Then there are the frequent references of Antony (A. and C. i. ii. 192, i. iii. 148), of the messenger (i. iv. 38, i. iv. 52), of Pompey himself (ii. i. 9), to Pompey’s popularity and the rush of recruits to his standard. Neither Goulard nor Plutarch makes mention of these points, but Appian does often, and most emphatically in the following passage:
Out of Italy all things were not quiet, for Pompey by resorte of condemned Citizens, and auntient possessioners was greatly increased, both in mighte, and estimation: for they that feared their life, or were spoyled of their goodes, or lyked not the present state, fledde all to hym. And this disagreemente of Lucius augmented his credite: beside a repayre of yong men, desirous of gayne and seruice, not caring under whome they went, because they were all Romanes, sought unto him. And among other, hys cause seemed most just. He was waxed rich by booties of the Sea, and he hadde good store of Shyppes, with their furniture.... Wherefore me thynke, that if he had then inuaded Italy, he might easily have gotte it, which being afflicted with famine and discord loked for him. But Pompey of ignorance had rather defend his owne, than inuade others, till so he was ouercome also.
(V. xxv.)
It should be noted too that Menas, to whom Appian always gives his full formal name of Menodorus, not only as in Plutarch proposes to make away with the Triumvirs after the compact, but as in the play (ii, vi. 84 and 109) and not as in Plutarch, disapproves the cessation of hostilities.
All other persuaded Pompey earnestly to peace, only Menodorus wrote from Sardinia that he should make open warre, or dryve off,[307] whyles the dearth continued, that he might make peace with the better conditions.
(V. lxxi.)
I have not noticed any other points of importance in which there is an apparent connection between the drama and the Roman History: unless indeed Antony’s passing compunction for Fulvia’s death may be so regarded.
Newes came that Antonies wyfe was dead, who coulde not bear his unkyndenesse, leavyng her sicke, & not bidding hyr farewell. Hir death was thought very commodius for them both. For Fulvia was an unquiet woman, & for ielousie of Cleopatra, raysed suche a mortall warre. Yet the matter vexed Antony bicause he was compted the occasion of her death.
(V. lix.)
Here, however, the motive of Antony’s regret differs from that which Shakespeare attributes to him; and on the whole the references to Fulvia in the play deviate even more from Appian’s account than from Plutarch’s. So far as I am in a position to judge, Shakespeare derived all his other historical data, as well as the general scheme into which he fitted these trifling loans, from Plutarch’s Life, and can be considered a debtor to Appian only in the points that are illustrated in my previous extracts.