Chapter XXXII: Appendix: D

SHAKESPEARE’S LOANS FROM APPIAN IN _ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA_

I do not think there can be any serious doubt about Shakespeare’s having consulted the 1578 translation of the _Bella Civilia_ for this play, at any rate for the parts dealing with Sextus Pompeius. The most important passage is the one (_A. and C._ III. v. 19) which records Antony’s indignation at Pompey’s death. Now of that death there is no mention at all in the _Marcus Antonius_ of Plutarch; and even in the _Octavius Caesar Augustus_ by Simon Goulard, which was included in the 1583 edition of Amyot and in the 1603 edition of North, it is expressly attributed to Antony. Here is Goulard’s statement:[306]

Whilst Antonius made war with the Parthians, or rather
infortunately they made war with him to his great confusion,
his lieutenant Titius found the means to lay hands upon
Sextus Pompeius; that was fled into the ile of Samos, and
then forty years old: whom he put to death by Antonius’
commandment.

[306] I quote from _Shakespeare’s Plutarch_ (Prof. Skeat), the 1603 edition of North being at present inaccessible to me.

Appian at least leaves it an open question whether Antony was responsible or not, and thus gives his apologist an opportunity:

Titius commaunded hys (_i.e._ Pompey’s) army to sweare to
Antony, and put hym to death at Mileto, when he hadde lyved
to the age of fortye yeares, eyther for that he remembered
late displeasure and forgot olde good turnes, or for that he
had such commaundemente of Antony.

_There bee that saye that Plancus, and not Antony did
commaunde hym to dye, whyche beeyng president of Syria had
Antonyes signet, and in greate causes wrote letters in hys
name._ Some thynke it was done wyth Antonyes knowledge, he
fearyng the name of Pompey, or for Cleopatra, who fauoured
Pompey the Great.

_Some thynke that Plancus dyd it of hymselfe_ for these
causes, and also that Pompey shoulde gyve no cause of
dissention between Caesar and Antony, or for that Cleopatra
would turn hyr favour to Pompey.
(V. cxiv.)

I do not think indeed that there is any indication that Shakespeare had read, or at all events been in any way impressed by, Goulard’s _Augustus_: no wonder, for compared with the genuine _Lives_, it is a dull performance. The only other passages with which a connection might be traced, do no more than give hints that are better given in Appian. Thus Sextus Pompeius’ vein of chivalry, of which there is hardly a suggestion in Plutarch’s brief notices, is illustrated in Goulard by his behaviour to the fugitives from the proscription.

Pompeius had sent certain ships to keep upon the coast of
Italy, and pinnaces everywhere, to the end to receive all
them that fled on that side; giving them double recompence
that saved a proscript, and honourable offices to men that
had been consuls and escaped, comforting and entertaining
the others with a most singular courtesy.

But Appian says all this too in greater detail, and adds the significant touch:

So was he moste profitable to hys afflicted Countrey, and
wanne greate glory to hymselfe, _not inferioure to that he
hadde of hys father_.
(IV. xxxvi.)

Note particularly this reference to his father’s reputation, for which there is no parallel in Plutarch or Goulard; and compare

Our slippery people
... begin to throw
Pompey the Great, and all his dignities
Upon his son.
(_A. and C._ I. ii. 192.)

and

Rich in his father’s honour.
(_Ib._ I. iii. 50.)

Again, Goulard, talking of the last struggle, says:

After certain encounters, where Pompey ever had the better,
insomuch as Lepidus was suspected to lean on that side, Caesar
resolved to commit all to the hazard of a latter battle.

The insinuation in regard to Lepidus might be taken as the foundation for Shakespeare’s statement, which has no sanction in Plutarch, that Caesar

accuses him of letters he had formerly wrote to Pompey.
(_A. and C._ III. v. 10.)

But it seems a closer echo of a remark of Appian’s about some transactions shortly after Philippi:

Lepidus was accused to favour Pompey’s part.
(V. iii.)

There are, moreover, several touches in Shakespeare’s sketch, that he could no more get from Goulard than from Plutarch, but that are to be found in Appian. Thus there is Pompey’s association with the party of the “good Brutus” and the enthusiasm he expresses for “beauteous freedom” (_A. and C._ II. vi. 13 and 17). Compare passages like the following in Appian:

Sextus Pompey, the seconde son of Pompey the Great being
lefte of that faction, was sette up of Brutus friends.
(V. i.)

Pompey’s friends hearing of this, did marvellously rejoyce,
crying now to be time to restore their Countrey’s libertie.
(III. lxxxii.)

Thus, too, Shakespeare refers to Pompey’s command of “the empire of the sea” (_A. and C._ I. ii. 191), which, if Plutarch were his authority, would be an unjustifiable exaggeration. Yet it exactly corresponds to the facts of the case as Appian repeatedly states them, and perhaps one of Binniman’s expressions suggested the very phrase.

Pompey _being Lorde of the Sea_ ... caused famine in
the cittie all victuall beyng kepte away.
(V. xv.)

The Citie in the meane time was in great penurie, their
provision of corne beyng stopped by Pompey.
(V. xviii.)

In the meane time the cytie was oppressed with famine, for
neyther durst the Merchauntes bring any corn from the East
bicause of Pompeis beeing in Sicelie, nor from the Weast of
Corsica and Sardinia, where Pompeis ships also lay: nor from
Africa, where the navies of the other conspiratours kepte
their stations. Being in this distresse, they (_i.e._ the
people) alleaged that the discorde of the rulers was the cause,
and therefore required that peace might be made with Pompey,
unto the whiche when Caesar woulde not agree, Antonie thought
warre was needefull for necessitie.
(V. lxvii.)

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.)

[307] _i.e._ put off. Greek, βραδύνειν.

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.

But there are two qualifications I should like to make to this statement.

In the first place, I have not seen the 1578 version of Appian, the passages I have quoted being merely transcripts made by my direction. I have had only the original text to work upon, and it is possible that the Tudor Translation might offer verbal coincidences that of course would not suggest themselves to me.

In the second place, the book is not merely a translation of Appian. The descriptive title runs: “An auncient historie and exquisite chronicle of the Romanes warres, both civile and foren ... with a continuation ... from the death of Sextus Pompeius to the overthrow of Antonie and Cleopatra.”

Appian’s History of the Civil Wars, as now extant, concludes at the death of Sextus Pompeius. The Tudor translator’s continuation till the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra may be responsible for some of the later deviations from Plutarch, which I have described as independent modifications of Shakespeare’s. The matter is worth looking into.

Meanwhile, from my collation I draw two conclusions, the first definitive, the second provisional:

(1) That Shakespeare laid Appian under contribution to fill
in the details of his picture.

(2) That he borrowed from him, that is, from his English
translator, only for the episode of Sextus Pompeius.