The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide, and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV

by Anne Somerset

  On 1 February Mme du Roure was interrogated by La Reynie and Bezons at the Arsenal. She was adamant that she had never had any dealings at all with la Voisin or anyone like her. Writing to Louvois to inform him of this, Bezons registered his amazement at her complete disavowal, for he claimed that la Voisin’s testimony regarding Mme du Roure had contained ‘so many particularities’ that it carried great weight.81 Bezons’s comment was misleading, to say the least, for as we have seen, la Voisin’s account was full of flaws. His reluctance to accept that the evidence against Mme du Roure was weak helps explain why some people formed the view that he and La Reynie were intent on obtaining convictions, whether merited or not.

  On 16 February a confrontation was set up between the Comtesse du Roure and la Voisin. The result was startling, for la Voisin failed to recognise the woman she had spoken of as her client. When the news came out, there was general outrage in Paris society at the way the Comtesse du Roure had been harassed for no good reason.82

  On 26 April 1680 the Comtesse du Roure was formally discharged from all accusations. Oddly, however, it appears that her vindication was not complete. According to Saint-Simon, because of her involvement in the Affair of the Poisons, she was exiled from Paris by the King. Some years before her death in 1720 she was permitted to visit the capital for a few months, but apart from that she spent the rest of her life in Languedoc, having come to an arrangement with her husband whereby she resided in one chateau and he occupied another. ‘She was feared everywhere,’ Saint-Simon declared with a melodramatic flourish, although unfortunately without specifying why she inspired this universal dread.83

  * * *

  As each distinguished person was hauled in front of the commission without anything emerging that could warrant this intrusion, the attitude of the aristocracy changed perceptibly. At the outset it had been assumed that the commission would not have inaugurated proceedings against such privileged individuals unless there was good reason to believe they had committed major crimes. The prospect that members of their circle might have engaged in repugnant activities provoked genuine shame and consternation among the nobility. Mme de Sévigné wrote sombrely, ‘We breathe here nothing but poison, and are in the midst of sacrilege and abortion.’ The Marquis de Trichâteau lamented, ‘See how the French court is seriously discredited abroad thanks to the ladies and the courtiers,’ while the Comte de Bussy expressed the view that in all of French history ‘one has never seen such horrors amongst people of rank … as are visible today’.84

  However, as the days went by and nothing was established that could justify the Chamber’s proceedings, observers became more critical. By 31 January Mme de Sévigné was writing, ‘The trend today is to speak of the innocence of those named and of horror at the scandal.’ There was widespread agreement that the prisoners in Vincennes were merely seeking to prolong their lives by casting suspicion on prominent figures and that it was a mistake to pay any attention to their slanders. Mme de Sévigné, in particular, was sure the commissioners had made grave errors of judgement. After the Duchesse de Bouillon and the Princesse de Tingry had been questioned at the Arsenal she had commented scathingly, ‘They have been given this affront for very trifling matters.’ Two days later she said that while both of them might have behaved stupidly, as far as she could gather ‘there was nothing black about their follies’. She added, ‘If nothing more is discovered, people of such high rank could have been spared a great scandal.’85

  Admittedly, Mme de Sévigné appeared to think that even if the Duchesse de Bouillon had expressed interest in poisoning her husband, this was something it would have been more seemly to overlook. She explained to her daughter, ‘The Duchesse de Bouillon went to la Voisin to ask for a little bit of poison to kill an old husband … who was boring her to death … When a Mancini commits a folly like that it’s nothing. These witches treat this in all seriousness and are horrifying all Europe for a trifle.’ On 2 February she reported that there was general indignation ‘at the lack of wisdom of the judges who have made such a commotion … by scandalously naming such grand people on such slight grounds’.86

  While aristocratic arrogance undoubtedly played a part in this anger, it should not be dismissed merely as the petulant outpourings of a decadent and selfish minority. It was understandable that members of the court nobility felt there had been an abuse of power and that their privileges had been trampled on without good cause. None of them dared censure the King for authorising the campaign of persecution, but the part played by Louvois was recognised and deplored. Primi Visconti recalled that even though Louvois had no official responsibility for the establishment of the commission, ‘the rumour spread that Louvois was insinuating himself as an adviser to the Chamber’.87

  However, as the role played by La Reynie and Bezons was more visible, they attracted more resentment than Louvois. In the opinion of the Marquis de La Fare, La Reynie was ‘the motor of the Affair of the Poisons’ and it was widely believed that he and his colleague had forced the other commissioners to countenance excesses which ran contrary to their instincts. Mme de Sévigné heard that one commissioner protested to La Reynie that they seemed to be occupying themselves exclusively with accusations of witchcraft, which was a crime the Parlement of Paris no longer recognised. ‘Our commission is for poisons, so why are we hearing about other things?’ he demanded. La Reynie brusquely brushed aside these objections ‘Monsieur, we have secret orders,’ was all he would say.88

  Yet despite the strong feeling in aristocratic circles that the Chamber was acting unreasonably, direct protest was muted. It was easier to turn the whole thing into an object of mockery. Primi Visconti noted, ‘All Paris … ridiculed the Chamber’s proceedings which were compromising the existence and honour of the grandest people for mere trifles.’ Conversations and letters abounded with jokes in poor taste, which subtly mocked the commission without explicitly questioning its authority. On 2 February, for example, Mme de Sévigné’s son inserted a playful message to his sister in the letter his mother had written to her. ‘It’s not Monsieur Lesage who is taking up the pen,’ he teased. ‘Here I am … at Paris … by the side of dear little Mama … whom nobody yet accused me of having wanted to poison, and I assure you that these days that’s no mean achievement.’ Later in the year a servant of a notably pious lady named Mme Grondeuse was taken into custody on suspicion of poison, causing speculation that this would be followed by Mme Grondeuse’s own arrest. The Comte de Bussy was sure however that ‘she has never poisoned anyone, unless it’s with her breath’.89

  Despite the ill feeling among his courtiers, the King was making it clear that the commission still had his full support. On 4 February Louvois wrote to M. Boucherat, President of the Chambre Ardente, assuring him that the King wished the commissioners to continue its proceedings against suspected poisoners and ‘to act with complete liberty against all those … convicted of a crime of such enormity’. Louvois continued that, having learned of the mutinous mutterings made in Paris when the arrest warrants had been issued, ‘his Majesty … has commanded me to let you know that he wishes you to assure the judges of his protection and that … he expects that they will continue to render justice with the firmness with which they began, without letting themselves be diverted by any considerations whatever.’90

  To counter the insinuations being spread in some parts of Paris that the commissioners were exceeding their instructions, the King issued new letters patent broadening the Chamber’s remit. These stressed that the Chamber was required to deal ‘not merely with poisonings and malefices [instances of harm brought about by witchcraft] but also … with sacrilege, impieties and profanations through words, invocations, notes or other criminal practices’. This amplification of the Chamber’s powers prompted the despairing cry from the Marquis de Feuquières, ‘That’s all that’s needed to perpetuate it!’91

  Far from feeling that the investigation had been too wide-ranging, the King was actually contemplating extending it furt
her. On 6 February he summoned M. de La Reynie to Saint-Germain. Having pointedly indicated his support for the police chief by addressing him graciously during his levee, Louis closeted himself with La Reynie for ‘two whole hours’ later in the day. In the course of this interview he growled that he now saw ‘it was necessary to make war on another crime’.92 At the time he did not specify what he meant, but it is a reasonable assumption that he was referring to homosexuality.

  The King had been infuriated to learn of an outrage recently committed by some wild young gentlemen of the court and it was almost certainly this which had prompted his remark. A group including the Duc de La Ferté, the Marquis de Biron and the Chevalier Colbert (son of the Controller-General of Finance) had tried to force themselves on an attractive seller of confectionery. When he had resisted their advances, they had badly injured him with their swords. Rather curiously the culprits had merely been severely admonished, though the King had made it clear that any future misbehaviour would result in instant banishment. Doubtless he had been lenient out of gratitude to Colbert (though the Minister himself had chastised his son’s transgression harshly, administering him a fearful thrashing) for the Comte de Bussy pointed out that ‘better men than they have been sent away for much slighter reasons’. The Marquis de Trichâteau commented ruefully that all that was needful for France’s reputation to sink still lower in the eyes of foreigners was for ‘the violated confectioner to add his tale to that of Lesage and la Voisin’.93 Nevertheless, nothing came of the King’s cryptic comment to La Reynie and for years to come homosexuality continued to flourish.

  * * *

  As it was, the Chambre Ardente had quite enough to keep it busy. During the past few months the trial of la Voisin had been repeatedly postponed on the grounds that there was more information to be gleaned from her. To keep her co-operative it had been implied to her that it would be some time yet before a date was set for a hearing, which in her case would inevitably be followed by torture and execution. By mid-February, however, there was agreement that matters were now ready to be taken a stage further.

  On 17 February Mme Voisin was interrogated on the sellette by the assembled commissioners.94 After she had been led out they unanimously pronounced her guilty and on 19 February she was informed that she had been sentenced to being burnt alive. However, before going to the stake she was subjected to another intensive examination, which stretched over three days, the final stages of which were conducted under torture.

  The outcome was not entirely satisfactory. La Reynie later claimed that this was because the torture had not been applied with the usual rigour and thus ‘produced no result’. This is seemingly corroborated by the fact that Mme de Sévigné heard that even on the evening of 21 February la Voisin was in remarkably robust form, despite having emerged from the torture chamber only a few hours earlier. Having eaten a hearty supper and drunk a great deal of wine, she began singing rude songs, ignoring suggestions from her guards that since her execution was scheduled to take place the following day it would be more appropriate to immerse herself in prayer.95 Against this it should be noted that the written record of her torture session, which is interspersed with her shrieks and pleas to her tormentors to have pity on her, hardly supports the contention that she was gently handled.

  Under questioning la Voisin proved ready enough to make alarming statements about the prevalence of poison. She affirmed sorrowfully, ‘Paris is full of this kind of thing and there is an infinite number of people engaged in this evil trade.’ Pressed to give examples of those who, ‘under pretext of divination or reading hands, or of seeking treasure and the Philosopher’s Stone … engage in the sale of poisons, abortion and impieties’, she named several individuals. These included Vautier, ‘a very dangerous man’, who knew a lot about poison and perfumes; la Bergerot, who was ‘deep in intrigues’ connected with poison and magic; and la Poulain, ‘a very vicious woman’. La Voisin said la Pelletier had agreed to supply poison to kill a sister of Mme Brissart but had changed her mind on finding that the intended victim was pregnant. The herbalist Maître Pierre, who was exceptionally knowledgeable about both the curative and noxious properties of numerous plants, had planned to poison the husband of Mme Roussel, though for some reason he had not succeeded in doing so. All this did little more than confirm what la Voisin had said earlier and almost everyone she named was already in gaol.

  Regarding her own clients la Voisin proffered the worrying information that ‘a great number of persons of every sort of rank and condition addressed themselves to her to seek the death of or to find the means to kill many people’. However, when it came to specific details she had little new to say. She confirmed that Mme Lepère had been her partner in a thriving abortion business, estimating that between them Mme Lepère and her daughter had aborted about 10,000 infants. She confessed that she had been involved in the poisoning of M. Leféron, M. Brunet and M. de Canilhac. She repeated that Mme de Dreux had wanted to poison both her husband and another lady of whom she was jealous, while stressing that she herself had done nothing to effect these wishes. When she was questioned about the court ladies she had testified against, she maintained that everything she had said about the Comtesse de Soissons, the Duchesse de Bouillon, the Vicomtesse de Polignac and the Comtesse du Roure had been true, but she did not enlarge on her earlier allegations. To the end she categorically denied knowing Mlle des Oeillets and insisted she had never been aware of priests conducting black masses.96

  On 22 February la Voisin was transferred from Vincennes to the Bastille, before being taken to the Place de Grève for execution. Special care had been used in selecting a suitable priest to hear her final confession, for there were fears that the priests who ministered to those arrested on suspicion of poisoning were discouraging their charges from being too frank about their crimes. It does seem that there was some cause for concern: Mme du Fontet, at whose house Luxembourg had met Lesage, said that her confessor had told her to reveal nothing about the divinations that had taken place under her roof, as it was best ‘to forget about all that’.97 It is not clear why the priests should have wished to suppress such revelations, unless the Church authorities feared they would lead to disclosures about renegade priests conducting black masses. Alternatively, the confessors may have wanted to protect grand members of Parisian society from being implicated in the scandal, but whether this was for corrupt reasons or simply because they did not want anyone to be wrongfully accused can only be conjectured.

  Despite the trouble taken to pick a reliable confessor for la Voisin, things did not go as planned. After being closeted with the Grand Pénitencier of Paris, Mme Voisin summoned the registrar of the Chambre Ardente and said she wanted to retract an allegation she had formerly made against Mme Leféron. Hitherto la Voisin had maintained that she had supplied Mme Leféron with a phial of liquid, obtained from a woman named la Leroux, and that this had been given to M. Leféron shortly before he died. Now, however, la Voisin said that though Mme Leféron had once referred to a phial of liquid in her possession, neither she nor la Leroux had provided her with it. Irritated that doubt had thus been cast on a crucial piece of evidence, Louvois ordered that in future M. le Grand Pénitencier should not be employed to receive confession in such controversial cases.98

  At five in the afternoon la Voisin was placed in the cart that was to transport her through the crowded streets to the execution site. Agog to see for herself the celebrated poisoner, Mme de Sévigné had stationed herself in the Rue Saint-Antoine. As a result she caught a brief glimpse of la Voisin as she passed, dressed in a white smock and looking startlingly red in the face.

  In former days la Voisin had been glib in her use of Christian terminology, invoking the Good Lord while simultaneously engaging in impious practices. Now, however, as her horrific death loomed, she spurned the consolations of religion and when her confessor stretched out his crucifix towards her, she angrily pushed it away. On arriving at the Place de Grève she refused to disembark f
rom the tumbril and had to be dragged out by force, swearing dreadful oaths. Even after she had been chained to the stake she continued to resist her fate, for when straw was heaped upon her to ensure that she was speedily incinerated she kicked it away in desperation. These last grim struggles impressed themselves on the memory of the watching crowd but ‘at last the flames got up and she was lost from sight’. Sprightly as ever, Mme de Sévigné commented that la Voisin had now passed from the midst of one fire to another.99

  * * *

  Mme de Sévigné noted that it was widely expected that la Voisin’s torture and execution would bring about significant developments ‘which will surprise us’ but, in fact, it was followed by a hiatus in the commission’s proceedings. On the day of la Voisin’s execution the King had departed to welcome the new Dauphine on her arrival in France and the Chambre Ardente held no further hearings until after he returned to Saint-Germain in March.