City of Light, City of Poison

by Holly Tucker

  173Château of Saint-Germain: Procès-verbal de question de La Chéron, 19 June 1679 (5: 417).

  173to be burned alive: Ravaisson suggests that she was strangled first (5: 413).

  174“I will not lie”: Ibid. (5: 417).

  174place de Grève: Ibid. (5: 418).

  174the following day: “Procès-verbal de la question de Lepère,” 11 August 1679 (5: 451–452); “Procès-verbal de presentation de la Lepère à la question” (5: 452–453).

  175“Saint-Germain”: Procès-Verbal de la question de Belot, 10 June 1679 (5: 392–399).

  175“servants of Paris are at risk”: Madame de Scudéry, cited in Mongrédien, 44. Bourdelot, cited in Petitfils, Affaire, 125. Further intensifying things, Parisians also began sending placets to Louvois and La Reynie containing “information” about neighbors, colleagues, and family members who bought or used poison; for example, see BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 28.

  175business selling charms: Archives de la Bastille, ms. 10343, fols. 347–350; she was first questioned at Vincennes on May 20.

  176buried immediately: See Archives de la Bastille, ms. 10345, fols. 607–608, for the detailed physician’s report, which is not included in Ravaisson’s transcriptions. Louvois also references the death in his letter to the king (16 September 1679); (5:477).

  CHAPTER 26

  “Beginning to Talk”

  177“and my family”: Interrogation of Voisin, 12 September 1679 (5: 468).

  178“thank God.”: Ibid. (5: 470).

  178bone-wasting disease: In an earlier interview, Leféron claimed it was smallpox. “Résume de l’interrogatoire de Madame Leféron,” 16 April 1679 (6: 336).

  179“she is guilty”: “Confrontation de La Voisin à Mesdames Dreux et Leféron,” 16 September, 1679 (5: 479).

  179“I warned her husband: “Note autographe de M. de La Reynie sur une declaration de Lesage, du 17 Septembre 1679” (5: 473).

  179“order them to be used”: “King to La Reynie,” 21 September 1679 (5: 483). BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 98–99.

  179denied knowing her: “Interrogatoire de la Voisin,” 22 September 1679 (5: 483). However, Voisin’s apparent success motivated other women to seek her help in securing similar positions at court. Voisin admitted on 24 October 1679 that a woman named Vertemart offered her 400 livres for a place in Montespan’s entourage, which she claimed to have refused (6: 29–30, 59–60).

  180firm in her assertion: “Interrogatoire de la Vertemart,” 30 September, 1679 (5: 491).

  180the duke of Luxembourg: Lesage interrogation, 27 March 1679 (5: 293).

  180alleged transgressions to the king: Louvois to the king 8 October 1679 (5: 501–502).

  180“nothing compared to . . . interrogation”: Ibid.

  181the dungeon: Mongrédien downplays the significance of this “abnormal and surprising” visit, explaining that La Reynie was the one who requested it. While this was what Louvois explained to the king in his letter the following day, it is far from certain that the minister was simply complying with La Reynie’s request. It would have been unusual for La Reynie to give direction to Louvois, whom he regarded as a messenger for the king. The tenor and content of the investigations took a sharp turn following Louvois’s visit to Lesage, which leads me to believe that the minister saw this as an opportunity to influence the course of the investigations.

  181“change his behavior”: Louvois to La Reynie, 11 October 1679 (6: 18).

  181her servant: The paper had been signed by Vivonne, the duchess of Angoulême, the duchess of Vitry, and the princess of Tingry.

  181“dreadful”: “Déclaration de Lesage,” 14 October 1679 (6: 19).

  181“many strange things”: “Déclaration de Lesage,” 26 September and 14 October 1679 (5: 490, 6: 19). Lesage also claimed that the card cheat the marquis de Cessac had once been a client. Voisin similarly continued to confess the names of her many clients.

  182“against those named”: Louvois to M. de La Reynie, 16 October 1679 (5: 25).

  182“persons of quality”: “Déclaration de La Voisin,” 9 October 1679 (6: 3–6); “Déclaration de La Voisin,” 10 Octobre 1679 (6: 7). The tribunal called Roure in for questioning on 23 January 1680; See Archives de la Bastille, ms. 10347, fol. 108.

  182might return: Voisin made the assertion a third time on 16 January 1680 (6: 103–104).

  182“even farther up”: “Déclaration de La Voisin,” 9 October 1679 (6: 3–6).

  182to his wife: She was assisted by fellow malcontent the marquis de Vardes, who served in the king’s personal guard and similarly fumed that the king had stolen the heart of Henrietta Anne whom he had tried to bed. For more on the scandal of the Spanish letter, see La Fayette, Histoire d’Henriette d’Angleterre; Motteville, Mémoires; Ormesson, Mémoires; Tellier, “Mémoire à M. Bezons.”

  182exiled her to the provinces: Motteville, Mémoires.

  182company of his wife: Motteville 3: 294, cited in Somerset, 82.

  183“inconceivable aversion”: Renée, Les Nièces de Mazarin, 179, citing Entretiens de Colbert et de Bloin, 1701. Louis, on the other hand, felt “neither pain nor sadness,” Motteville, Mémoires 4: 83; for the count’s death, see Petitfils, Affaire, 13–14.

  183get rid of her husband: Abbot of Estrades to Pomponne, 28 April, 1679, (5: 352–353).

  183the duke of Vendôme: Just as Louis’s mother had arranged for the young king to lose his virginity to a chambermaid, rumor had it he was considering the duchess of Bouillon to serve as the object of his son’s first affections, Somerset, 272.

  183and hand it to Lesage: On 28 October 1679 Lesage confirmed that Bouillon had been a former client (6: 33).

  184a few coins for his trouble: Lesage interrogation, 28 October 1679 (6: 31–36).

  184after supper: BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 96.

  184La Reynie wrote: Ibid.

  CHAPTER 27

  Fortune-Teller

  185sold-out performance of The Fortune-Teller: Clarke, “La Devineresse”; Clarke, The Guénégaud Theater in Paris (1673–1680), vols. 1–2; The play drew a large crowd every night, forcing ticket takers to turn away more than four hundred people at the door with each performance, so great was the demand both for its subject matter and for its special effects.

  186Jobin’s brother in disguise: Donneau de Visé and Thomas Corneille, La Devineresse ou les faux enchantemens, edited by Julia Prest, MHRA Critical Texts (12), 2007.

  186the Opéra: Saint-Germain, La Reynie 100.

  186Phèdre et Hippolyte: Clarke, “La Devineresse,” 233.

  187murderers in his city: Saint-Germain, 145. This said, the play would not have been allowed to be performed if he did not approve of it. The police had the right to censure any play that went against good morals or that disrespected the king. La Reynie issued annual ordinances beginning in 1670 that announced “extraordinary treatment against those who, inside and outside or nearby theaters or the Opera, excite tumult or disturb presentations” (BNF Mélanges Colbert, 166, cited in Saint-Germain, 149). For debates on La Reynie’s involvement in the composition of The Fortune-Teller, see Clarke, “La Devineresse,” 222.

  187the duchess of Bouillon: 16 January 1680. BNF, mss. français, 10347, fol. 91.

  187“respect and obedience to the king”: Dialogue from Bouillon interrogation, 29 January 1680 (6: 123); Mémoire de la Marquis de la Fare 65: 249; Visconti, 288.

  189“disguised as a judge”: Mémoire du Marquis de La Fare, 65: 249; see also Visconti, 288. It is possible that the last exchange about the devil is apocryphal. The accounts contained in Visconti’s and the marquis de La Fare’s memoirs were proudly circulated by the Bouillons and may have been exaggerated. Madame de Sévigné’s description is not an eye witness account, but likely approaches closer to the truth. In any case there is consensus that the duchess of Bouillon proved to be a hostile witness.

  189“ask such dumb questions”: Saint-Germain, 21; Sévigné, 31 January 1680; Voltaire, Oeuvres complètes, 13 (“Le
ttre de Ferney du 13 décembre 1767”).

  190“put me in prison”: Choisy, Mémoires 63: 224.

  190chased her from their city: Primi Visconti, 292. Visconti claimed, likely apocryphally, that La Reynie wanted the tribunal to investigate his as well but was rebuffed.

  190“to my people”: Renée, 216.

  191dismissed him: BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 97; some reports suggest that La Reynie spent two hours with the king that morning, “Brayer to Mazauges,” 7 February 1680.

  191as they always had: BNF, mss français 7608, fol. 97.

  191for blasphemy and witchcraft: For an especially thorough account of Luxembourg’s imprisonment and the animosities between Louvois and the duke, see B. Fonck, Le Maréchal de Luxembourg, 2014, Kindle edition.

  191encouraging him to flee, thus signaling his guilt: J. P. Cénat, Louvois: Le Double de Louis XIV, 2015, Kindle edition.

  192“my full confidence”: From Sévigné, 26 January 1680. Robert also signed a request to question Feuquières around the same time. See Archives de la Bastille, ms. 10347, fol. 106.

  192“continue the proceedings against him”: Louvois to Boucherat, 24 January 1680 (6: 107).

  192bowels of the prison: Luxembourg, Lettre secrette de Mr. de Luxembourg sur son emprisonnement à la Bastille, 49–50.

  192“for such little things”: Sévigné, February 1680, 2: 598.

  192a hoax: BNF, mss français 7608, fols. 336, 341.

  193follow established procedures: Fonck, Le Maréchal de Luxembourg, Kindle edition.

  193physical evidence against him: Description based on Luxembourg, Lettre secrette; Interrogation of Landard, 28 January 1680 (6: 113–114); Interrogation of Lesage, 9 February 1680 (6: 130–144).

  194exiled Luxembourg from Paris: Louis rescinded the punishment the following year, in 1680.

  194“all will be taken care of”: Petitfils, Affaire, 124.

  CHAPTER 28

  “From One Fire to Another”

  195at the Bastille: Account of Voisin’s trial, torture, and execution from Procès-verbal de l’interrogation de La Voisin, 19 February 1680 (6: 150–156); Suite du Procès-verbal de Question de La Voisin, 20 February 1680 (6: 156–181); Procès-verbal d’exécution de La Voisin, écrit par Sagot, 22 February 1680 6: 181–182); see also BNF, mss. Français 7608, fols. 226–227.

  196Morel entered the room: For reasons unknown, Morel replaced Terode as surgeon present during the tortures, Terode attended the earlier torture of Chéron.

  196“Madame Alluye”: Suite du Procès-verbal de Question de La Voisin, 20 February 1680 (6: 174, 175).

  197The questioning was over: Ibid., 180.

  197middle of the stone floor: Procès-verbal de Question de La Voisin, 22 February 1680 (6: 180).

  197“at the heart of it all”: Ibid.

  198ball of heat and smoke: Description from Antoine Coypel, cited in Mongrédien.

  198“pass from one fire to another”: Sévigné, 2: 852.

  198“will surprise us all”: Mongrédien, 71.

  CHAPTER 29

  The Poisoner’s Daughter

  201“unburden herself” of her memories: See Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, 28 March 1680 (6: 194–198). Voisin’s daughter was interrogated on 28 March 1680 (6: 194–198), 5 July 1680 (6: 234–238), 12 July 1680 (6: 241–246), 13 August 1680 (6: 288–292), 20 August 1680 (6: 294–298), 22 August 1680 (6: 299-305) 1680. Ravaisson’s transcription is mostly reliable. However, it is worth noting that some information is missing for 12 July 1680 (BNF, mss. français 7608, fol. 61); 13 August 1680 (BNF, mss. français 7608, fol. 182); and 20 August 1680 (BNF, mss. français, fols. 239–249).

  202Madame Pelletier snapped: Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, 28 March 1680. (6: 196).

  202got what she deserved: Ibid. Marie-Marguerite’s father was also poisoned at the same time, as well as on a number of other occasions. Likely the only thing standing between him and a sure death was his apparent friendship with the public executioner for the city of Paris. If Monsieur Voisin happened to die, the executioner threatened, he would make sure a full autopsy was performed—and would also tell every detail he knew about Madame Voisin’s “business” (6: 31); Somerset, 153.

  203the noblewoman Leféron: See Confrontation of Bosse against Voisin, 28 March 1679 (5: 303–309); Confrontation of Voisin against Bosse, 28 March 1679 (5: 309–310); Lesage interrogation, 16 September 1680 (5: 309–311).

  203submit their entreaties: Somerset, 255.

  204“‘a piece of paper’”: Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, 5 July 1680 (6: 234–238).

  204dismissed entirely: While Philbert was not a member of the nobility, she had strong connections at court through her second husband, a court musician.

  204Marie-Marguerite explained: Compte rendu au Roy par M. de La Reynie sur le placet que La Voisin devoit presenter à Sa Majesté, le lendemain ou sur lendement de sa detention. BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 70.

  205“disgusting things”: Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, 13 August 1680 (6: 289). BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 70.

  205“whom I name”: Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, summary by La Reynie, 12 July 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 69–73 (6: 241–246). See also BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 179. Interrogation of the Wife Vautier. 8 August 1680. BNF, mss français 7608, fol 186, 190.

  206“just on hearsay”: Interrogation of Voisin’s daughter, 12 July 1680 (6: 245).

  206earnest and convincing: Projet de lettre de M. de la Reynie à Louvois, 2 September 1680; See also BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 275v.

  206“unbelievable things”: Compte rendu au roi par M. de la Reynie du placet que la Voisin devait presenter à S.M. le lendemain ou surlendemain de la détention, n.d. (6: 320). BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 144. Marie-Marguerite’s story also rang true when La Reynie interrogated another of Voisin’s colleagues, Madame Vautier. Voisin had bragged to Vautier over dinner that she needed to go to Saint-Germain to meet the king and hoped a “beautiful fortune” would come of it. Interrogation of the wife Vautier, 8 August 1680, BNF, mss. français 7608, fols. 186, 190.

  206“than to declare the truth”: Interrogation of Voisin’s Daughter, 12 July 1680 (6: 246).

  207“follows his example”: Bussy-Rabutin to the Marquis of Trichâteau, 30 April 1680.

  207“charmed by her”: Sévigné, 17 July 1680; 18 September, 1680.

  207“my eyes have seen the king cry”: Houssaye, 297.

  208“poisoned her milk”: Princesse Palatine, Correspondance complète, 1: 199; Clément, Montespan, 115. Did La Reynie believe that Fontanges was poisoned? Clément believes so, ibid., 116.

  208died of natural causes: “Fragment du Procès-verbal de Madame de Fontanges,” n.d. (6: 486).

  CHAPTER 30

  Sacrifices

  209“as she is with poison”: Interrogation of Voisin, 10 October 1679.

  209prayers backwards: Interrogation of Filastre, 26 May 1680 (6: 211–214); 5 June 1680; 12 June 1680 (6: 216–218); 15 June 1680 (6: 223).

  210its evil mother: Interrogation of Filastre, 22 December 1679 (6: 64–66); 26 May 1680 (6: 211–214); interrogation of Simon, 28 May 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 288. See also Interrogation of Le Royer, 13 June 1680 (6: 218–219). One of Guibourg’s colleagues, Father Leroyer, had a very different story to tell. He said Simon had told him that Filastre signed a contract with the devil in the presence of Simon. Following the birth, the two women sold the child for sacrifice, never to see it again.

  210Leroyer could not say: Interrogation of Leroyer, 13 June 1680 (6: 218–219); interrogation of Guibourg, 26 June 1680 (6: 230–232).

  210“take advantage of my weaknesses”: Interrogation of Guibourg, 26 June 1680 (6: 232).

  211“my servants”: Excerpt from the interrogation of Guibourg, 10 October, 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 23 (6: 335). Stories of killing children for magical or demonic purposes circulated in Europe from the beginning of the fifteenth centur
y and helped contribute to the flurry of witch-hunts during the Inquisition. In sermons priests described in great detail the supposed practices of witches. Among the most famous books in Europe was the bestselling Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Evil), which quoted a sorceress’s recipe for creating flying brooms: “We steal [deceased children] secretly from the tomb and boil them in a cauldron until all the flesh is made almost drinkable, the bones having been pulled out. From the more solid matter, we make a paste suitable for our desires and arts and movements by flight.” Once the paste was smeared on a chair or a piece of wood, the witch could then levitate into the air.

  211love potion: Interrogation and declaration of Guibourg, 10 October, 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 160, 235–236.

  211both former and present: Louvois to La Reynie, 25 June 1680 (6: 229).

  212better wine to inmates: Louvois to La Reynie, 18 July 1680 (6: 260); 21 July 1680 (6: 262). Louvois to Ferronnay, 22 July 1680 (6: 263).

  212“just one mass”: The description of Filastre’s Question and torture is taken from Procès-verbal de la question de La Filastre, 30 September 1680 and 1 October 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 277–280 and 280–286, respectively. It is noteworthy that Ravaisson’s transcription in the Archives de la Bastille does not contain La Reynie’s summary of the 30 September session, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fols. 277–280. For 1 Octobre 1680, see (6: 324–326).

  213while she was in labor: Procès-verbal de la question de La Filastre, 1 October 1680, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 281. Ravaisson’s transcription is incomplete.

  213through the pain: Ibid., fol. 283.

  213justify her actions: Ibid.

  214she admitted: Declaration of Filastre before the execution, BNF, mss. français, 7608, fol. 286.

  214interrogated her: Interrogation of Jean Chanfrain, 9 August 1680 (6: 281–283). Chanfrain’s name is also spelled Chanfrin in the interrogation records.

  214“It is none of your business”: Ibid., 282. The scene repeated itself with the birth of her next two children, who were twins, after she handed them to Guibourg immediately after their birth.