Suetonius places the poisoned mushrooms only in his 
alternative account, but mushrooms could have been the 
vehicle that Halotus used too, and this may be implied. 
Dio Cassius comes down to us in a Greek summary. In 
Book LX I he accuses Agrippina of having put the poison 
into ‘one of the vegetables called mushrooms’, for mush- 
room the Greek text using the word pux«ns. A few pages 
later Dio Cassius refers again to the same poison when 
he says: 
Agrippina was ever ready to attempt the most daring under- 
takings: for example, she caused the death of Marcus Junius 
Silanus, sending him some of the poison with which she had 
treacherously murdered her husband. 
What poison did Agrippina use? This much we know: 
she turned for advice and aid to a woman named Locusta, 
an experienced artist in the preparation of poisons, as 
Dio Cassius puts it. According to Tacitus, the instruc- 
tions of the Empress to Locusta were narrowly defined. 
The poison was not to be sudden and instantaneous in 
its operation, lest the desperate achievement should be 
discovered. On the other hand, if the effect was slow and 
consuming, Claudius as his end approached might dis- 
cover the treachery and take steps to thwart the perpe- 
trators in their ultimate purposes. (He might, that is to 
say, proclaim Britannicus as his heir.) Something subtle 
was needed, which would take time but also, at the ap- 
pointed hour, deprive the victim of his faculties. As 
Tacitus goes on to say, by Locusta’s skill the desired 
poison was prepared. The passage in the Annals of 
Tacitus being a crux in our argument, we give it in full: 
Tum Agrippina sceleris olim certa et oblatae occasionis propera 
nec ministrorum egens, de genere veneni consultavit, ne repen- 
tino et praecipiti facinus proderetur; si lentum et tabidum dele- 
gisset, ne admotus supremis Claudius et dolo intellecto ad amorem 
filii rediret. Exquisitum aliquid placebat, quod turbaret mentem 
et mortem differret. 
[119 | 
