Liber Statuum Fitzartur
Chapter VI: On the Providential and Politic Virtue of Certain Cordials, Powders, and Other Instruments of Rectification
By Cantarella Drake, whose motto is nec dulcis sine veneno
Let it be recorded, as in the annals of every prudent House, that virtue unarmed is no virtue of mine acquaintance. For though I am, as all right‑thinking souls agree, a woman of high devotion and hereditary grace, I have found there are intervals when Grace requires a solvent. The Lord, being infinite, comprehends both sweetness and sting; and I, being courteous but not simple, do strive to imitate Him within the limits of the available chemistry.
In this matter I have often been misunderstood by those of lesser education, who suppose that a cordial or tincture, if possessing vigour beyond wine, must be suspect. Yet what is morality, if not the correct administration of measure? In too minute a dose, mercy is impotent; in too ample, it curdles into self-destruction. It is therefore plain that the subtle adjustment of virtue—by powders, unguents, or infusions—is no more than the continuation of governance by other means.
Indeed the righteous employment of poison has ever been a mark of refinement. The barbarian strikes with iron, the merchant betrays with parchment, the sovereign redeems order with a draught. For since all government is a matter of digestion, the prudent ruler must sometimes open the body politic at the stomach. Thus is disorder expelled delicately, without the vulgar noise of battle.
I recall, not without some pious pleasure, the memorable experiment conducted some thirty years past upon Lord Stephen de Pyxley—an experiment still cited in our family accounts as The Great Correction. My late husband, God shade his extremities, had misallocated several baronies during Lent, under colour of humility but in substance of avarice—a vice quite unbecoming in men, who do not carry it well. Among various possible restitutions (sermon, duel, confession), I selected the swiftest: an evening cup touched with a few silver drops of my own devising, distilled from the white cap of the death angel and clarified through communion wine. It was not fatal, merely educational. He suffered edification of the most instructive kind, and for three weeks repented in such exquisite colour that even our chaplain marvelled at the piety of his complexion.
From that salutary experience I derived my chief maxim: that poison properly administered is no enemy of morality, but its discreet servant. Just as latten brightens under the file, so the conscience, once abraded by peril, attains a richer polish. To terrify is a form of love, though admittedly one does not confess it to the clergy.
Other Houses, less scrupulous, have attempted to imitate our system. The FitzDacres, with their rustic simplicity, preferred choking over refinement and mistook lead for leadership. The Southwolds, ever frugal, injected their tinctures with physicians instead of silver. None have grasped the true principle: that poison, to accomplish rank decorum, must never betray its presence. It is not the act but the manner that sanctifies; and the manner is best when untraceable.
Philosophers, whose tongues wag in monasteries faster than pestles in mortars, debate endlessly whether intention or consequence be the moral essence. I, being practical, have resolved it thus: that the intention is divine, and the consequence regrettable only to the inattentive. For when one works in high positions—as do I, between crown and confession—there are times when obedience compels efficacy. A lady of my lineage cannot permit the nation, or her dressing-room, to decay through sentimental forbearance.
Still, there persist those tender reformers who denounce the art entire. They write treatises, or worse, letters to bishops, alleging that poison offends both natural law and female modesty. Such chatter proves only that modesty is provincial. I have corresponded with certain Arab physicians who, being men of vision, treat poison as an element of celestial arithmetic: each body a figure, each symptom a sum, the final fever naught but correction of error. Surely God, the supreme mathematician, delights in such symmetry.
Not infrequently I hear from foreign guests—with whom Domus Draconis is, notwithstanding its isolation, conversant—that poison is condemned by Scripture. These visitors, though sincere, are ignorant of exegesis. Did not the serpent, that ancient chemist, introduce the first tincture of knowledge? Did not Judith administer sleep? If the body of man is clay, then the poisoner is but the sculptor who perfects the kiln. I have found the Psalms peculiarly applicable in dosage, though one must skip verses prone to repentance.
Permit me an observation on style, which in this delicate profession is half the miracle. No cordial, however divine its formula, achieves political purpose without ceremony. I never pour poison from apothecary’s glass—it smacks of vocation, faintly plebeian. Rather one should present it within the vessels of devotion: an illuminated chalice, a reliquary, a silver lamp of Naples make—thus harmonising the act with its consequence. A death must never appear secular; a dismissal never look like diet. For if Heaven applauds order, it must delight in choreography.
My household apothecaries, whom I retain not for conversation, are apt to protest that negligence in filtration constitutes risk. Yet I maintain that a poison too precise encourages suspicion, whereas a tincture slightly temperamental participates in that modest uncertainty all great enterprises require. The anonymous peril is the most persuasive teacher. I have known entire councils to behave more chastely merely from observing the discolouration of a decanter.
In recent years a few rash alchemists have proposed that toxic art be regulated by royal ordinance. They speak sentimentally of “safeguards” and “public faith.” I oppose them on both theological and aesthetic grounds. Poison, once codified, would become a mere craft—useful perhaps, but devoid of grace. The instrument must remain personal, as music or prayer. The soul can hardly express itself through clergy-signed compounding permits.
Among the treasures of the Domus, besides our charters and ceremonial urns, there rests a slender volume bound in green calf: De Liquoribus Obedientiae. It was given me by a convent physician of Languedoc, since martyred (I suspect by indiscipline rather than doctrine). Within are inscribed certain formulas for spiritual exaltation through selective elimination of obstacles, whether physical or human. One recipe, titled Aqua Sapientiae (For Use in Councils), recommends mixing powdered opal with diluted honey and a small confession. I have employed it at intervals—with moderation, of course—and my assemblies run smoother thereafter. It has also proven effective in matters of inheritance, where reason and lineage had diverged.
Some critics assert that my theory confounds the moral and the material. To which I reply, it is precisely that union which elevates a mere crime into policy. The motion of the stars, the pulse of the State, and the circulation of potions differ only in visibility. To call the one sin and the other fate seems to me a weakness of vocabulary.
It is not, I confess, within the human faculty to maintain apotheosis without fatigue. There are nights when the violet bottle gleams too suggestively, and one wonders whether Providence observes or only imitates. Then I repeat to myself what every moral chemist must remember: that the purity of an act lies not in the preservation of a body, but in the correction of an imbalance. When the air grows heavy, one opens a window; when people grow necessary, one prescribes respite. Thus continuity, not cruelty, is maintained.
Lest the reader mistake me for one of those ecstatic doctrinaires who glory in pain, I hasten to affirm that the use I make of toxins is wholly civic, even tender. I do not bruise for appetite, only for edification. And if I derive, upon occasion, the consolations of beauty from certain hues—pale green, modest blue, transient amethyst—that accompany dissolution, must that, too, be censured? A woman’s eye, having long endured monotony of drapery, delights in variation.
I have been told, by those whose admiration oversteps propriety, that I shall never die. This is untrue, though agreeable. My constitution is merely vigorous; my conscience, correctly medicated. I have slept among the phials of generations, tasting their sediment of secrecy, and feel no corruption. Whether I am blessed or cursed I cannot tell, for both resemble privilege.
In later pages I shall set forth the procedures by which poisons may be employed to promote loyalty without visible discipline, and to secure reforms inconvenient to articulate. Suffice that the principle stands uncontested: poison is, when purified by tradition and taste, the sovereign’s silent ally, and the realm’s preservative against noise.
You are here: States of Grace > Biography