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

by Anne Somerset

  La Voisin had been planning to make further use of Marie. Shortly before her arrest she had told her daughter that she intended to send her to Clagny to ask Mme de Montespan for a down payment of 2000 écus. This sum could be used by Romani to purchase the rich cloth and gloves that would be used to kill Mlle de Fontanges.

  * * *

  As Marie’s tale had unfolded, the King had been kept fully informed, but we do not know what he thought of it. Louis had spent the summer of 1680 touring northern France and the border regions of Flanders. Mme de Montespan had followed with the rest of the court but it is clear that throughout the voyage she saw very little of him. This was interpreted merely as being a sign of her continuing decline, but the King’s aloofness was doubtless also attributable to the reports concerning her that were being sent from Paris.

  Louis now had to contemplate the possibility that the woman with whom he had had the most prolonged and passionate love affair of his life, and who had borne him seven children, had sustained their relationship by participating in repellent practices, and recourse to witchcraft and drugs. When these methods had failed her, she had allegedly turned to poison to satisfy her twisted desires.

  It is not clear whether the King believed any of this, but one thing is noteworthy. When he had been told in January 1680 that Mlle des Oeillets had been accused of dealings with la Voisin he had protested that this must be a monstrous slur, for it was unthinkable that she could be involved in anything disreputable. Now that Mme de Montespan had come under suspicion the King, so far as we know, did not raise similar objections.

  Following Marie Montvoisin’s disclosures on 12 July, La Reynie had at once written to Louvois to tell him what she had said. On 21 July Louvois wrote back from Calais saying he had informed the King of all this. Without mentioning Mme de Montespan, Louvois stated that the King desired La Reynie to do everything he could to establish the truth about the petition to which so many prisoners had alluded.50

  On 2 August the King followed this up with a letter of his own. He did not suggest that the accusations against Mme de Montespan were unfounded, though he was anxious to prevent the news that she had been implicated from seeping out. Having instructed La Reynie that any depositions relating to her must be taken down on separate sheets of paper, which should for the moment be withheld from the other commissioners, he stressed that he wanted La Reynie to pursue the inquiry with all diligence.51

  * * *

  Meanwhile, Marie’s revelations had left La Reynie in a state of acute anxiety. As yet, he was not convinced she had been telling the truth. In a memorandum he drew up on 2 September he noted that without being quite sure why, he thought there was more reason ‘to presume these horrible things to be false’ than to believe them. A little later he likewise observed that Marie’s claims about the poisoned petition were ‘extremely doubtful’52 but, even so, he was disinclined to dismiss everything she had said.

  One reason for this was that La Reynie had found Marie a convincing witness, who had about her ‘a certain air of ingenuousness’. She had shown particular conviction when she had given her deposition of 20 August and she had been so persuasive that La Reynie thought it unlikely it had all been lies. He considered it significant that prior to her execution la Voisin had reportedly told her cell mates that she feared being questioned about her visits to Saint-Germain, nor could he forget that Romani had acknowledged that he hoped to peddle merchandise to Mlle de Fontanges. The result was that even though La Reynie did not delude himself that he had uncovered the whole truth, he felt sure that ‘somehow or other there is certainly something in all this which is not right’.53

  He also believed that the role played by Mlle des Oeillets needed to be examined carefully. He considered it suspicious that to the end of her life la Voisin had denied being acquainted with Mlle des Oeillets, for it had been established to his own satisfaction that they had, in fact, known each other. Quite why he was so positive on this point is strange, for his belief rested on the unproven statements of Lesage and Marie Montvoisin. However, since he was sure of this, he commented that if Mlle des Oeillets now tried to maintain that la Voisin had been a stranger to her, this could only augment suspicions that she had something to hide.54

  * * *

  As the lines of enquiry converged upon Mme de Montespan, La Reynie decided that his best chance of disentangling fact from fiction lay in pursuing the case against Françoise Filastre. Throughout September confrontations were therefore organised between la Filastre and the other prisoners who had given evidence against her. At some of these, further efforts were made to establish the truth about la Filastre’s dealings with the Duchesse de Vivonne. La Filastre herself still maintained she had visited the Duchesse at home and had copied out a pact that Mme de Vivonne had written out earlier. When the priest Cotton was brought in for a confrontation, he agreed that la Filastre had shown him this document, but his recollection of its contents differed from that which he had previously put forward. He now said the pact had requested the restoration to power of the disgraced Minister, M. Fouquet, and the death of M. Colbert.55 This was particularly surprising in view of the fact that Mme de Vivonne was not known to be at all antagonistic towards Colbert. On the contrary, indeed, a marriage had only recently taken place between her eldest son and M. Colbert’s daughter.

  On 25 September a confrontation took place between la Filastre and Lesage. At this Lesage repeated his claim that la Filastre had coerced Mme de Vivonne into offering her aborted infant as a sacrifice to the devil. La Filastre categorically denied this and she was equally dismissive of Lesage’s claim that the Duchesses d’Angoulême and de Vitry had been co-signatories of a satanic pact drawn up by Mme de Vivonne, insisting she had never heard of either lady.56

  However, it was la Filastre’s links with Mme de Montespan that were most deeply probed during these encounters. Some of the confrontations ended in stalemate and took the inquiry little further. For example, when brought face to face with Galet on 6 September la Filastre denied telling him that she was buying powders for Mme de Montespan, but he stuck to his former story. However, a confrontation between la Filastre and Guibourg, which took place four days later, proved more productive: at this Guibourg was positively eager to acknowledge that he had worked on behalf of Mme de Montespan. He launched into a rambling narrative, relating how, some years earlier, a man had brought him powders and asked him to re-establish Mme de Montespan in the King’s favour by passing these under the chalice. Shortly afterwards the same person, acting on the instructions of a widowed man of rank who lived near Notre-Dame with his two children, had taken Guibourg to a hovel in Saint-Denis. There Guibourg had sought to enlist the devil’s support for Mme de Montespan by performing a black mass on the stomach of an unknown woman.57

  These new disclosures prompted la Filastre to enlarge on her earlier statements. She now alleged that Guibourg had told her the woman on whom he had performed the black mass had been Mme de Montespan herself, who had been brought to Saint-Denis in disguise. As yet, however, Guibourg could not bring himself to admit this and he declared it to be false.58

  Even without la Filastre’s contribution, Guibourg’s story was full of oddities. It was strange, for example, that he had discovered so much about the personal circumstances of the man who had recruited him to aid Mme de Montespan without ever managing to learn his name. But rather than focus on such anomalies, La Reynie was more concerned by the affinities between Guibourg’s statement and Marie Montvoisin’s testimony.

  * * *

  By early September the King had returned from his travels and on 10 September Louvois ordered La Reynie to report to the monarch at Versailles in two days’ time. There is no record of what was said at this meeting. However, it is clear that the King shared La Reynie’s concern about recent developments. For the rest of the month the King was kept informed about everything that happened at the confrontations held between la Filastre and other prisoners. On 25 September Louvois wrote a letter
to M. Robert, Attorney-General of the Chambre Ardente. Although there is no mention of Mme de Montespan, it gives some indication of what the King was thinking and shows that, far from being dismissive of the latest allegations, he was on the brink of sanctioning further arrests of highly placed people.

  Louvois wrote that having read La Reynie’s reports, ‘His Majesty has seen with displeasure … that it appears that Mme de Vivonne has had a criminal commerce with la Filastre and other prisoners at Vincennes.’ As this had not yet been fully proven, though, the King had decided to defer taking the controversial step of arresting Mme de Vivonne. Instead, he thought it safer first to bring la Filastre to trial, believing that once he had had a chance to study what she said under torture he would be better placed to make up his mind about how to proceed.59

  On 30 September the trials took place of la Filastre and Jacques Joseph Cotton, the priest who had performed conjurations for her and officiated at black masses. When questioned on the sellette, la Filastre had little new to say. On being asked why she had wanted to secure a job with Mlle de Fontanges, she said she had acted out of a simple desire to advance her family. When taxed with Galet’s claim that she had said she was buying powders for Mme de Montespan, she said the very reverse was true, for it was Galet who had boasted to her that Mme de Montespan had obtained powders from him for the King’s consumption. La Filastre still maintained that Guibourg had told her he had said a black mass in a cellar on Mme de Montespan’s behalf, although she did not repeat her earlier claim that Mme de Montespan herself had participated. The judges found her guilty of sacrilege and selling poison, and decreed that she should be burnt alive after torture. Cotton was given the same sentence after being convicted of ‘treason against the divine order, sacrilege, profanations, impieties and conjurations’.60

  The next day the wretched pair were tortured. The King’s expectation that this would yield more precise information about Mme de Vivonne did not prove justified. La Filastre repeated that she had drawn up a pact for her, but Cotton’s evidence on the subject was very vague. He agreed that la Filastre had shown him a pact, which she said was for the Duchesse de Vivonne, but though the Duchesse’s initials featured in the text, her name nowhere featured.61

  From this point in the affair there were no further allegations against Mme de Vivonne. It cannot be ruled out that at some point she had been a client of la Filastre but if so, the nature of their transactions was never defined. Presumably, on reflection the King concluded that Mme de Vivonne had done nothing truly reprehensible, for he took no action against her. In later years he gave every appearance of being very fond of her. When she was widowed in 1688, the King ensured she was adequately provided for financially and Saint-Simon reported that he always made her welcome when she came to court and would have liked to see more of her.

  * * *

  It was against Mme de Montespan that la Filastre made the most devastating allegations under torture. During the initial phases of the interrogation she merely reiterated what she had said at her trial about Galet and Guibourg, but as her agony intensified more damaging confessions were wrenched from her. For as long as she could, she resisted the pressure to add to her earlier statements. One person who saw the full written record of her interrogation was struck by the manner in which ‘in the midst of the torments … she cries out loudly that she is going before God, and that she does not want to burden her conscience with lies and calumny … She expresses herself in terms which are truly affecting.’62 However, as more wedges were driven into the brodequins, crushing her legs unbearably, she could not sustain this resolve. Desperate to end her suffering, she gave her interrogators the information they wanted.

  She began by admitting that her child had been sacrificed to the devil and then moved on to what she had done for Mme de Montespan. La Reynie would later observe that she did this without any prompting but this was disingenuous, for la Filastre knew that those questioning her were particularly interested in that subject. La Filastre now stated that when her employer Mme Chapelain had sent her to see Galet in 1676, she had ordered her to buy powders for Mme de Montespan. More recently her journey to the Auvergne had also been undertaken for Mme de Montespan, and la Filastre said that as well as buying love powders there she had been looking for poison, which was to be given to Mlle de Fontanges. It was Mme Chapelain, at the instigation of Mme de Montespan, who had instructed her to seek a position with Mlle de Fontanges, the plan being that once la Filastre was ensconced in the young woman’s household it would be easy to poison her.63

  Having been released from the brodequins, la Filastre was given only a brief respite before being confronted with several of the prisoners she had just incriminated. When Mme Chapelain was brought before her she said that la Filastre’s allegations about her were untrue. She pleaded with her former employee to retract them, but la Filastre could not be moved.64

  That same day la Filastre was taken from Vincennes to the Bastille, in readiness for her execution. She spent her last hours with the curé of Saint-Laurent, even though Louvois had once expressed misgivings as to his reliability as a confessor. After she had been closeted with him for some time, she sent an urgent summons to La Reynie and Bezons, stating she had something important to say. When they came to her she announced that everything she had told them about la Chapelain and Mme de Montespan had been false, and that she had only said these things ‘to free herself from the affliction and pain of the torments, and out of fear of the torture being reapplied’. Although she had stood by her words at the confrontation with Mme Chapelain, this too had been motivated by ‘fear and respect’ for the commissioners. Now, however, she did not want to go to her death oppressed by the knowledge that she had wrongfully accused anyone. She did admit that she had once asked Galet for poison, but said she had intended to use it to kill the wife of her own lover, rather than to harm Mlle de Fontanges. She also now denied that her child had been sacrificed to the devil.65

  Having unburdened herself in this way, la Filastre could go to her execution with one less sin on her conscience. By decree of the Chamber, she and Cotton were then taken to the Place de Grève and burnt. As the flames engulfed her, la Filastre perhaps derived some consolation from the belief that she died without having accused anyone unjustly. However, events would show that the damage she had wrought in her last hours could not be so easily rectified.

  NINE

  THE CHAMBER IS SUSPENDED

  Details of la Filastre’s last statements were promptly relayed to the King. He had hoped that they would enable him to resolve upon an appropriate course of action but, in fact, he found himself in an alarming quandary. If the correct procedure was followed, the written record of la Filastre’s declarations under torture ought to be shown without delay to the Chambre Ardente’s assembled commissioners. Yet the King was sure that once this was done, it would not be long before all Paris was buzzing with reports of what la Filastre had said. As yet he had no idea whether Mme de Montespan was innocent or guilty, but for the moment he did not want anyone to learn of the suspicions that had been voiced against her. Instead, he wanted La Reynie to pursue his enquiries undisturbed, doubtless hoping that in due course these would exonerate her. However, if the public learned of the accusations against her, her reputation would be irreparably smeared, and the taint of diabolism and poison would cling to her for ever. It would also not have escaped the King that he, too, would become an object of mockery if word spread that his mistress had used aphrodisiacs and love potions to enslave him sexually.

  When the King’s wishes were made known to La Reynie, he was not unduly disturbed, for at first he did not think it would be too difficult to preserve secrecy while he investigated further. On 6 October he expressed the view that it would not, in fact, have mattered much if la Filastre’s confessions had been read to the commissioners, for when her final retraction was taken into account, any sensible person would realise that this nullified everything she had said before. However, he conc
eded that there was a chance that irresponsible individuals ‘would draw on these facts … to make up stories and perhaps to sow malicious rumours’, and it was obviously desirable to avoid this. For the time being, therefore, he recommended that when the transcript of la Filastre’s torture was read to the commissioners, all mention of the attempt on Mlle de Fontanges’s life – as well as la Filastre’s subsequent retraction – should be excised.1 It was only after he had thought rather longer about this that it dawned on him that this course was more problematical than he had realised.

  * * *

  As the King desired, La Reynie continued to interrogate the leading figures in the affair, but this merely caused the inquiry to descend ever further into the realms of horror. On 3 October Guibourg called to mind several other instances when he had celebrated black masses. While he was sure that none of these had taken place at la Voisin’s house, he could provide no enlightenment as to the precise locations. This was because he himself had often been uncertain as to his whereabouts and on at least one occasion a stranger had conducted him blindfold in a coach to the place where the mass was held.2

  Guibourg’s efforts to convince La Reynie that he and la Voisin had seen very little of each other were undermined by the fact that Marie Montvoisin was able to conjure up the most lurid memories of things that he and her mother had done together. On 9 October she made her most sickening declaration to date.3 She said she had been present when Guibourg had performed a black mass on Mme de Montespan and that, during this ceremony, her mother had instructed her to hand Guibourg a newly born baby. Guibourg had cut the child’s throat and collected its blood in a chalice. At the appropriate point in the ceremony he elevated this vessel and the blood took the place of the sacramental wine. When the mass was over, Guibourg had torn out the butchered infant’s entrails and given them to la Voisin so she could have them distilled. The blood had been poured into a phial and carried away by Mme de Montespan.