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.(71) 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 'After he had withdrawn his legions from the Roman territory (Livy adds), he is said by some to have been put to death, on account of the ill-will which he had brought upon himself by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,

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.

But no reason is assigned why Gelo, or any other Sicilian despot, should have sent a present of corn to Rome; and the chronological error of the early Roman historians, in making Dionysius the contemporary of Coriolanus, however it may be explained, throws the greatest doubt upon the authenticity of their narrative. Dionysius and Livy agree in speaking of a mission to Cumæ, and the spoliation of the ambassadors by Aristodemus ; but the details of their treatment by him are wholly irreconcilable, and it seems improbable that Roman envoys should have trusted themselves to the protector of the Tarquinian exiles.(78) The long narrative in Dionysius respecting the origin of the Comitia Tributa, and of their power to try a patrician, has all the appearance of an institutional legend, like his accounts of the origin of the dictatorship and tribunate. His detailed description of the disposition of the people to acquit Coriolanus on the main charge; of the interposition of the tribune at the last moment with a supplemental accusation, not before thought of; and of the silence of Coriolanus, notwithstanding its falsehood, is destitute of all probability. The acquiescence of the patricians in the illegal change of the comitia of centuries into those of tribes is unexplained by Dionysius. Livy's account of the

(78) A very similar account of the measures taken for procuring corn during a scarcity is given by Livy for the year 411 B.C., about 80 years later. Jam fames, quam pestilentia, tristior erat; ni, dimissis circa omnes populos legatis, qui Etruscum mare, quique Tiberim accolunt, ad frumentum mercandum, annonæ foret subventum. Superbe ab Samnitibus, qui Capuam habebant Cumasque, legati prohibiti commercio sunt : contra ea benigne ab Siculorum tyrannis adjuti. Maximos commeatus summo Etruriæ studio Tiberis devexit; iv. 52. Here we have again the corn brought down the Tiber, the supplies from Sicily, and the failure at Cuma. Since the time of Coriolanus, however, the Samnites had obtained possession of Capua and Cuma, having driven out the Etruscans and the Greeks: see Livy, iv. 37, 44. The importation of corn from Campania in a year of scarcity is mentioned by Livy, ii. 52. In a scarcity of the year 433 B.C. the Romans send to Etruria, the Pomptine district, Cumæ, and Sicily for corn, Livy, iv. 25. Corn is also described to have been brought to Rome from Etruria in Toraunyoi okapai, in 440 B.C., in Dion. Hal. xii. ap. Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. xxxi. ed. Didot. cf. vii. 12. Compare the account in Dion. Hal. x. 54, of the supplies obtained in a later year of scarcity, 452 B.C. Much corn (he says) was imported, and from many different districts: most of it being brought on the public account, but some being introduced by private merchants.'

manner in which the condemnation of Coriolanus took place, differs entirely from that of Dionysius: in particular, he says nothing about the Comitia Tributa, but places their introduction in a subsequent year, long after the banishment of Coriolanus.(^) Not only are the details of the campaign of Coriolanus, in Dionysius and Livy, quite inconsistent with each other;(80) but the whole character of the campaign is inexplicable. The Volscians are represented as being in a state of quiescence, and as being merely roused into activity by the vindictive spirit of Coriolanus working upon the ambition of Tullus. One historian even describes the stratagem of the false alarm at the games as intended, not to furnish a pretext for the war, but to overcome the reluctance and inertness of the Volscians. (81) The mere presence of the Roman refugee is sufficient to convert the Volscians into a conquering nation, to detach some of the most powerful of the allies of the Romans, to reduce the Latin cities to subjection, to coop up the Romans within the walls of their city, to paralyze their military energy, to compel them to supplicate more than once

(79) ii. 58, 60. (471 B.C.) The improbability of the account of Diony. sius, and its inconsistency with the account of Livy, are well exhibited by Hooke, in the note to b. ii. c. 13, of his history. Hooke says, 'I prefer the brevity of Livy to the ample and circumstantial accounts and seeming accuracy of Dionysius; because I suspect that the abundance of the Greek historian was in no measure owing to his diligence, but to his boldness in supplying from himself what he could not find elsewhere to make out his story;' vol. i. p. 418. Again he remarks: The many improbabilities and inconsistencies, and the long elaborate speeches in Dionysius's account of the first introduction of comitia by tribes, furnish ground to suspect, that his principal aim in that account was to get an opportunity of displaying his own talent of oratory, and not to instruct his readers by a true relation of facts; ib. p. 422. Hooke likewise points out that Dionysius's account of the motive for introducing the Comitia Tributa is not consistent with his own statement that Coriolanus had been recently rejected for the consulship by the Comitia Centuriata, on account of anti-popular tendencies; vii. 21.

(80) This inconsistency of Dionysius and Livy is much insisted on by Niebuhr, Hist. vol. ii. p. 95, 237. Nothing (he says) can be less reconcilable with truth than such discrepancies; which might not indeed startle us very much in an account of Alexander's Asiatic campaigns, but could never have found place in a history where no other year furnishes the taking of more than a single town.'

(81) ὁ δὲ ὅμιλος ἀπρόθυμος ἦν. ὡς οὖν οὔτε παραινοῦντες οὔτ ̓ ἐκφοβοῦντες αὐτοὺς οἱ δυνατοὶ κινῆσαι πρὸς ὅπλων ἄρσιν ἠδύναντο, τοιόνδε τι ἐμηχανήσαντο, Zonaras, vii. 16.