1.
Murder cannot be proved… The strain of his dispute with Agrippina II over the future of Britannicus may have brought on the heart attack that one modern scholar has diagnosed. But the death toll by judicial murder was already high, and on balance it looks like Claudius’ departure was brought about by Agrippina II rather than due to her good luck.
Barbara Levick.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...144/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9952270-8206826
2.
The ancient sources agree that Agrippina was guilty of murder. She is supposed to have used the services of Locusta, a professional poisoner. Claudius is supposed to have been poisoned while banqueting by poison in a dish of mushrooms on the night of October 12th. Tacitus and Suetonius agree that the physician Xenophon helped with the murder
But the fact that a murder charge is made is not in itself significant. Such accusations followed the deaths of most members of the Julio-Claudian family. Claudius had suffered ill-health since childhood; he ate and drank to excess. It is not surprising that he died at the age of 64
The report of Claudius' death was supposedly kept secret for a while. Britannicus, and Claudius’ daughters Antonia and Octavia were detained. Agrippina refused admission to the palace and issued regular bulletins hoping for Claudius' recovery. The reason for the delay according to Tacitus and Suetonius was to keep the main body of praetorians in the dark until the preparations for Nero's succession were completed. This is plausible, but does not fit well with the idea that Claudius was the victim of a premeditated murder
Anthony Barrett.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...22410/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/026-9952270-8206826
3.
The morals of Agrippina were little better than those of Messalina, and she was madly ambitious. Her innate desire was to bring the dynasty of Germanicus to the throne. All his children looked upon themselves as rightful heirs… Her first husband had been Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus… in 37 Nero was born. It was this son that she wanted to set on the throne… From the outset Agrippina was not satisfied with her status in the household. She wanted to share in the government. She was immediately given the title Augusta. Although not much can be deduced from this, it was nevertheless a name inseparably associated once and for all with supreme authority. Agrippina coveted partnership in government, but she did not attain it. She is reputed to have demanded that the Praetorian Guard take an oath of allegiance to her: this demand was not met. She did, for all that, jostle her way into government in a manner that was irreconcilable with the nature of the Roman principate…
It is probable that Agrippina was behind the death of Claudius… she was a person to whom one could ascribe such a deed.
Theodor Mommsen, A History of Rome under the Emperors
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...23219/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-9952270-8206826
4.
Tacitus' story of Agrippina poisoning Claudius is ridiculous. Even Tacitus merely says that 'many believe' the story to be true. Tacitus says that Agrippina poisoned Claudius because he was favouring Britannicus. But there was no certainty that the senate would choose either on Claudius' death: Nero was only 17 and Britannicus only 13. The charge of poisoning, like all the others brought against the Augustan family, seems unlikely. From the point of view of the interests of the Julio-Claudians, Claudius died much too soon. Tacitus tells us that Agrippina kept the death of Claudius secret for many hours and pretended that doctors were trying to save him when in reality he was already dead, dum res firmando Neronis imperio componuntur (while matters were being arranged to assure the empire to Nero). If everything had to be hurried through at the last moment, Agrippina herself must have been taken by surprise by the sudden death of Claudius. She therefore cannot be held responsible for having caused it.
When Claudius died, Agrippina must have understood that since the family of Augustus had no full-grown man as candidate for the principate, there was grave danger that the senate might refuse to confer supreme power on either Nero or Britannicus. The only answer to this would be to present one of the two youths to the Praetorian Guards and have him proclaimed head of the armies. This would force the senate to proclaim him head of the empire, as in the case of Claudius. Nero was chosen by Agrippina because he was older. It was a bold move to ask the senate to make a seventeen-year-old emperor; it would have been folly to ask them to accept a thirteen-year-old.
Guglielmo Ferrero, Women of the Caesars
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...23256/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_8_2/026-9952270-8206826
