To the picture of a complete idiot are to be added the 
qualities of a bloodthirsty tyrant, who murders nobles 
and common people, violating the law and wasting 
Roman citizenship on the inhabitants of the provinces. 
Claudius, who appears to us hardly more despicable than 
Agrippina, is depicted as a terrible monster, a tyrant par 
excellence. In this way, Seneca succeeds in transforming 
a murder committed for egoistic reasons into tyrannicide 
and thus declares it the good deed of the year. Con- 
trasted against that gloomy background, Nero appears 
to better advantage. Paragraph IV, 1-2 is a shameless 
praise of the new emperor. He is covered with laurel 
beforehand and depicted as a good monarch, upholding 
justice. Even the gods praise him, the Fatal Sister spins 
an extra long thread of life for him, and the philosopher 
Seneca does not hesitate to praise him as a great singer. 
We may assume that Seneca would have risked his life, 
had he dared to give a true report of the circumstances. 
We assume, as Wasson does, that Seneca was informed 
about the murder of the emperor. His A pocolocyntosis 
was obviously intended to give him a chance to survive. 
Claudius is depicted as the incarnation of evil. Conse- 
quently, the murder appears to be morally justified. In 
this way, he subsequently provides the murderers with 
an altruistic motive, thus easing their conscience. Is it 
uncomfortable to have witnesses to a good deed/ By 
praising the new ruler enthusiastically as the rescuer of 
the state and of law and order, he recommends himself 
as a royal propagandist, and exerts a certain moral pres- 
sure upon the young Nero. He must not disappoint the 
great expectations and hopes connected with his person. 
In this light, the Apocolocyntosis is to be considered as 
a psychologically clever move in order to survive in the 
given situation. ‘lo assume that Seneca intended to al- 
lude to the poison which killed Claudius does not fit the 
[ 236 ] 
