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

by Anne Somerset

  Once sittings had resumed, the trial of la Voisin’s alleged accomplice, la Leroux, took place on 4 April. After being found guilty she was interrogated one last time the following day and then tortured. At the outset she declared that she would shortly be facing the last judgement and was therefore ready to reveal all. In accordance with this she agreed that she had supplied la Voisin with a water which she knew to be poison and which was subsequently handed on to Mme Leféron. She also discredited Mme de Dreux, saying that Magdelaine de La Grange had told her that Mme de Dreux had approached her and Marie Bosse in hopes of obtaining poison. Mme de Dreux had planned to use it to kill her husband, though she had baulked at the sum of 2000 écus which Mme de La Grange and Mme Bosse had named as their price.100 Having unburdened herself of these secrets, la Leroux was executed at four in the afternoon of the same day.

  On 7 April the trial was held of Mme Leféron, a much more important defendant. She had been incriminated by numerous witnesses and the case against her was strong, not least because her husband was actually dead, whereas other putative victims of poisoners remained very much alive. La Voisin had more than once given a detailed account of how she had supplied Mme Leféron with poison and though she had subsequently withdrawn this, the fact that la Leroux had corroborated the original story had undermined la Voisin’s attempt to exculpate her former client. Nevertheless, when questioned on the sellette, Mme Leféron still maintained her innocence. She did concede that at one of their consultations la Voisin had suggested that M. Leféron’s death could be hastened, but Mme Leféron insisted she had rejected the idea. At the time M. Leféron was already suffering from ‘an illness which would not permit him to make old bones’ and therefore ‘she did not want to listen to anything, given that her husband was incurable and could not go on much longer’.101

  The commissioners apparently accepted that M. Leféron had not been murdered: at the end of the trial his widow was merely fined 1500 livres and banished from Paris and its surroundings for nine years. The sentence, which fell short of completely exonerating Mme Leféron, pleased nobody. Mme de Sévigné observed sarcastically, ‘That was really worth the trouble of dishonouring her,’ while the Comte de Bussy reported that people were saying that Mme Leféron deserved either to be punished more severely or not at all.102 Certainly, the sentence reinforced the damaging perception that although the commissioners of the Arsenal Chamber could be merciless when it suited them, considerations of class and professional solidarity were apt to sway their judgement.

  A day later the flautist Philbert, who had been in prison for months and whose wife had been executed the previous June, came up for trial. No evidence had emerged to suggest that he had aided his wife to poison her first husband, M. Brunet, or even that he had been aware that his predecessor had been murdered. He was therefore acquitted and freed without any stain on his character. Once restored to liberty, he attained a certain celebrity as a result of his narrow escape and was feted by hostesses all over Paris.

  On 27 April it was Mme de Dreux’s turn to come before the Chamber. Her case was aided by the fact that though it was alleged that she had wanted to poison her husband and a rival mistress of her lover M. de Menars (who had preceded the Duc de Richelieu in her affections), neither of her alleged victims had come to any harm. Her husband had been highly supportive of her while she was in prison, for despite the fact that for many years they had been on distant terms (la Voisin had said they neither shared a bed nor took their meals together) he either could not believe she was capable of murder or considered that it would be a stain on his honour if she were convicted of such a crime.

  Since her arrest Mme de Dreux had at all times insisted she was innocent. In a petition submitted to the commissioners she deplored the fact that she had been incarcerated, lamenting that while in Vincennes ‘she had not even heard mass, nor had any counsel or consolation apart from her innocence, which enabled her to bear with patience and tranquillity the pain’ of being falsely accused. On a more practical note, she submitted that Marie Bosse’s evidence against her was inadmissible as la Bosse had a conviction for coining.103

  Having considered her case, the commissioners confined themselves to admonishing Mme de Dreux and fining her 500 livres. Mme de Sévigné heard that several of them were reluctant even to inflict this modest sanction, while the Comte de Bussy believed that although ‘this woman was innocent … the judges imposed this little penalty on her to save their honour’. M. Brayer took a different view, for he concluded that she had been let off so lightly ‘more out of consideration for some members of her family than on account of her innocence’.104

  On emerging from the Arsenal after her trial, Mme de Dreux was ‘received with open arms by her husband and all her family’, but her mother could not be there to meet her. She had died while Mme de Dreux was in prison, her end hastened, so Mme de Sévigné believed, by ‘grief at seeing her daughter in this condition’. M. de Dreux did not dare tell his wife of her loss until they reached home, whereupon she fainted, and on reviving proved inconsolable. Mme de Sévigné confided to her daughter, ‘Today she is still shedding tears which M. de Richelieu cannot wipe away; he has performed marvels throughout this whole business.’105 Mme de Sévigné admitted that she had nearly wept herself on hearing this affecting tale but evidence yet to be uncovered would show that her sympathy was misplaced.

  * * *

  Meanwhile La Reynie and Bezons had been working to accumulate evidence for the prosecution of the Maréchal de Luxembourg. Although this was taking a surprisingly long time, Bezons would by no means admit it was proving difficult to assemble a case. On 9 February he confidently informed Louvois that Lesage had just given them new information which, though in some respects contradictory, clarified many matters that had hitherto been obscure. Yet the written record of Lesage’s interrogation on that date106 hardly warrants Bezons’s enthusiastic interpretation and suggests that if he was ready to attach such importance to an inconsequential interview of this sort, he and La Reynie were struggling more than they cared to admit to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion.

  The case that was being so laboriously constructed depended heavily on Lesage’s account of his encounter with the Maréchal at the Marquise de Fontet’s house. However, since describing that, Lesage had made much more serious allegations against Luxembourg. He had claimed that Luxembourg had attended sacrilegious ceremonies conducted by the priest, Gilles Davot, who had passed notes under the chalice to gratify Luxembourg’s desires. According to Lesage, Luxembourg had not only encouraged his secretary Bonnard to join with Marie Bosse and Mme Vigoreux in order to poison the businessman who was causing him problems, but the Maréchal himself had dealt directly with that disreputable pair. Furthermore, Luxembourg had commissioned Mme Vigoreux and her husband to arrange the murder of his wife. They had actually placed an assassin in the Duchesse de Luxembourg’s household, who had been waiting for an opportunity to poison her.

  Since it was obviously unsatisfactory to rely solely on Lesage’s testimony, every effort was made to persuade Bonnard to divulge information damaging to Luxembourg. A combination of threats and inducements seem to have been used, for Luxembourg heard that Bonnard was told that if he did what was required of him he would be treated leniently. However, all this took time. Some of the other commissioners became disturbed that the case was taking so long to come to court, but when one of them expressed concern at the way Luxembourg was being kept in prison without trial, La Reynie peremptorily silenced him. He declared he possessed written proof in Luxembourg’s own hand, which established beyond doubt that the Maréchal had done wicked things and that, this being so, the King had authorised him to proceed as he saw fit.107

  Luxembourg himself had been intermittently questioned, but long intervals elapsed without him seeing La Reynie or Bezons. It was not until 5 May that mention was made of the signed paper Luxembourg had given to Bonnard. Then, at an interrogation session at the Bastille, the regi
strar of the Chambre Ardente held up a document and Luxembourg was asked if he recognised this as the Power of Attorney he had signed. Luxembourg replied that as far as he could see, it was, but when denied permission to inspect it closely he grew suspicious. Stepping forward briskly, he snatched the document and, having perused it carefully, saw that several lines of writing had been squeezed between the original text and his signature. Luxembourg pointed out that the insertion had been written in a different hand and a different coloured ink, and that the space was so tight that the final line almost overlapped his signature. He suggested that a handwriting expert should be called in who could independently verify this and, although La Reynie declined to do this, it became obvious that this document, to which the Police Chief had attached so much importance, would never on its own secure Luxembourg’s conviction.108

  Undaunted, La Reynie next brought in Bonnard for a confrontation with Luxembourg, but this too did not go as he had hoped. Bonnard began by denying that Luxembourg had supplied him with two bottles of poisoned wine to be given to a key figure in the forestry sale. He was then asked if Luxembourg had been aware that Bonnard had purloined material which could be used to fabricate counterfeit money, but Bonnard insisted that Luxembourg had not been privy to what he was doing. At this point M. Bezons intervened. He reminded Bonnard sharply that in an earlier interview he had said the opposite and that, if he contradicted depositions he had made under oath, he laid himself open to severe penalties. When Luxembourg indignantly demanded of Bonnard whether he had really uttered such false things, Bezons imperiously silenced the Maréchal, warning that if Luxembourg interrupted again he would be removed from the room. In answer Luxembourg growled that he was not accustomed to hearing lies told to his face and that, ‘in prison, as elsewhere, I could not permit it’.109 During the remainder of the confrontation La Reynie and Bezons tried to persuade Bonnard to incriminate Luxembourg in a number of other ways and they could barely hide their fury when their efforts failed.

  Bonnard was tried on 8 May but at his trial nothing further emerged that could be used against Luxembourg. Bonnard himself was found guilty of malefice and impiety and sentenced to the galleys in perpetuity. Mme de Sévigné could not decide whether the poor man should be praised for his loyalty to his master or reviled for having caused such trouble, musing that he was either ‘a very good or a very bad servant’.110

  Despite Bonnard’s failure to provide him with the evidence he wanted, La Reynie remained determined to prove his case. On 12 May an unnamed priest was brought into Luxembourg’s cell. In an account he wrote shortly afterwards Luxembourg noted that he had never seen this man before, but he later discovered that he was Gilles Davot, who was supposed to have regularly performed conjurations for him. La Reynie asked the priest if he recognised the prisoner before him; when he answered that he did not, La Reynie menacingly cautioned him, ‘Be very careful, for you do know Monsieur.’ When this still failed to elicit the desired response La Reynie made an even more blatant attempt to jog the priest’s memory, demanding, ‘Are you not well acquainted with Monsieur le Duc de Luxembourg?’ All proved in vain, for Davot replied that he knew Luxembourg only by reputation.111

  Still La Reynie would not admit defeat. The next person brought in to confront the Maréchal was the husband of the late Mme Vigoreux, and he too was asked to identify Luxembourg. At first Vigoreux said that he did recognise him, but almost immediately he changed his mind and said that he had mistaken him for the Comte de Gassilly. Luxembourg noticed that La Reynie showed no interest in questioning Vigoreux about his dealings with Gassilly, which led him to ‘conjecture that because M. de Gassilly … was allied with a minister [Louvois]’, La Reynie did not want him to be implicated in the affair.112 Luxembourg’s comment indicates that he believed La Reynie was working to uphold the factional interests of Louvois and that this had a tremendous bearing on the way the inquiry was conducted.

  Apparently unperturbed by these successive failures, La Reynie still had a final card to play, for Lesage was now taken before Luxembourg in hopes that he could force the Maréchal to change his story. Fortified with several glasses of wine, which La Reynie had given him to prevent his nerve failing, Lesage reiterated his story of his encounter with Luxembourg at the Marquise de Fontet’s house. Once again he rehearsed how Luxembourg had not only expressed a wish that both his wife and the governor of a certain province should die, but had also sought the love of the Princesse de Tingry and entreated that a marriage might be arranged between his son and Louvois’s daughter.

  Luxembourg gave a dignified response to every one of these points. He said that while Lesage alleged he had wanted to eliminate the provincial governor so that he could succeed to his position, ‘I had not thought it necessary to give myself up to the devil for that.’ Regarding a marriage between his son and Louvois’s daughter he remarked that he came from a dynasty ‘where we do not purchase alliances through crime; that it had been a great honour for me had my son married Mlle de Louvois, but I would never have done anything for that about which I could reproach myself’. He continued that he was proud to have the friendship of the Princesse de Tingry (at this point Lesage interrupted with a snigger that what the Maréchal wanted was her love) but that it was quite untrue that he had ever wished ill to his wife, who had given him no cause for complaint.113

  Lesage then changed tack and accused Luxembourg of having obtained poison from la Vigoreux to poison the businessman Dupin. Luxembourg countered this by informing him that la Vigoreux’s husband had failed to identify him during their confrontation. Lesage’s next ploy was to claim that he had regularly brought the priest Davot to see Luxembourg, and that he had performed ceremonies designed to bring about the death of Luxembourg’s enemies. It was at this point, however, that La Reynie was obliged to admit that it was Davot whom Luxembourg had seen earlier and who had been at a loss when asked to name him.114

  On 14 May Luxembourg was finally brought to trial but because of the setbacks experienced by La Reynie the result was a foregone conclusion. After inspecting the evidence, the Attorney-General of the Chambre Ardente recommended that the Maréchal should be discharged and this further predisposed the commissioners in Luxembourg’s favour. When Luxembourg came before them to answer questions, he ended by expressing the hope that he had exonerated himself from the ‘false, horrible and absurd accusations’ that had been brought against him, and the commissioners did not disappoint him. After Luxembourg had been taken back to the Bastille they deliberated only briefly before acquitting him.

  It appeared that he had been completely vindicated. Loyal supporters of the Maréchal, such as his cousin the Prince de Condé (who had stationed himself outside the Arsenal during Luxembourg’s trial), were jubilant, though it is true that several of Luxembourg’s fellow dukes criticised him for having allowed the Chambre Ardente to sit in judgement on him contrary to the privileges of the peerage. As far as Mme de Sévigné was concerned, however, Luxembourg had emerged from his ordeal ‘whiter than a swan’, while the Comte de Bussy observed that the commissioners ought to be ashamed of themselves for having issued an arrest warrant against an officer of the crown on such frivolous grounds.115

  However, an unpleasant shock awaited Luxembourg. It had been assumed that he would be welcomed back at court to resume his position as Captain of the Guard, but as it turned out, ‘everyone had been mistaken about this, and he himself more than the others’.116 The day after the trial the King agreed that Luxembourg should be freed from the Bastille but he appended an order that the Maréchal should at once leave Paris and sequestrate himself in one of his properties in the country. Clearly, the verdict of innocent had left Louis dissatisfied.

  Luxembourg accordingly retired to his country estate at Piney, his reputation and career apparently in tatters. The Princesse de Tingry, who had been formally absolved the day after his acquittal, understood herself to be comprehended in his disgrace and retreated to one of her chateaux in another part of France.
It looked as if the matter had been closed and that Luxembourg would never be given a chance to redeem himself.

  It therefore caused stupefaction when in June 1681 the King not only summoned Luxembourg back to court but reinstated him as Captain of the Guard. Mme de Sévigné exclaimed in wonder, ‘How could the King make a more striking reparation than to give [Luxembourg] the care of his sacred person?’ The Comte de Bussy was so amazed by the transformation in Luxembourg’s fortunes that he declared there was nothing like it in the whole of French history, though he added that if he had treated a man as the King had treated Luxembourg he would take care never to employ him in a close capacity about his person. On his return to court Luxembourg found himself feted by an eager throng of admirers and Mme de Sévigné told her daughter it would make her laugh if she could see how all those who had been the loudest to condemn the Maréchal were now full of praise for him.117 In November 1681 the seal was set on Luxembourg’s rehabilitation when the Princesse de Tingry, who had been contemplating renewing her vows as a nun, was invited to come back to court and resume her place as a lady-in-waiting to the Queen.

  The Comte de Bussy attributed the King’s change of heart as proceeding from the workings of a ‘delicate conscience’ and it is difficult to put forward a more precise explanation than this. After Luxembourg had been sent away, Colbert had written in protest to the King, reminding Louis of all the services Luxembourg had rendered him, and perhaps this had had a belated effect. Some people at court thought that the King’s confessor, Père de La Chaise, had taken up Luxembourg’s cause, while others actually believed Louvois was responsible for the turnaround.118 There can be no doubt, however, that they were wrong in thinking this.