Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire by Anthony A. Barrett (review)

170 LETTERS IN CANADA 1996 In Virgil as Orpheus, destined itself to become a classic, Father Owen Lee reminds us once again of thathealing fascination for the human spirit, after conflict, in the ritual of seasons, soils, flocks, orchards, and bees. We collapsed into chairs in front of the cold fireplace, and stared at it blankly. My whole body seemed to be on fire from the bee poison that had been injected into it. Lucy, fortunately unstung, was white and drawn. Somehow we both managed a smile. The job was done. The Owl Pen bee-yard, a dream for years, was at last a reality. The clock ticked another half hour by. We went to bed. (ROSS KILPATRlCK) Anthony A. Barrett. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire Yale University Press. xxi, 330. us $35.00 Anyone whose conception of Agrippina has been formed by Tacitus, by Racine's Britannicus, or by Robert Graves's I Claudius and Claudius the God, whether as novels or in their unforgettable adaptation for television, will' be surprised by Anthony Barrett's biography. For Barrettsteadfastly refuses to believe that Agrippina killed Claudius or Nero, Britannicus. The ancient sources attribute the deaths to Agrippina and Nero, but Barrett knows better. Discussing the death of Claudius, he asks 'why a skilled poisoner would not simply have provided a poisonous species of mushroom rather than an edible one that had been tampered with,' notes that Claudius 'had suffered ill-health from childhood,' and leaves the impression that he probably died a natural death. As for the sudden death of Britannicus, Barrett asserts that 'the darkening of thebody points to death by tetanoid epilepsy,' that 'the similarityofthe accounts ofhis and Claudius/lasthours' suggest that both stories 'drew from a common lore about poisonous deaths,' and that 'modem authorities are generally sceptical about the notion that Britannicus died from foul play.' Admittedly, arguments possessing a similar degree ofplausibility canpersuade North Americanjuriesto acquit those accused of murder even when the prima facie evidence appears extremely strong. But it is unreasonable for a Roman historian to proceed as if he were a modern defence lawyer, first insisting on proof · beyond all reasonable doubt, then raising apriori quibbles, and finally arguing that an Agrippina or a Nero must be presumed innocent until proof of guilt is produced which would satisfy a standard which is ex hypothesi unattainable. Historians are obliged by the nature of their craft to proceed by weighing the balance of probabilities - and good historians are those who evaluate the available evidence with skill, insight, and impartiality. Barrett describes the historical background of Agrippina's life and her family in two chapters; he devotes a chapter to each of her successive roles as daughter, sister, niece, wife, and mother; and he concludes with a pair of chapters on her murder and the sources and ten brief appendices. The HUMANITIES 171 not cite have delmonsl:ral;ed accounts. of the accession of Tacitus's real details from accession of Nero in 54 which have been pn)lecte'Ci in 14. Since these details include the use£>.,.......,....0·..,..,.... to secure the succession of her 'H,,\'tA,...,....N"on son, this \Q:rJLooina did indeed Claudius to aeJmE~atJlOn of her which denies this orc:OtlrSI~, aware that oursources ~"'''o.......nt- to assess individual items and ep},SO(1es Edwin Brezette lnctwu1ua,(ztl/ and Choice in the Medieval Town, Presented to J. Ambrose Raftis LJUlbllc:atlon, Western M:il:hi~;an Universiirv 1995. xvii, US $20.00 trustn:.ttlGm or ...