to face her own liquidation if she was not able to kill 
Claudius in time and put her son Nero on the throne. 
A banquet probably offered the best chance to accom- 
plish the task of killing the Emperor. 
It was Narcissus who made the first mistake as he left 
Rome and went to Sinuessa, a small town a few miles 
north of Naples, for a cure. So he had no chance to re- 
act immediately. Yet, he could have been back in Rome 
within a few hours. Considering these circumstances, 
Agrippina had to see with her own eyes that the poison 
had really worked before the dinner was over, leaving 
the Kmperor under the control of Narcissus and his fac- 
tion again. 
It does not seem convincing that the murderers should 
have chosen a poison the effects of which might at best 
occur after six hours, with the possibility that this period 
of delay might turn out to be unforeseeably longer— 
perhaps two days. We doubt, therefore, that the poison 
used was 4. phalloides. 
Our doubts grow even stronger when we turn to let- 
ter 95 of the Epistulae Morales Ad Lucilium by L.A. 
Seneca. From this letter, R.G. Wasson quotes a passage 
which, in his view, is to be understood as an allusion to 
the poison used to murder Claudius: 
6é A < . A 5 7 . 
Di boni, quantum hominum unus venter exercet! Quid? Tu illos 
boletos, voluptarium venenum, nihil occulti operis iudicas facere, 
etiam si praesentanei non fuerunt?’’ (cf. Wasson, p. 121) 
As we have already pointed out, there is little support 
for the hypothesis that ‘boletus’ ever designates a poison- 
ous mushroom, whereas there is some evidence indicating 
that this word may designate certain tasty—or, at least, 
edible—mushrooms. Even the apposition ‘‘voluptarium 
venenum’’ does not justify the conclusion that Seneca 
was speaking of a poisonous mushroom. The translation 
given by Wasson is erroneous, as it reads: ‘‘a tasty poi- 
[ 221 J 
