Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Lieutenant: Sir, I beseech you, think you he'll carry Rome? AUFIDIUS: All places yield to him ere he sits down; And the nobility of Rome are his: The senators and patricians love him too: The tribunes are no soldiers; and their people Will be as rash in the repeal, as hasty To expel him thence. I think he'll be to Rome As is the osprey to the fish, who takes it By sovereignty of nature. First he was A noble servant to them; but he could not Carry his honours even: whether 'twas pride, Which out of daily fortune ever taints The happy man; whether defect of judgment, To fail in the disposing of those chances Which he was lord of; or whether nature, Not to be other than one thing, not moving From the casque to the cushion, but commanding peace Even with the same austerity and garb As he controll'd the war; but one of these-- As he hath spices of them all, not all, For I dare so far free him--made him fear'd, So hated, and so

Summary:
1. The characters discuss the power and influence of NAME_1 in Rome, highlighting his control over the nobility, senators and patricians, as well as his potential to destroy the city.
2. Meanwhile, NAME_2 attempts to regain NAME_1' favor but is met with resistance, leaving hope for mercy dependent on appeals from the latter's mother and wife.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or " Your answer should have exactly 3 paragraphs. Make sure that the last paragraph starts with the word "protection" and that each paragraph is separated by two new lines.
user