion of having supplied poison to wealthy clients, this was taken as confirmation that a network of poisoners was active in the city. On the King’s orders a special commission was set up to bring offenders to justice and scores of disreputable characters from the Paris underworld were seized and questioned. Many of them had made a living by predicting the future, advising on love affairs or offering to use their magic powers by providing contact with the spirit world. It was suspected that a high proportion supplemented these activities by selling poison.
Under interrogation some of these people claimed that their services had been sought not just by rich middle-class ladies who had become dissatisfied with their husbands, but also by members of the high nobility. Determined to eradicate what he regarded as an intolerable evil, the King decreed that no one, no matter how grand, would be spared having to account for their conduct.
The royal court was thrown into disarray as prominent figures there were placed under arrest or called before the special tribunal for questioning. The Queen’s Mistress of the Robes, the Comtesse de Soissons, fled the country to escape being charged with attempted murder. One of France’s most distinguished generals, the Maréchal de Luxembourg, was imprisoned in the Bastille pending his trial for sorcery and poisoning.
However, despite his avowed intention to deal firmly with all suspects, the King was placed in a quandary when evidence emerged that incriminated Mme de Montespan, his mistress of many years. She was said to have engaged in vile Satanic rituals and to have sought to poison another woman who had become the King’s lover. Uncertain whether to believe this, but realising that it would be impossible to establish the truth without irreversibly discrediting his mistress, the King was unsure how to proceed. As a result, the inquiry stagnated while the King and his police chief strove to resolve this dilemma.
* * *
When researching a subject, every historian is dependent on the quality of the sources and the Affair of the Poisons poses certain difficulties in this respect. Works such as the Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon have to be used with caution, not least because Saint-Simon was only born in 1675 and was hence not at court during the Affair of the Poisons. Although he wrote about the events and personalities of the period, his comments were based on hearsay rather than personal observation. This did not stop him from expressing subjective judgements, or make him exercise any restraint in his opinions, but despite his assured tone the reader has to remember that his knowledge of what took place was circumscribed.
Letters written at the time of the affair are in some ways more reliable, but here, too, there are piftalls. The proceedings of the special commission set up to deal with poisoners were in theory secret and sometimes when people managed to obtain news they thought it more prudent to pass it on verbally rather than write it in a letter. Inevitably, too, private prejudices sometimes distorted observers’ judgement. The Comte de Bussy, for example, was incurably malicious, while even the shrewd and perceptive Mme de Sévigné was sometimes misinformed or mistaken. As for the letters of the Duchesse d’Orléans, these are wonderfully entertaining, but were often written years after the events she describes and are less than trustworthy.
Trial records or transcripts of interrogations can also be misleading. In many cases the evidence derives from people who were accomplished liars and who had a strong incentive to incriminate others in order to distract attention from their own misdemeanours. Testimony given under torture must likewise be treated sceptically. One historian has remarked that ‘we have only to imagine the range of the Popish Plot in England in 1679 if every witness had been tortured’.1 During the Affair of the Poisons, which took place at the same time in France, torture was used extensively. There can be no doubt that this complicated matters greatly and prolonged the inquiry.
Despite the fact that there are limitations to what can be known about the Affair of the Poisons, I have ended by reaching firm conclusions on various crucial matters. However, I am well aware that these judgements cannot be considered definitive and that other people inspecting the same evidence might interpret it differently.
* * *
When describing the profession of women like Catherine Montvoisin, Marie Vigoreux or Marguerite Delaporte, I have used the term ‘divineress’. Every time I have done so, I am reminded by a wavy red line on my computer screen that the word is not to be found in the modern lexicon (though my French dictionary does translate ‘devineresse’ as ‘divineress’, while cautioning that the term is rarely used). Nevertheless, I decided to retain the term, as all the possible alternatives seemed unsatisfactory. ‘Fortune teller’ was too limited, while the English seventeenth-century equivalents of ‘wise woman’ or ‘cunning folk’ were arch as well as archaic. My dictionary variously defines the verb ‘to divine’ as ‘to predict or conjecture; to discover by guessing, intuition, inspiration or magic’. Since this precisely describes the activities carried out by these women, the noun ‘divineress’ seemed most appropriate.
When mentioning these women by name I have often adopted the French usage of prefixing it with the definite article, as in ‘la Voisin’, ‘la Vigoreux’ or ‘la Delaporte’. Though Catherine Montvoisin’s clients and acquaintances sometimes addressed her as ‘Mme Voisin’, she was more usually referred to as ‘la Voisin’. In documents such as records of trial and interrogations this is the style invariably adopted for all female suspects who were not members of the aristocracy. I have emulated this. It is unfortunate, however, that the surnames of some of the characters in this book, such as Nicolas de La Reynie and Louise de La Vallière, begin with ‘La’. I hope this does not cause confusion.
* * *
I have tried to supply references for every quotation in the book. However, in order to reduce the quantity of numbered endnotes, I have generally only placed a single one in each paragraph. All the source references for that paragraph can be found grouped in order under the appropriate number in the endnote section at the back of the book.
* * *
There were several different units of currency employed in France at this period. Readers should note that in addition to the livre, which was the basic unit of currency:
1 écu
=
3 livres
1 pistole
=
10 livres
1 gold louis
=
24 livres
Although the value of French money fluctuated i
n the course of the seventeenth century W. H. Lewis calculated the rate of exchange between England and France during the reign of Louis XIV as being 24 livres to £1 sterling.2 To translate these sums into modern values is notoriously difficult, but the Bank of England estimates that £1 in 1680 would have been worth £82.66 in December 2002. According to these figures, 100 livres in 1680 would have been worth just over £4 in England at the time, which converts to just under £345 in today’s money.
* * *
I should like to thank the staff of the following libraries who have helped me with my research in England and France: the Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal; the Bibliothèque de l’Assemblée Nationale; the Bibliothèque Nationale; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the British Library; Imperial College Library; the Institute for Historical Research; the London Library; the Public Record Office; the Service Historique de l’Armée at Vincennes and the Wellcome Library.
Many individuals have helped me in the course of writing this book, but I have particular cause to be grateful to three men. With great generosity Geoffrey Treasure read the typescript for mistakes and made many invaluable comments and suggestions. Michael Crawcour took immense trouble going through the text and much improved it by altering some of my translations from French sources. My father-in-law, Raymond Carr, also read the book at an early stage and contributed much appreciated ideas and queries.
I should also like to thank Nick Ashley; Antonia Fraser; Jasper Guinness; Julian Hope; Linda Kelly; Antoine Laurent; Bill Lovelady; Sophie-Caroline and Gilles de Marjerie; James Milson; Andreas Philiotis; Stewart Preston; Guy Rowlands; Tally Westminster and Cristina Zilkha. All have helped me in different ways while I have been working on this book in London and Paris. In addition especial thanks are due to Douglas Matthews for compiling the index.
The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide, and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV Page 2