Antonia Minor was the second daughter born to Octavia Minor and triumvir Mark Antony, hence Antonia ’ s maternal uncle was Augustus.

Cicero is the only Roman source that mentions Antony ’ s first wife.

Drusilla ’ s paternal grandmother, the Queen of Mauretania Cleopatra Selene II, was a daughter of the Ptolemaic Greek Queen Cleopatra VII of Egypt and Roman triumvir Mark Antony.

It seems that in reality Antony wanted Cleopatra ’ s promise to support his intended war against the Parthians.

Many critics have noted the strong influence of Virgil ’ s first century Roman epic poem, the Aeneid, on Shakespeare ’ s Antony and Cleopatra.

Moreover, as is well-known, the historical Antony and Cleopatra were the prototypes and antitypes for Virgil ’ s Dido and Aeneas: Dido, ruler of the north African city of Carthage, tempts Aeneas, the legendary exemplar of Roman pietas, to forego his task of founding Rome after the fall of Troy.

The fictional Aeneas dutifully resists Dido ’ s temptation and abandons her to forge on to Italy, placing political destiny before romantic love, in stark contrast to his historical counterpart Antony, who puts passionate love of his own African queen, Cleopatra, before duty to Rome.

Given the well-established traditional connections between the fictional Dido and Aeneas and the historical Antony and Cleopatra, it is no surprise that Shakespeare includes numerous allusions to Virgil ’ s epic in his historical tragedy.

As Janet Adelman observes, “ almost all the central elements in Antony and Cleopatra are to be found in the Aeneid: the opposing values of Rome and a foreign passion ; the political necessity of a passionless Roman marriage ; the concept of an afterlife in which the passionate lovers meet .” However, as Heather James argues, Shakespeare ’ s allusions to Virgil ’ s Dido and Aeneas are far from slavish imitations.

James emphasizes the various ways in which Shakespeare ’ s play subverts the ideology of the Virgilian tradition ; one such instance of this subversion is Cleopatra ’ s dream of Antony in Act 5 (“ I dreamt there was an Emperor Antony ” ).

James argues that in her extended description of this dream, Cleopatra “ reconstructs the heroic masculinity of an Antony whose identity has been fragmented and scattered by Roman opinion .” This politically charged dream vision is just one example of the way that Shakespeare ’ s version of the historical tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra destabilizes and potentially critiques the imperialist Roman ideology inherited from Virgil ’ s epic and embodied in the mythic Roman ancestor Aeneas.

He states specifically, " Almost all critical approaches to this play have been coloured by the sexist assumptions the critics have brought with them to their reading .” One seemingly anti-sexist viewpoint comes from Donald C. Freeman ’ s articulations of the meaning and significance of the deaths of both Antony and Cleopatra at the end of the play.

These constant shifts in the perception of Cleopatra are well represented in a review of Estelle Parsons ’ adaptation of Shakespeare ’ s Antony and Cleopatra at the Interart Theatre in New York City.

Arthur Holmberg surmises, “ What had at first seemed like a desperate attempt to be chic in a trendy New York manner was, in fact, an ingenious way to characterize the differences between Antony ’ s Rome and Cleopatra ’ s Egypt.

The lack of tolerance exerted by the hard-edged Roman military code allots to a general ’ s dalliance is metaphorized as a container, a measuring cup that cannot hold the liquid of Antony ’ s grand passion.

“ In this way Heaven entrusted the family of Cicero the final acts in the punishment of Antony .”

Doris Adler suggests that, in a postmodern philosophical sense, we cannot begin to grasp the character of Cleopatra because, “ In a sense it is a distortion to consider Cleopatra at any moment apart from the entire cultural milieu that creates and consumes Antony and Cleopatra on stage.

Freeman states, “ We understand Antony as a grand failure because the container of his Romanness “ dislimns ”: it can no longer outline and define him even to himself.

Conversely, we understand Cleopatra at her death as the transcendent queen of “ immortal longings ” because the container of her mortality can no longer restrain her: unlike Antony, she never melts, but sublimates from her very earthly flesh to ethereal fire and air .”

In traditional criticism of Antony and Cleopatra, “ Rome has been characterized as a male world, presided over by the austere Caesar, and Egypt as a female domain, embodied by a Cleopatra who is seen to be as abundant, leaky, and changeable as the Nile ”.

Later we also see Antony ’ s heart-container swells again because it “ o ’ erflows the measure .” For Antony, the container of the Rome-world is confining and a “ measure ,” while the container of the Egypt-world is liberating, an ample domain where he can explore.

According to Paul Lawrence Rose in his article “ The Politics of Antony and Cleopatra ," the views expressed in the play of “ national solidarity, social order and strong rule ” were familiar after the absolute monarchies of Henry VII and Henry VIII and the political disaster involving Mary Queen of Scots.

Through his language, he tends to characterize Rome as “ masculine ” and Egypt as “ feminine .” According to Gayle Greene, “ the ‘ feminine ’ world of love and personal relationships is secondary to the ‘ masculine ’ world of war and politics, has kept us from realizing that Cleopatra is the play ’ s protagonist, and so skewed our perceptions of character, theme, and structure .” The highlighting of these starkly contrasting qualities of the two backdrops of Antony and Cleopatra, in both Shakespeare ’ s language and the words of critics, brings attention to the characterization of the title characters, since their respective countries are meant to represent and emphasize their attributes.

The story of Antony and Cleopatra was often summarized as either “ the fall of a great general, betrayed in his dotage by a treacherous strumpet, or else it can be viewed as a celebration of transcendental love .” In both reduced summaries, Egypt and Cleopatra are presented as either the destruction of Antony ’ s masculinity and greatness or as agents in a love story.

Jonathan Gil Harris claims that the Egypt vs. Rome dichotomy many critics often adopt does not only represent a “ gender polarity ” but also a “ gender hierarchy .” Critical approaches to Antony and Cleopatra from the beginning of the 20th Century mostly adopt a reading that places Rome as higher in the hierarchy than Egypt.

Harris further implies that Romans have an uncontrollable lust and desire for “ what they do not or cannot have .” For example, Antony only desires his wife Fulvia after she is dead:

L. T. Fitz outwardly claims that early criticism of Antony and Cleopatra is “ colored by the sexist assumptions the critics have brought with them to their reading .” Fitz argues that previous criticisms place a heavy emphasis on Cleopatra ’ s “ wicked and manipulative ” ways, which are further emphasized by her association with Egypt and her contrast to the “ chaste and submissive ” Roman Octavia.

Feminist theory, in respect to Antony and Cleopatra, often looks at Shakespeare ’ s use of language when describing Rome and Egypt.

Cleopatra uses language to undermine Antony ’ s assumed authority over her.

Cleopatra ’ s “‘ Roman ’ language of command works to undermine Antony's authority .” By using a Romanesque rhetoric, Cleopatra commands Antony and others in Antony ’ s own style.

Antony ’ s language suggests his struggle for power against Cleopatra ’ s dominion.

Yachnin ’ s article focuses on Cleopatra ’ s usurping of Antony ’ s authority through her own and his language, while Hooks ’ article gives weight to Antony ’ s attempts to assert his authority through rhetoric.

This piece by Anthony was changed to an appendix in the English translation by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware ( 1979, p. 327 ), because of their view that the language and the general idea is not explicitly Christian and may not have been written by Antony

In response to lobbying from fans McCullough completed one more volume concerned mainly with Antony and Cleopatra, Antony and Cleopatra, released in September, 2007, in the UK, and December, 2007, in the US.

When news reached Rome of the new power pact between Octavian, Antony and Lepidus and their lists of people whom they would put to death, Pedius became very concerned.

Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra had been set partly in Alexandria, but its protagonists were noble and universal, and Shakespeare had not been concerned to evoke local color.

Together with Mark Antony and Marcus Lepidus, he formed the Second Triumvirate to defeat the assassins of Caesar.

That occurred when Mark Antony, the other most influential member of the Triumvirate, abandoned his wife, Octavian's sister Octavia Minor, and moved to Egypt to start a long-term romance with Cleopatra, thus becoming de facto stepfather to Caesarion.

After years of loyal cooperation with Octavian, Mark Antony started to act independently, eventually raising the suspicion that he was vying to become the sole master of Rome.

Octavian complained that Antony had no authority for being in Egypt ; that his execution of Sextus Pompeius was illegal ; that his treachery to the king of Armenia disgraced the Roman name ; that he had not sent half the proceeds of the spoils to Rome according to his agreement ; that his connection with Cleopatra and the acknowledgment of Caesarion as a legitimate son of Julius Caesar were a degradation of his office and a menace to himself.

During 32 BC, a third of the Senate and both consuls allied with Antony.

Octavian was not present, but at the next meeting made a reply of such a nature that the consuls both left Rome to join Antony ; and Antony, when he heard of it, after publicly divorcing Octavia, came at once to Ephesus with Cleopatra, where a vast fleet was gathered from all parts of the East, of which Cleopatra furnished a large proportion.

After staying a time with his allies at Samos, Antony removed to Athens.

After Octavian's proposals for a conference with Antony had been scornfully rejected, both sides prepared for the final struggle next year.

Mark Antony and Gellius Publicola commanded the right wing of the Antonian fleet, while Marcus Octavius and Marcus Insteius commanded the centre, with Cleopatra's squadron positioned behind them.

Mark Antony transferred to a smaller vessel with his flag and managed to escape, taking a few ships with him as an escort to help break through Octavian's lines.

Antony seized the opportunity and with Cleopatra on her ship and him on a different ship, sped through the gap and escaped, abandoning his entire force.

Antony, who had found himself generally deserted, after vainly attempting to secure the army stationed near Paraetonium under Pinarius, and sending his eldest son Antyllus with money to Octavian and an offer to live at Athens as a private citizen, found himself in the spring attacked on two sides.

In Rome, Caesar was appointed dictator, with Mark Antony as his Master of the Horse ( second in command ); Caesar presided over his own election to a second consulship and then, after eleven days, resigned this dictatorship.

He was granted a golden chair in the Senate, was allowed to wear triumphal dress whenever he chose, and was offered a form of semi-official or popular cult, with Mark Antony as his high priest.

It had been literally degraded since the 1st century, when in 44 BC the consul Mark Antony did not scruple to run with the Luperci ; now the upper classes left the festivities to the rabble.

He first appears in history in 40 BC, when he was employed by Octavian in arranging his marriage with Scribonia, and afterwards in assisting to negotiate the treaty of Brundisium and the reconciliation with Mark Antony.

To his influence especially was attributed the more humane policy of Octavian after his first alliance with Antony and Lepidus.

After Caesar's assassination, Antony formed an official political alliance with Octavian ( the future Augustus ) and Lepidus, known to historians today as the Second Triumvirate.

Antony exercised his tribunician veto, with the aim of preventing a senatorial decree declaring martial law against the veto, and was violently expelled from the senate with another Caesar adherent, Cassius, who was also a tribune of the plebs.

Caesar was most displeased with the whole affair and removed Antony from all political responsibilities.

The estrangement was not of long continuance, with Antony meeting the dictator at Narbo ( 45 BC ) and rejecting the suggestion of Trebonius that he should join in the conspiracy that was already afoot.