The Affair of the Poisons: Murder, Infanticide and Satanism at the Court of Louis XIV (47 page)

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 registrar 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.

When Luxembourg had been exiled from Paris the President of the
Chambre Ardente
had remarked, ‘We only pass judgement on proofs, but the King needs nothing more than indications.’
¹¹⁹
At the time the King had evidently decided that though it was not possible to convict Luxembourg, there was good reason to believe he had been involved in shameful activities. Now he apparently thought otherwise, having perhaps concluded that nothing Lesage said could be relied upon. However, this did not save others who remained in gaol as a result of being denounced by the magician.

Although the King never regarded Luxembourg with real warmth, he always treated him graciously after his restoration to court. In 1688 Luxembourg was appointed Governor of Champagne and in March 1690 he received a still greater mark of royal esteem when he was put in command of the army of Flanders. Aware of the continuing rift between Luxembourg and Louvois, the King informed the Maréchal that when on campaign he could bypass the Minister of War and communicate directly with him. In the next few years Luxembourg justified the King’s faith in him by winning a string of victories, although some of his opponents alleged that this owed nothing to his military skills. Instead, they preferred to believe that his successes were due to his having leagued himself with his old ally the devil.
¹²⁰

Though Luxembourg never tried to revenge himself on Louvois for his conduct during the Affair of the Poisons, his resentment towards La Reynie never abated. In 1691 he asked the King for permission to bring a legal action against La Reynie ‘for prevarications in the exercise of his charge’ eleven years earlier. The King flatly forbade it, insisting that he did not want to revive matters which were ‘finished and fallen into oblivion’.
¹²¹

In 1695 Luxembourg – who ‘at the age of seventy-seven had been living the life of a twenty-five-year-old’ – fell mortally ill of double pneumonia. He made a pious end, attended by the great preacher Père Bourdaloue, who remarked that whereas he would not have liked to live as Luxembourg had done, he would be proud to die like him. However, despite his edifying end and the military honours he had won for France, Luxembourg never quite shook off the sinister reputation that had attached itself to him as a result of the Affair of the Poisons. His death was greeted by a rash of illegally printed pamphlets, suggesting that the devil had finally come to claim him as one of his own.

*   *   *

In May 1680 all this lay far in the future. Following the humiliating collapse of the case against Luxembourg it was widely assumed that the
Chambre Ardente
was completely discredited and that there was no likelihood of further prosecutions being brought. M. Brayer prophesied that the Chamber would soon be dissolved and that the cases of any prisoners remaining at Vincennes (whom he described as mere ‘rabble’) would be dealt with at the Châtelet in the normal way. In a fit of rancour Mme de Sévigné reported that La Reynie was now abominated by all right-thinking persons and snorted that the fact that he was still alive ‘proves there are no poisoners in France’. Utterly exasperated, she demanded whether anyone had ever heard of a story which began and ended in such an extraordinary manner,
¹²²
but, contrary to her belief, the Affair of the Poisons was by no means over. The King had issued instructions that enquiries should be continued and in weeks to come the prisoners still detained at Vincennes would manage to cast aspersions on yet more eminent people.