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

by Anne Somerset

  La Bosse repeated her earlier claim that an unidentified lady of rank had offered to pay la Voisin 6000 livres if she killed her husband. It was this same lady who had asked la Voisin to poison a bouquet of flowers. Once the flowers had been treated, they were to be sent to another woman who had made the client jealous. Furthermore, la Voisin had been involved with another well-born lady, whose name la Bosse had never managed to discover, and she too had lost her husband after enlisting the aid of Mme Voisin. As soon as the period of mourning was over the gratified widow had visited la Voisin and given her the black clothes she had been wearing in memory of her husband.

  La Bosse continued that Mme Voisin had repeatedly tried to murder her own husband. More than ten years before, she had tried to bewitch him with the aid of the magician Lesage. Lesage, who himself planned to marry la Voisin once her husband was out of the way, had buried a sheep’s heart in la Voisin’s garden. This, he said, would have a fatal effect on Montvoisin, although in the end the intended victim had realised that Lesage and his wife were up to something and had threatened retribution. As a result, Mme Voisin had lost her nerve and had forced Lesage to dig up the heart.

  For her next attempt la Voisin had obtained some black grains from a sinister figure called the Chevalier d’Hannyvel. Having steeped them in wine to obtain an infusion, she gave a phial of it to Marie Bosse. She asked la Bosse to pour its contents into her husband’s wine, but in the event la Bosse was overcome by ‘some sort of scruple’ and had only added a few drops. Even so, Montvoisin had fallen sound asleep once he had drunk the doctored wine. Mme Bosse had no doubt that if she had put in the entire phial it would have killed him.

  La Bosse concluded her attack by claiming that the remains of countless aborted infants could be found buried in la Voisin’s garden. The terminations had been carried out by a midwife named Mme Lepère, who used a metal tool for the purpose.

  Clearly flustered by this comprehensive indictment, Mme Voisin protested that she had never sought to sell ground diamonds to Mme Brunet. She did, however, go some way towards acknowledging the truth of other allegations. She conceded that on more than one occasion she had been given powders by acquaintances who knew how wretched she was with her husband, though she insisted she had always thrown these away. Furthermore, she confirmed la Bosse’s story about Lesage burying the heart in her garden. La Voisin explained that soon after the interment, her husband had been struck down by a stomachache and this had troubled her conscience. Accordingly, she went to church and, having confessed and received absolution, she had instructed Lesage to undo his spell on Montvoisin.

  More compromisingly still, la Voisin agreed that she had been approached by a well-born lady who had wanted her to poison a bouquet of flowers. She also did not dispute that another – likewise unnamed – lady of rank had made her a gift of her mourning clothes. She recalled that the widow had pressed these garments on her with the kindly words, ‘Mme Voisin, perhaps this will bring you luck and, if God permits that your husband dies, you can use them.’

  On 20 March more details were teased out of la Voisin.19 She gave a fuller account of her dealings with Mme Brunet, admitting that they were more extensive than she had earlier pretended. She explained that Mme Brunet had taken Philbert as her lover while her first husband was still alive. Unfortunately Brunet, unaware of the true situation, had taken a liking to the personable flautist and had decided to offer Philbert his daughter’s hand in marriage. To Mme Brunet’s despair, Philbert had been willing to accept this proposal.

  La Voisin had revealed the motivation that could have driven a besotted woman to murder and in the next few days Mme Bosse edged closer to describing how Brunet had been killed. On 23 March she admitted that, with la Voisin’s encouragement, she had supplied the distraught Mme Brunet with a liquid. What was more, she said she had obtained this from Magdelaine de La Grange, thus vindicating La Reynie’s hunch that that woman had been guilty of a series of crimes.20

  Four days later la Bosse confirmed an earlier admission of Mme Philbert (whose interrogations are unfortunately missing) that this liquid had been given to Brunet in an enema. Presumably this had been done with his consent, after he had been duped into thinking it would be good for him. On this occasion nothing much happened, for the liquid – which contained nitric acid – had been too weak to be effective. La Bosse recalled how surprised she had been when some days later she had seen Brunet in the street, still perfectly healthy. Next time, however, Brunet was less fortunate. Though the details as yet remained hazy, on the eve of her execution la Bosse would confess under torture that he had subsequently been dosed with another liquid and that had killed him.21

  * * *

  When interviewed on 20 March, Mme Voisin had not yet been ready to admit that Brunet had been murdered. However, there had been startling progress when she had named the lady who had bestowed on her her widow’s weeds. La Voisin identified her as Mme Marguérite Leféron, a woman who until this moment had been considered a figure of the utmost respectability. Now aged sixty-five, she had been born into the moneyed oligarchy that dominated the upper echelons of the French judiciary. Her marriage to Jerome Leféron, President of the Second Chamber of Inquests had raised her still higher in the ranks of this bourgeois élite, and was a union only slightly less prestigious than that of her sister with M. Novion, who currently occupied the position of First President of the Paris Parlement. Despite the precedent afforded by Mme de Brinvilliers, the notion that someone with these impeccable connections might be a poisoner was singularly shocking.

  When M. Leféron had died on 8 September 1669 it had aroused no suspicion, for he had been elderly and his health less than robust. His wife had apparently been grief-stricken, though she had confided to Mme Voisin that she had found it a great strain to keep up this show of sadness. In fact, the marriage had been far from happy. The couple had not shared a bed for the last fifteen years and Mme Leféron had found it intolerable that her husband was exceptionally cautious with money. Her bereavement had, of course, removed these constraints on her spending. She had carefully cultivated the image of a virtuous matron who performed good works and had donated funds to build a chapel in the local convent. In reality, however, she rejoiced in her new freedom.22

  Less than three years after the death of M. Leféron a fortune hunter named M. de Prade had determined to marry this rich widow. In order to ensnare his prize he had turned to Mme Voisin and had drawn up a formal contract, promising to pay her 20,000 livres if she brought about the union. La Voisin set to work and cast various spells designed to make Mme Leféron hopelessly enamoured. Sure enough, in 1672 Mme Leféron married her suitor, though she did so in such complete secrecy that even la Voisin was unaware of what had happened. By the time she did find out, M. de Prade had reneged on his bargain. Although a promissory note in la Voisin’s favour had been lodged with a lawyer, he had cunningly persuaded Marie Bosse to retrieve it for him, and had then destroyed it.23

  In the end, however, M. de Prade’s trickery did him little good. Although he had played no part in M. Leféron’s murder, he had been aware of it and had not cared. He had professed himself untroubled by the possibility that Mme Leféron might treat him in the same way, saying that he knew how to look after himself and would kill her before she killed him. However, after only ten months of marriage, he and Mme Leféron were on very bad terms and de Prade grew uneasy for his safety. He became nervous of eating at home and decided to leave her. He never returned and, though La Reynie would have very much liked to interview him, his current whereabouts were unknown.24

  The full truth about Mme Leféron would only come out gradually. From the first la Voisin acknowledged that Mme Leféron had come to her complaining about her husband and that the lady had made it clear that she wanted to poison him. At this stage, however, she maintained that she had done nothing to further these plans. The most she would admit was that, tempted by a payment of 300 livres, she had supplied Mme Leféron with a harmles
s opiate, which Mme Leféron had rejected as unsuitable for her purposes.25 M. de La Reynie nevertheless had no doubt that, in time, Mme Voisin would reveal more.

  * * *

  On 22 March Mme Voisin created another sensation when she named the lady who had wanted her to produce a poisoned posy. This turned out to be Mme Françoise de Dreux, an extremely attractive thirty-year-old who lived in the Rue des Tournelles on the Île de la Cité. She was married to a Maître de Requêtes and numbered among her relations numerous other office holders and members of the judiciary. Indeed, M. d’Ormesson, one of the commissioners of the Chambre Ardente, was a cousin.26

  The King’s court was also swarming with her family and friends. Her brother, M. Saintot, was a key figure there, for he was in charge of protocol whenever foreign diplomats presented their credentials. The Duc de Richelieu was another influential adherent of Mme de Dreux, for it was no secret that the two had been lovers for years.

  It came as a great shock to the King when he heard that Mme de Dreux had been named by la Voisin. Before authorising her arrest he asked to be informed in more detail of the accusations against her.27 Further interrogations of la Voisin over the next fortnight satisfied him that there were genuine grounds for suspicion. On 9 April Mme Leféron was arrested and taken to prison. Two days later Mme de Dreux followed her to Vincennes.

  * * *

  The arrest of these respected and well-bred women inevitably caused consternation. La Reynie had been aware that his actions were bound to cause resentment and as early as 20 March it had been agreed that he should never travel to Vincennes without a sizeable escort of guards. Now the English ambassador to France reported in wonderment to Secretary of State Coventry, ‘The multitude of distinguished people arrested for poison grows every day.’ He found it extraordinary that at the moment ‘the most slight incidents are attributed to poison’, while others hardly knew what to make of the latest developments. The Comte de Bussy was told by a friend at court, Mme de Scudéry, ‘We talk of nothing but people being detained for poison,’ and she added that the Duc de Richelieu was ‘in despair about Mme de Dreux’s ill fortune’.28

  Not everyone was critical of these measures. When the Comte de Bussy (who may, it is true, have hoped that his letters would be intercepted and his approving comments noted) was told that ‘a cruel war is being waged against poisoners’ he responded that ‘purging the earth of these monsters’ was more praiseworthy than the labours of Hercules. He did, however, express puzzlement that the fate of Mme de Brinvilliers had not acted as more of a deterrent, for he was sure that some of those currently in difficulty had witnessed her execution.29

  Already, however, there was a feeling in some quarters that the campaign against poisoners was going too far. The Marquis de Trichâteau tried to lighten the mood with a few jokes in bad taste. He pouted that it was dreadful that Mme de Dreux should be so humiliated as she ‘is, apart from poison, one of my greatest friends and one of the prettiest women in France’. Mme de Scudéry was slightly more serious, confiding to the Comte de Bussy that Mme de Dreux’s arrest ‘scares everyone’. She added that at least she personally was in no danger as ‘thank God, I have never purchased cosmetics or had my fortune told’.30

  * * *

  On 10 April 1679 the Chambre d’Arsenal sat for the first time. Its procedure mirrored that of normal courts of law. The judges considered the evidence presented to them by the rapporteurs before themselves interrogating defendants on the sellette. When reaching judgement, they took into account the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General on each case, but they were not obliged to abide by it.

  The trials began on 4 May 1679. In the course of that one day Marie Bosse, Mme Vigoreux and their client Mme Ferry were examined on the sellette. Two days later all were sentenced to death and the Chamber ordered that la Bosse and la Vigoreux should be tortured prior to execution.

  Under torture la Bosse clarified the methods used to kill M. Brunet. In addition she made some new allegations, the most important of which was a claim that the Maréchal de Luxembourg – one of France’s foremost generals – and the Marquis de Feuquières had wanted to summon up the devil. La Vigoreux, in contrast, told her examiners little of substance. This was certainly not because they handled her gently. On the contrary, the agony of her legs being crushed in the brodequins proved too much for her and at 4 p.m. she died from what was officially described as ‘an abscess of the head’.31

  On 10 May the executions took place. Mme Ferry, who had confessed to poisoning her husband, had her wrist cut off outside Notre-Dame and was then taken to the Place de Grève to be hanged. Marie Bosse’s eldest son was also hanged for having by his own admission assisted his mother to prepare poisons. His mother’s crimes were deemed so heinous that she was burnt alive, a fate la Vigoreux would have shared had she not already died. By decree of the commission, Marie Bosse’s fourteen-year-old daughter was brought to see her mother perish in the flames in the hope that the spectacle would have a salutary effect on her character.

  * * *

  For the moment, at least, Mme Voisin was spared execution, for La Reynie had no doubt that there was much still to be learned from her. Among other things he wished to question her about whether she had arranged abortions, for la Bosse had been emphatic that this had formed an important branch of her business.

  At the time abortion was a capital offence, with both the mother of the aborted child and the midwife who performed the act being liable to the death penalty. This does not seem to have been an effective deterrent, not least because the crime usually went undetected. There were, of course, occasional exceptions. In 1660 there had been a terrible scandal when a member of the Condé family, Mlle de Guerchi, had a secret abortion after being impregnated by her lover, the Duc de Vitry. The matter had come to light after she suffered complications (haemorrhage and septicaemia were risks inherent in the procedure) which killed her. After the cause was determined, the curé of Saint-Eustache refused to bury her in consecrated ground. Mlle de Guerchi had to be consigned to a pit of quicklime in the garden of the Hotel Condé and the midwife who had carried out the abortion was hanged. Years later Mme de Maintenon would hold up the case as a terrible warning to unmarried girls, pointing out that by her action Mlle de Guerchi had not only forfeited her own soul and that of the midwife, but had condemned her unborn child to everlasting damnation.32

  Although cases of this kind usually escaped exposure, this did not mean there was a low incidence of abortion. Following the death of Mlle de Guerchi, senior churchmen warned Parlement that during the past year alone, 600 women in Paris had revealed in the confessional that they had rid themselves of unwanted babies. There is no reason to suppose that in the nineteen years that intervened between that incident and la Voisin’s arrest the situation had greatly altered. Indeed, Primi Visconti would declare with regard to abortion that ‘all the realm was infested with it’.33

  When questioned on the subject, la Voisin was evasive, though she did admit that once Mme de Dreux’s period had been late and that she had given her something to induce it. La Reynie fared better when he interviewed Catherine Lepère, an aged midwife who Marie Bosse said had carried out abortions on la Voisin’s orders. Now aged seventy-eight, Mme Lepère had delivered some of la Voisin’s own children and since that time had performed a variety of other tasks for her.

  At first la Lepère insisted that she had done nothing to contravene the oath taken by certified midwives in Paris. She agreed that la Voisin had sent unmarried girls to her but maintained that, after examining them, she had always sent away the pregnant ones. Those who were not pregnant were given a douche of pure water, though la Lepère could offer no explanation as to what this was meant to achieve. When pressed, she claimed that many of the girls sent by Mme Voisin thought they had conceived babies but, on examination, they turned out to be virgins. She said she had protested to la Voisin that it was wrong to exploit their naivety in this way, to which la Voisin had answered with a s
hrug, ‘Since they declared themselves to be whores, she really had to believe them.’34

  On 27 May, by which time she had been in custody more than two months, Mme Lepère made much fuller admissions. She acknowledged for the first time that she had the knack of ‘voiding’ pregnant women, though she still insisted that the technique she used was not at all invasive. She explained gravely that she performed the operation with water rather than a hooked instrument and that ‘everything depends on the manner of syringing’.35

  By her own account she had profited little from these skills, for la Voisin had always fixed the price with the client and had only given Mme Lepère a small percentage. Mme Lepère even tried to make out that for many years she had been performing a public service: by saving ladies of rank from embarrassing pregnancies, she had succeeded in conserving their honour. She took pride, too, in recalling that when she performed abortions on women who were so far advanced in pregnancy that the infant showed brief signs of life she would baptise the little creature, securing its salvation. Having saved its soul, she would take the tiny corpse in a box to the local gravedigger who, for a paltry bribe, would be prepared to bury the pathetic bundle in a corner of the cemetery. It may be doubted, however, whether all the aborted infants came to rest in consecrated ground. La Bosse had alleged that large numbers of them were buried in la Voisin’s garden (there is no mention, oddly, of it being searched for human remains) and other sources claimed that la Voisin disposed of bones and waste material in a small stove in her consulting room.