Dionysius describes the joy of the Romans at this unexpected deliverance from imminent danger as unbounded. The Senate meet, and postpone the honours to Coriolanus, but they pass a laudatory decree, in commemoration of the services of the matrons, to be preserved in the public archives, and vote them any reward which they may themselves select. The women, desirous of avoiding a request which may offend the gods, by showing elation of mind in prosperity, petition the Senate for a temple to the 'fortune of women' (Fortuna Muliebris), to be erected on the spot where their supplications were addressed to Coriolanus: they further ask that sacrifices may be solemnized there annually by an assembly of women, on the anniversary of the day on which they had put an end to the war. The Senate accede to this request, and order moreover that the temple shall be built at the public expense. Valeria, the author of the plan, was appointed the first priestess, and before the temple was erected she began the sacrifice on the altar, within the sacred precinct, on the calends of December in the following year, being the anniversary of the preservation of the city. The temple itself was finished two years afterwards, and consecrated on the 6th of Quintilis, by the consul Proculus Virginius (486 B.C.).

'It would be agreeable to the rules of history (says Dionysius), and would serve to correct the error of those who think that the gods neither rejoice in the honours rendered them by men, nor are offended by impious and unjust acts, if we describe the personal interference of the goddess Fortune at that time, not merely once, but on two several occasions, as the records of the pontiffs declare.'(6) He then proceeds to relate that, when the temple was consecrated, one statue of the goddess was erected at the public cost, and another from the contributions of the women. The latter of these, in the presence of many of the women, uttered in Latin the words-The matrons have dedicated me according to law.' At first, it was thought that this was not a divine voice; but afterwards, when the temple was

(66) ὡς αἱ τῶν ἱεροφαντῶν περιέχουσι γραφαί, viii. 56.

full, and a profound silence prevailed, the statue again uttered the same words in a louder tone; so that all doubt was removed. The Senate decreed other sacrifices, according to the directions of the pontiffs; and the women, in pursuance of the directions of the priestess, laid it down as a rule, that no woman should place a chaplet, or lay her hands, on the statue, who had married a second time; and that the service of the statue should be performed by newly-married women, who had never been married before.(67)

The narrative of the preceding events, in Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus, harmonizes closely with that of Dionysius, and is doubtless in the main derived from it.(68) The same remark applies to the less copious account of Appian. Plutarch however differs from Dionysius, Livy, and the other historians, in calling the mother of Coriolanus, Volumnia, and his wife, Vergilia. (6) The account of Livy agrees substantially with that of

(67) Dion. Hal. viii. 55—6, who calls this an iπxópios ioropía. The story is repeated in Plut. Cor. 37-8, who reasons upon the truth or falsehood of the prodigy. Valerius Maximus has the following notice of it: 'Fortunæ etiam Muliebris simulacrum, quod est viâ Latina ad quartum milliarium, eo tempore cum æde suâ consecratum, quo Coriolanum ab excidio urbis maternæ preces repulerunt, non semel sed bis locutum constitit, his pene verbis: Rite me matronæ vidistis, riteque dedicastis;' i. 8, 4. According to Dionysius, the words of the statue were: 'Ooi móλews vóμy γυναῖκες γαμεταὶ δεδώκατέ με, according to Plutarch, Θεοφιλεί με θεσμῳ yvvaikeg dedwKATE. That is in Latin, Rite me matronæ dedicastis.' In his Treatise de Fort. Rom. c. 5, Plutarch tells the same story, and reports the words of the statue thus : Ὁσίως [Οσίῳ ?] με πόλεως νόμῳ γυναῖκες ἀσταὶ Kalidρúσao0ε. Augustine Ciy. Dei, iv. 19, says that the statue' dixisse non semel, sed iterum, quod eam rite matrona dedicaverint.' Festus likewise mentions the position of the temple, and the rule about once married Pudicitiæ signum in foro bovario est, ubi Emiliana ædes est Herculis; eam quidam Fortunæ esse existimant. Item viâ Latinâ ad milliarium quartum Fortune Muliebris, nefas est attingi, nisi ab eâ quæ semel nupsit; p. 242. The latter rule is also adverted to by Servius ad Æn. iv. 19. Bene culpæ potius quam amori, et hoc propter antiquum ritum quo repellebantur a sacerdotio, i. e. Fortunam Muliebrem non coronabant, bis nuptæ. The disfavour with which the Romans regarded the second marriages of women is well known: see Propert. v. 11, v. 37, and the severe censure of Lucan, ii. 23. Innupsit tepido pellex Cornelia busto. Livy merely mentions the temple: Monumento quoque quod esset, templum Fortunæ Muliebri ædificatum dedicatumque est. ii. 40. In general Livy is more sparing than Dionysius in the mention of supernatural in

women.

cidents.

(68) Plut. Cor. 21-3; 26-39.

(69) c. 33. Appian, Dio Cassius, and Victor, de Vir. Ill. c. 19, agree

VOL. II.

I

Dionysius, though it differs in many important particulars. A similar description is given of the stratagem by which the Romans are induced to offend the Volscians: the false information is, however, stated to have been given by Tullus himself.(70) Livy, like Dionysius, reports the speech of Tullus to the Volscians, after they have been expelled from Rome.(7) There is nothing in Livy about the demand of the restitution of territory to the Volscians, and the refusal of the Senate. His description of the campaign of Coriolanus differs materially from that of Dionysius; his list of captured towns is similar, but they are arranged in a wholly different order.(72) The sparing of the lands of the patricians, and the internal discord of the city, are described as in Dionysius.(73) Livy likewise agrees with him in the embassy to Coriolanus, and his answer; the two subsequent fruitless missions, and lastly, the successful supplication of Veturia and Volumnia. 'After he had withdrawn his legions from the Roman territory (Livy adds), he is said by some to have been put to death, on account of the ill-will which he had brought upon himself by his retreat; others report that he died in some other manner. It appears that Fabius (who is by far the earliest authority on the subject) believed him to have lived to be an old man; for he relates that in his advanced years Coriolanus used

with Livy and Dionysius as to the names of the mother and wife of Coriolanus. Zonaras, vii. 16, calls the mother Veturina, and the wife Volumnia. The statement as to the death of Tullus, in Plut. c. 39, is derived from Dion. Hal. viii. 67. Polyænus, viii. 25, § 3, describes Coriolanus as driven into exile by the Romans, and as taking refuge with the Etruscans. He promises them victory, is made their general, defeats the Romans in many battles; and when marching against Rome, is met by his mother Veturia, and other matrons, who entreat him to kill them, before he takes his own city. Coriolanus is melted, and withdraws his army, but the Etruscans condemn him to death as a traitor.

(70) Livy, ii. 37.

(71) Livy, ii. 30. The report of Dionysius is brief, viii. 4.

(72) After Circeii they follow in this order: Satricum, Longula, Polusca, Corioli, Lavinium, Corbio, Vitellia, Trebia (?), Lavici, Pedum. Concerning the discrepancy of Livy and Dionysius in the campaign of Coriolanus, see Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 95, 237. Bormann, Altlatinische Chorographie, p. 200-4.

(73) Livy mentions the pacific spirit of the plebs: 'Id modo non conveniebat; quod senatus consulesque nusquam alibi spem quam in armis ponebant; plebes omnia quam bellum malebat; ii. 39. See above, p. 57.

often to say, that the miseries of exile were greatly aggravated by old age.'(74) The other mode of death here referred to by Livy, is probably that mentioned, but at the same time discredited, by Cicero; namely, that he died by his own hand.(75)

It should be added, that there is a material variance between the chronologies of Dionysius and Livy for the story of Coriolanus. Livy places his exile, and his appearance at the gates of Rome as a conqueror, in successive years: whereas Dionysius introduces two sets of consuls unknown to Livy, and refers the events to different years, though he arranges them in the same order.(76) The following scheme will exhibit the difference: :

(74) Abductis deinde legionibus ex agro Romano, invidiâ rei oppressum periisse tradunt; alii alio leto. Apud Fabium, longe antiquissimum auctorem, usque ad senectutem vixisse eundem invenio. Refert certe, hanc sæpe eum exactâ ætate usurpasse vocem, Multo miserius seni exilium esse. Livy, ii. 40. Concerning Fabius Pictor, see above, ch. ii. § 6. Dio Cassius, xviii. 12, says: οὐδὲ τὴν κάθοδον διδομένην οἱ ἐδέξατο, ἀλλ ̓ ἐς τοὺς Οὐόλσκους ἀναχωρήσας ἐνταῦθα ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς ἢ καὶ γηράσας ἀπέθανεν. The substance of these words is repeated by Zonaras, vii. 16, with the omission of ἐξ ἐπιβουλῆς.

(75) Nam bellum Volscorum illud gravissimum, cui Coriolanus exsul interfuit, eodem fere tempore quo Persarum bellum fuit, similisque fortuna clarorum virorum; siquidem uterque, cum civis egregius fuisset, populi ingrati pulsus injuriâ se ad hostes contulit, conatumque iracundiæ suæ morte sedavit; Brut. c. 10. Themistocles is here alluded to; in the following chapter, Atticus corrects Cicero, and says that this account of the death of Coriolanus is as fabulous as the similar account of the death of Themistocles. See Thuc. i. 138; Plut. Them. 31, and Grote, Hist. of Gr. vol. v. p. 386. The words of Cicero, as Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. P. 242, remarks, seem to imply that Coriolanus was not commander of the Volscian army. Cicero, likewise speaks elsewhere of the suicide of Coriolanus. Quis clarior in Græcia Themistocle? quis potentior? qui cum imperator bello Persico servitute Græciam liberasset, propterque invidiam in exsilium missus esset, ingratæ patriæ injuriam non tulit, quam ferre debuit fecit idem, quod xx. annis ante apud nos fecerat Coriolanus. His adjutor contra patriam inventus est nemo; itaque mortem sibi uterque conscivit.' De Amic. 12. What Cicero can mean, by saying that Coriolanus could find no one to assist him in attacking his own country, does not appear. In the passage from the Brutus, he describes Coriolanus as taking part in the Volscian war. The chronological statement of Cicero agrees exactly with our dates-according to which the banishment of Themistocles took place in 471 B.C., and that of Coriolanus in 491 B.C. Gellius places the exile of Coriolanus soon after the battle of Marathon, xvii. 21, § 11.

(76) See Dion. Hal. vii. 20, 68; viii. 1, 16; Livy, ii. 34. 39. Veturia, in Dion. Hal. viii. 41, speaks of the year of Nautius and Furius as the fourth year since the banishment of Coriolanus: in c. 50, she speaks of the war being in its third year-but, according to the narrative of Dionysius,

I 2

Such discrepancies as these are not consistent with the preservation of authentic Fasti, even in the most meagre form, if we suppose that our historians copied their authorities with fidelity.

§ 23 On reviewing the story of Coriolanus, we may first observe that it does not stand as an episode unconnected with the general course of events, but that it is closely linked with the preceding occurrences. The secession causes the lands to remain untilled, the interruption of the labours of agriculture causes a scarcity, the scarcity causes the mission to Sicily for corn, and the present of corn from Sicily occasions the proposal of Coriolanus to recover the concession of the tribunate by starving the people. This proposal produces the breach between himself and the plebeian body, and leads to his condemnation and banishment. It has been already shown, that the accounts respecting the long duration of the secession are not consistent: and it may now be added, that the details as to the missions for bringing corn are not very intelligible. It is indeed natural that all the places from which corn was sought should have been accessible by water-carriage, for at that time there were no roads in Italy.(")

it is only the second year. The omission of the two pairs of consuls in Livy must not be attributed to an oversight; see iii. 30; Fischer ad a. 297 U.c.; Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 103. It should be observed that Dionysius refers no political or military event to the year of Sulpicius and Larcius -he places under it only the festival legend of Atinius.

(77) This seems a more probable reason for the missions to Cuma and Sicily than that suggested by Livy: Adeo finitimorum odio longinquis coegerant indigere auxiliis, ii. 34.