Participation in wars:
War with the Volscians
Participation in battles:
(Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus) Legendary representative of the Marcius family (5th century BC)
In 493 BC. e. for his distinction during the siege of the Volsky city, Coriol received the nickname Coriolanus.
Two years later he became the head of the patrician party, which wanted the abolition of the plebeian tribunes, and attempted to take advantage of the famine to force the plebeians to submit. At a meeting of the Senate, Coriolanus proposed increasing the price of bread collected in state granaries. The tribunes, however, took the plebeians under their protection and called Coriolanus to account, also accusing him of unfairly dividing the captured booty. This was the first time a patrician was summoned to a court of plebeians. However, Coriolanus did not appear on the appointed day and went to the Volscians, who joyfully accepted their winner.
During new war that ensued between Rome and the Volscians, Coriolanus devastated the Roman region, without touching, however, the patrician possessions. In 486 BC. e. he set up his camp five miles from Rome. Coriolanus refused to accept ambassadors from the Senate and priests.
More successful was the embassy of Roman women, which included Coriolanus' mother Veturia, his wife Volumnia and children. Coriolanus bowed to his mother's request and retreated with his army.
The Volscians who remained at home were unhappy with this outcome of the war. When Coriolanus wanted to justify himself in the popular assembly, they stoned him. The majority of the Volscians, however, did not approve of this massacre and staged Coriolanus brilliant funeral.
In Rome, patrician women mourned for him for a year.
According to Dionysius and Plutarch, Coriolanus was a typical ancient Roman patrician, in whom all the advantages and disadvantages of his people and class were clearly manifested.
The tragedy was first printed in the 1623 folio. Dating is based on stylistic data and topical allusions.
The reason for the tragedy could have been the popular unrest of 1607 in central England. E. C. Chambers dates the play to 1607-1608.
The source of the plot is the biography of Coriolanus in Plutarch's Comparative Lives. Time of action - about 500 BC. e.
Nowhere in Shakespeare is the basic social antagonism between the ruling elite of society and the people presented as fully and clearly as in Coriolanus. In other dramas of Shakespeare this was one of the themes among others. There, such antagonism served as the background for the main action. Here is the core of the conflict, the central theme of the tragedy.
The play begins with a picture of popular unrest. The aristocrat Menenius Agrippa appears in front of a crowd of rebellious citizens. Trying to calm the crowd, he appeals to its reason and tells the famous fable about parts of the body rebelling against the stomach (I, 1). Caroline Spurgeon, a researcher of the figurative system of Shakespeare's poetic language, notes that the parable of Menenius Agrippa forms the basis of the system of images in Coriolanus *. Metaphors and comparisons with the human body, its organs and diseases make up, according to her calculations, one fifth of the poetic images of the tragedy. The king, the statesman, the warrior, the horse, the drummer are likened to the head, the eye and the heart, the hand, the foot and the tongue. Menenius calls one of the most talkative citizens his big toe (I, 1). Coriolanus calls the tribunes either “the tongue in the crowd’s mouth” (I, 1) or its “mouth” (III, 1). The likening of society to the human body, and its individual classes to the organs and members of the body, was not invented by Shakespeare. The fable of Menenius Agrippa is found in Plutarch and Titus Livy. It was known in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Criticism rightly notes that Coriolanus does not have the poetic sublimity that is characteristic of the style of other tragedies created by Shakespeare in these years *. “The vulgar fable of Menenius Agrippa, which depicts a man as a part of his own body” **, largely determines the sound of the play. It is characterized by the absence of those flights of poetic imagination that give special charm to other tragedies, even those in which there is more horror than in Coriolanus.
* (See A. S. Bradley, A Miscellany, London, 1929, p. 74-76.)
** (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, p. 373.)
The internal conflict in the Roman state is complemented by an external conflict. Rome is in constant enmity with the Volscian state, and thus the enmity of classes is combined with enmity between peoples. It is unlikely that anywhere else in Shakespeare we will find such a complete prototype of the entire class society with its eternal and insoluble antagonisms.
Each character or group of characters is revealed in their relationship to these two conflicts. This is complemented by struggles and clashes between separate groups and individuals. If in other tragedies Shakespeare's skill manifested itself with particular force in grandiose and endlessly complex characters, then in Coriolanus his dramatic genius is revealed in an amazingly subtle and comprehensive depiction of the dialectics of social relations.
Leaving the consideration of the image of Coriolanus for last, let us first dwell on the remaining characters of the tragedy.
Our attention is drawn primarily to the collective image of the Roman people. Errors in interpreting Shakespeare's attitude towards the people in this tragedy stemmed from the fact that critics, as a rule, judged him by the abusive characteristics of the plebeians given by Coriolanus. A more correct way is to consider this collective character in his own actions and verbal expressions. As in previous works, one cannot help but notice the special, perhaps unique to Shakespeare, dramatic ability to portray a crowd. Plebeians always act together, the actions of the crowd are united, but the opinions and judgments among them are contradictory. This gives rise to the feeling that what we have before us is not a faceless choir, but living human diversity.
The initial episodes of the tragedy reveal the undoubted justice of the people's indignation. The very existence of the plebeians is under threat: they need bread. They are well aware of their low position in society. But it is no less clear to them that they represent a force that, under certain conditions, can achieve satisfaction of their demands. Before us is not a resigned crowd of slaves, but a mass conscious of, if not their civil, then human rights *.
Much has been said about the instability of the opinions of the popular crowd in Shakespeare. But little has been noticed that even in their fickleness the people are consistent: they are always for those and for what suits their interests. But the people do not have a political mind that looks far ahead. Therefore, others constantly play on his interests and aspirations.
The people would prefer to have as their leader such a courageous and straightforward man as Coriolanus. But the hostility of Coriolanus pushes the people into the arms of Brutus and Sicinius.
Since the 18th century, criticism has firmly established the opinion of these tribunes as demagogues. This assessment of them is based on the fact that, speaking openly before the people, they speak as ardent defenders of the interests of democracy, and in private they interpret with each other like prudent politicians and diplomats, considering means of indirectly achieving their goals.
This contradiction in the behavior of Brutus and Sicinius really exists. But can they be reproached if representatives of the patrician camp show no less duality, covering up an anti-people policy with external benevolence towards the people, as we see in the behavior of Menenius Agrippa? They have before them a powerful and cunning enemy - the patricians, and the force on which they rely, the people, is childishly fickle and not easy to lead. Nowhere and in no way do they show any desire to use the trust of the people to their detriment. And since this is not the case, then it is wrong to look at them as demagogues. They are consistent in their struggle against patrician power, but they cannot achieve their goals without using cunning tactical steps. If they do not evoke the sympathy of the reader and viewer, this does not mean that Shakespeare’s portrayal of them was hostile and tendentious. They are no better than the politicians of the aristocratic camp, but they are no worse than them. Shakespeare only emphasizes that politicians of both camps are guided not by national interests, but by the interests of their own social group. He, a humanist who dreamed of harmony of class interests, was equally disgusted by both aristocrats and democrats.
It seems to us that the remark of Grenville-Barker, who wrote that Shakespeare takes the position of an objective but harsh judge in relation to all the characters in the drama, is correct *. He judges political life as a humanist, amazingly insightful in understanding reality.
Shakespeare's aristocratic camp is depicted in no less harsh colors. The only difference, perhaps, is that among the patricians there is more individual diversity. But, like the people, they are all driven primarily by a clear consciousness of their class interests and fiercely defend their privileges.
Seeing a real political threat to their dominance from the people, the patricians demand from Coriolanus that he, humbling his pride, make the necessary concession and seek the consent of the people to be elected consul. The scene of the dispute between Coriolanus and Volumnia, Menenius, Cominius and other patricians is magnificent (III, 2). The aristocrats realized that they could retain power only by deceiving the people. They demand feigned humility from Coriolanus so that, having received power, they can then suppress the will of the people.
The development of events in the first half of the tragedy reveals an unsightly picture of a society torn apart by severe antagonisms. Neither those who fight for justice, nor those who defend unjust privileges, show high moral qualities. Great human ideals find themselves in irreconcilable contradiction with the harsh struggle of selfish class and estate interests.
Coriolanus rises above others with his courage, strength, and ability to defeat enemies in open and fair battle. But the heroic beginning in him received a one-sided development. It has features inherited from knightly times. But there is a hundred times more Renaissance individualism in him. None of the individualistic heroes depicted by Shakespeare have a denial social norms does not appear as clearly and strikingly as in Coriolanus. Attempts to present Coriolanus exclusively or primarily as a bearer of the old traditional attitude towards life contradict the entire appearance of the hero. As rightly noted
John Palmer, Coriolanus never tires of reminding of his hereditary privileges and considers as a rebellion any attempt by the plebeians to encroach on the existing system, but he himself is “ready to reject any tradition that contradicts his aspirations” *.
When Coriolanus is demanded that he submit to custom, asking the people for confirmation as consul, and showing his wounds, everything in him is indignant against this tradition.
So custom dictates! But if we obeyed him in everything, No one would erase the dust of centuries, And the mountains of delusions would bury the truth under them.
(II, 3. Translation by Yu. Korneev)
If Coriolanus had been a traditionalist, he would have submitted to the humiliating custom without attaching any significance to it. But the fact of the matter is that Coriolanus is a person who rebels against all customs, including the traditional electoral ritual. He wants to be appreciated, himself, and for society to bow before his virtues, regardless of any traditions.
The pride of Coriolanus is not the aristocratic swagger of his title and hereditary privileges. This is the pride of a person who, through the harsh discipline of self-education and constant risk, has achieved everything. He demands respect for his personal qualities. He despises the crowd not so much as an aristocrat by rank, but as an aristocrat in spirit. To him, capable of a struggle in which his life is at stake, the claims of the poor, now begging and now demanding bread, seem base. He abhors these people, not one of whom possesses his military prowess. Pathetic in peacetime, they are even more disgusting to him in the harsh conditions of war. The abuse with which he showers the cowardly and fleeing soldiers - and they are also people - is in no way inferior to the angry speeches that he unleashes on crowds of citizens in Rome.
Coriolanus despises the people for their concern for their needs, which seems to him a manifestation of greed. He himself does not need any wealth. He renounces his share of the spoils of war (I, 9). Like Lear, he longs for human greatness, not covered by any external trappings. He himself, his personal merits - this is the basis of his rights to universal admiration and to power.
Indifference to material interests distinguishes Coriolanus both from the people and from the patricians close to him. In contrast to the entire surrounding society, imbued with the spirit of self-interest, acquisitiveness, devoted to concerns about its material well-being, Coriolanus is in some way an idealist. In his eyes, only spiritual qualities have real value - fortitude, courage, courage, moral fortitude.
Connected with this is another side of his nature - uncompromisingness. He confronts the people, the tribunes, and the patricians as the only person in Rome who is straightforward, frank, and organically incapable of deception and cunning. He simply does not understand why he needs to pretend, to be different from what he is, when his pride is precisely in the fact that he is such a person and not another person. He always wants to be himself. His greatest human achievement is what he has become, and he is forced to give up exactly what he values most about himself. This is the basis of his conflict not only with the people, but also with his own class, with the people closest to him, in a word, with the entire society.
This is the most important social side of the tragedy, which, as it seems to us, was not paid due attention. It is at this point that the tragedy of Coriolanus merges with other great tragedies in which Shakespeare depicted how the self-awareness of the individual was born and how its humanistic ideal was broken and distorted under the influence of the social contradictions of the emerging bourgeois society.
Shakespeare's genius discovered, beneath the surface of a significant political conflict, the deepest social contradiction of class society - the antagonism between the material and spiritual aspirations of man, the contradiction between society and the individual.
But so far we have touched upon only one side of these contradictions, namely the one due to which Coriolanus is not only formally the hero of the tragedy, but also a truly heroic person. However, there are also traits in his character that conflict with the personal principle in its highest ideal expression.
The personality of Coriolanus received one-sided development. Firstly, the high concept of human dignity is limited in Coriolanus, mainly to military virtues. He and Hamlet would not understand each other because Coriolanus, strictly speaking, is devoid of intellectuality. He is able to reason only in relation directly to a given situation. He does not have Hamlet’s ability to mentally “look both forward and backward,” and he does not have Macbeth’s imagination, which foresaw in advance all the horror of what he would have to endure.
The second feature of Coriolanus is his focus on his own personality. Pride in himself became his blind passion. In the world, only his “I” is important to him. For him it is higher than all personal and social connections. His individual self-awareness reaches the point of complete opposition of his “I” to the whole of society. This contradiction deeply worried Shakespeare the humanist. He was not inclined to limit himself to establishing the objective circumstances that caused this conflict. The deep ethical basis of Shakespeare's tragedies was that the individual was also guilty of discord and therefore had to bear responsibility for his tragic guilt before society.
The turning point of the tragedy is the scene in the forum (III, 3). Coriolanus succumbed to the persuasion of Volumnia and Menenius. He went out to the crowd, ready to stoop to requests and patiently listen to public censure of his shortcomings. The cause of the tribunes is almost lost. Another moment - and power will be in the hands of Coriolanus, who, as they correctly foresee, will use it with the inflexibility of a tyrant. Sicinius accuses him of striving for tyrannical power. But Coriolanus would have endured even this if not for one word piercing his consciousness like a poisonous arrow. Sicinius calls him “a traitor to the people” (III, 3). The blow was aimed well. Coriolanus instantly sheds the mask of humility that is unusual for him and bursts out with a stream of curses at the people and tribunes. This seals his fate: the Romans expel Coriolanus. He himself does not want to stay here, where all his services to the state were not enough to have the right to be himself.
From this moment on, not only the tragic situation of the hero is revealed, but also the tragedy of the entire Roman society. At first, only those close to him feel the grief of separation from Coriolanus. But soon everyone else realizes the tragedy of their situation.
The roots of the tragedy are in the general discord that we saw from the very beginning of the action, but the immediate impetus for the explosion is the expulsion of Coriolanus and his subsequent transition to the side of the Volscians.
If the struggle in Rome took place before our eyes and we saw how the conflict was maturing, then Coriolanus’s betrayal turns out to be sudden, and we have no opportunity to judge what was happening in his soul when he made the fatal decision. Saying goodbye to family and friends (IV, 1), Coriolanus himself does not yet know what he will do. He only promises to remain himself. But soon (IV, 4) we see him in Antium and hear his confession: he hated Rome, and the city of his enemies became dear to him.
At this stage of the action the most extreme consequence of Coriolanus's individualism is revealed. His faith in himself, his self-worth, leading him to betrayal of his homeland, is evidence of the final limit to which the collapse of all natural and social ties between people has reached.
Shakespeare depicted acts of treason more than once. Everywhere it was evidence of the baseness of those who committed it. The motives were self-interest, self-defense, and ambition. Here we have a case of betrayal out of principle, out of conviction. Coriolanus is not a petty traitor, not a pathetic coward, even in his betrayal he remains courageous and majestic in his own way, as can be seen in the scene of his explanation with Aufidius (IV, 5). No matter how paradoxical it may sound, even when committing treason, Coriolanus remains straightforward.
But his thirst for revenge needs real support from the Volscians. For Coriolanus, they and their leader Aufidius were a kind of abstract embodiment of a force hostile to Rome. He wants to use her for his revenge. However, the Volscian camp is also infected with the ulcer of self-interest, which so outraged Coriolanus in Rome. Coriolanus thinks that the Volscians will be his instrument of revenge, and Aufidius expects that Coriolanus will serve as his instrument. At the same time, Avfidy is not just an individual person. Behind it stands a state, a society as internally contradictory as Rome. The Volscians have their own plebs and their own aristocracy. Shakespeare makes us feel this in one short scene (IV, 5), when, after the agreement between Coriolanus and Aufidius, the servants exchange half-joking, half-serious remarks about the upcoming campaign against Rome. And among the Volscians, like among the Romans, peacetime is not at all characterized by civil peace. It is not for nothing that the first servant at the end of the conversation says that even in times of peace people hate each other. And the 3rd servant explains why this happens: “They don’t need each other that much.”
"They don't need each other that much"! These words could serve as an epigraph to the entire tragedy, showing the increasing separation between classes of society and individuals. And if there still remains for them the need for some kind of connection, then, paradoxically, it arises when the fire of hostility and murder is kindled - in the name of war.
The conversation between the servants of Aufidius must also be said in another connection. John Palmer rightly emphasized that in the chain of other evidence it serves as an important link to refute Shakespeare's deliberate anti-democraticism *. Through the lips of these people from the people the truth speaks. They correctly judge their master and his new ally, but even more correct are the judgments we have given that in a society torn apart by internal antagonism, the only real connection uniting people was war.
Now let us turn to the chain of tragic events caused by the expulsion of Coriolanus and his transition to the side of the Volscians. The spirit of tragedy overshadows all its participants. The tragic is manifested here in the irony with which all previous actions of people, committed by them for their own good, lead to the opposite result.
The tribunes and Sicinius experience this first of all. When it becomes known that Coriolanus, at the head of the Volscian army, is marching on Rome, Cominius and Menenius Agrippa blame the tribunes for this, and they have nothing to object to. Having achieved the expulsion of Coriolanus, they wanted to save Rome from tyranny, but they created a threat to the very existence of Rome.
The patricians don't have to gloat either. They are no less in danger than the plebeians. Coriolanus declared to Cominius, who came to negotiate with him, that his wrath would fall on everyone indiscriminately. He also drives away Menenius Agrippa when he comes to him with a request to spare at least his loved ones (V, 2).
The decisive moment is coming. Coriolanus, who approached the walls of Rome with his troops, is met by his mother, wife and son. There is no need to remind the reader of this magnificently dramatic scene, which ranks with the pinnacle episodes of Shakespeare's other tragedies. The tragic irony is manifested here in the fact that Volumnia, who for years raised inflexibility in her son, sees how this turns against her, against Rome, for which she raised a hero and leader. As you know, she manages to break Coriolanus. But with this she dooms him to death. Thus, everything to which Volumnia devoted her life turned out to be fruitless, because, having invested courage in Coriolanus, she did not endow him with humanity. And when at the last moment she appealed to his sense of humanity, this turned out to be the fatal circumstance that destroyed Coriolanus.
Coriolanus was by no means so naive as not to understand the moral meaning of his defection to the Volscian side. The opinions of others, however, were indifferent to him, since, as it seemed to him, he always remained himself. What Coriolanus did not understand is that the meaning of a person is determined not only by what he is in himself, but also by his relationship to the society in which he lives. The tragedy of Coriolanus is that he did not belong anywhere, neither in Rome nor among the Volscians. He did not want to reckon with society, and it took revenge on him. The Romans expelled him and killed him.
The tragic inevitability of the death of Coriolanus is due not only to his character. If Shakespeare showed with utmost clarity the antisocial nature of Coriolanus’ individualism, then it is no less obvious that the society with which the hero did not get along is also to blame for the tragedy that occurred. The tragic in Coriolanus is determined by the irreconcilability of antagonisms generated by the division of humanity into estates and classes, into crowds and individuals. Shakespeare does not see a way out of these contradictions.
“Coriolanus” is the tragedy of an outstanding personality who has become separated from the people, and the tragedy of a people so depressed by need that they find the only satisfaction of their sense of dignity in the humiliation of a great man.
The scales fell from Shakespeare's eyes. He no longer believes in the illusory harmony of society. But everything he depicted was illuminated with a tragic light, because the ideal for the great humanist remained the conviction that true humanity requires harmonious relations between people.
When famine began in Rome the following year, grain arrived from Sicily and Coriolanus, who became the head of the patrician party, offered to sell it at low prices if the plebeians refused tribunician protection. The tribunes summoned him to court, and this was the first time a patrician was summoned to a court of plebeians. According to Livy, Coriolanus did not appear at the trial, but went into voluntary exile to the Volscians and began to look for a reason for war with Rome. According to Dionysius, Coriolanus was present at the trial, successfully defended himself, but was still convicted, since the fact of appropriation of military booty captured during the campaign against the Anciate Volscians was revealed. Having led the Volscians, together with the Volscian aristocrat Tullus Aufidius, who had gathered at the Ferentin spring, Coriolanus led their army to Rome, and only the embassy of women led by the wife and mother of Coriolanus touched his heart, and he led the Volscians away from the city, for which he was killed by them as a traitor, and in Rome, patrician women mourned him for a year. Livy, citing Fabius Pictor, reports that Coriolanus lived to a ripe old age. This unorthodox version was also known to Cicero.
According to Dionysius, Coriolanus is the commander of a plebeian militia that joined the army of the patricians and their clients. On the one hand, Coriolanus is depicted as popular among the plebeians due to his military exploits; on the other hand, it was the plebs who did not allow Coriolanus to the consular post, although he was supported by the patricians. Further, he already acts as an irreconcilable enemy of the plebeians, seeking to deprive them of protection from the tribunes of the people. Apparently, two different editions of this saga have been preserved in Dionysius’ narrative. In the first, Coriolanus is presented as a plebeian military leader, the second seeks to turn him into a patrician, militantly defending the privileges of his class.
Later researchers repeatedly turned to the analysis of the legend, especially when it came to criticizing the Roman tradition in order to identify reliable parts in it. Mommsen denied the historical basis of the legend. However, the dating of the legend is 493 BC. e. , when the Treaty of Cassius was concluded, reveals the real connection of events: Coriolanus’s campaign against Rome ended with the conclusion of an equal treaty with the Latins, which they subsequently tried so carefully to hide.
William Shakespeare wrote the tragedy “Coriolanus” based on the plot of the legend, and in 2011 a film was made based on it, directed by Ralph Fiennes.
Notes
Literature
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus” is in other dictionaries:
- (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus), according to ancient Roman legend, a patrician and commander who commanded the troops during the capture of the Volscian city of Coriol in 493 BC. e. (hence his nickname). Pursued by the tribunes for attempting to deprive the plebeians of their political rights,... ...
Gnaeus see Coriolanus, Gnaeus Marcius...
Coriolanus, Gnaeus Marcius- Roman commander who conquered in 493 BC. e. Volcan city of Corioli, but failed in the elections when trying to become consul due to his contempt for the plebeians. He fled to the Volscians, with whom he opposed Rome. Only the persuasion of his mother... ... Ancient world. Dictionary-reference book.
Gnaeus: Gnaeus Arulenus Caelius Sabinus, Roman lawyer, consul of 69. Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus: Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 192 BC) Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul suffect 162 BC) Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 122 BC ... Wikipedia
Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus Roman commander "Coriolanus" Shakespeare's tragedy "Coriolanus" Beethoven's overture in C major Op. 62 to the tragedy of the same name Heinrich Joseph Collina ... Wikipedia
GNAEUS Marcius (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus) or Gaius Marcius, legendary hero of Rome. He became famous for the capture of the Volscian city of Coriola, which is how he received his nickname. He stood at the head of the aristocratic party, tried to abolish the position of the plebeians... ... Collier's Encyclopedia
Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, Roman general. "Coriolanus" tragedy by Shakespeare. "Coriolanus" tragedy by Heinrich Joseph Collina. Coriolanus (overture) Beethoven's overture in C minor Op. 62 to the tragedy of the same name by Heinrich Joseph Collina. "Coriolanus" ... ... Wikipedia
Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus, according to ancient Roman legend, was a patrician and commander who commanded the troops during the capture of the Volscian city of Coriol in 493 BC. e. (hence his nickname). Persecuted by the tribunes for trying to deprive the plebeians of their... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Gnaeus Marcius (Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus) was a legendary representative of the plebeian family of Marcius, portrayed by senior annalists as a patrician and consul in command of Rome. troops during the capture of Coriol in 493 BC. e. Pursued by the stands for... ... Soviet historical encyclopedia
Coriolanus- Gnaeus Marcius, legendary commander and hero of ancient Rome. history, according to legend, conquered in 493 BC. e. The Volsky city of Corioli, for which it received the nickname K. In 491 BC. e. fought against the plebeians, who then achieved his expulsion... ... Dictionary of Antiquity
The story of Coriolanus is largely legendary. But since the ordinary story was accepted by later times as actual history, we will select the most important thing from it and then briefly add what, after eliminating everything legendary, can apparently be accepted as historical facts.
Prince Martius, who came from a noble patrician family, was already distinguished in his very young years by courage and bravery. It is said that he took part in the expulsion of Tarquinius and fought bravely at the Battle of Lake Retil. Here, in front of the dictator Postumius’s eyes, he defended with his shield one citizen who had fallen near him and hacked to pieces the attacking enemy. For this, the commander awarded him an oak wreath, because such a reward followed the law for anyone who covered his fellow citizen with a shield. From the moment he received this distinction, the ambitious young man began to try to live up to the expectations placed on him, and added feat to feat, added booty to booty; there was no battle from which he returned home without a wreath or decoration of honor. In the same year when Spurius Cassius concluded an alliance with the Patinae (493 BC), the Romans, under the leadership of the consul Postumius Cominius, launched a campaign against the Volscians from Antium, conquered the Latin cities of Longula and Polusca, which were at that time in the hands of the Volscians, and then camped in front of the city of Corioli. The Volscians from Antium came to the aid of the city and attacked the Romans, while on the other side a sortie was made by the inhabitants of Corioli. But Marcius, leading the detachment entrusted to him, threw them back into the city and himself invaded there after those who had fled. The flames that engulfed the burning houses, the cries of wives and children, made it known to the rest of the Roman army that Marcius had invaded the city; she followed him, occupied Corioli and plundered it, while Marcius with a detachment of volunteers immediately hurried to another part of the Roman army, which had come to battle with the Volscians from Antium. He appeared just at the moment when the battle was about to begin, and took a place here in front of everyone. The Romans owed their victory here too to his irresistible courage. As a reward for his exploits, he received from the consul a horse with magnificent harness and permission to choose for himself from the rich booty, which consisted of gold, horses and people, ten times more than what he would have had to divide into equal parts. But Marcius chose only one prisoner, to whom he immediately gave freedom. This act aroused universal approval, and the consul Cominius gave him the honorable name Coriolanus.
Until now we have only seen the good side of Marcius Coriolanus. But in private life he behaved extremely proudly and arrogantly, especially regarding the plebeians for whom he everywhere showed hatred and contempt. For his aristocratic pride it was unbearable to see that this rude crowd, created only for obedience, dared to rebel against oppression and retire to the Sacred Mountain force the patricians to establish the position of tribunes. In the year following the conquest of Corioli, he was a candidate for the post of consul. His military merits, it is true, entitled him to such honor, but his proud, harsh behavior during the election so alienated the people, who already hated and feared him, from him that the election did not take place. Coriolanus took this failure as a grave insult, and the patrician youth, who looked at him as their leader, tried to inflate his indignation even more. He wanted to take revenge on the people. Just this year a severe famine broke out, from which the poor class suffered severely ›yes. To alleviate the disaster, the Senate purchased grain from different parts of Italy, and one Sicilian tyrant, who was friendly to the Romans, sent them a gift a large number of wheat. The people hoped for a cheap sale of bread or even a free distribution of it. But when meetings began in the Senate on the method of releasing grain to the people, Coriolanus made a sharp speech, recalled the daring disobedience of the plebeians to the law and demanded that grain be sold only at the same high prices that existed for it until then; If, Coriolanus said, the plebeians want low prices, then let them renounce the rights they were forced to accept and agree to the abolition of the tribunician position. When Coriolanus’s speech became known to the people who found themselves before the curia, he became so enraged that he would certainly have killed the speaker upon leaving the curia if the tribunes had not demanded that he be held accountable in front of the plebeian community. The anger of the people subsided; each looked upon himself as the future judge of the life and death of his enemy. In the interval between this day and the day of the trial, the patricians used all means to change the mood of the people with threats, requests and promises, and they actually managed to win over a fairly significant part of the plebeians to the side of Coriolanus. Coriolanus again ruined the whole matter with his indomitable arrogance, ridicule and sarcastic speeches that he allowed himself regarding the tribunes and the court. Since he did not appear in person for the trial, a new decision was made to subject him to lifelong exile. Coriolanus went to the Volscians, uttering threats to society and full of gloomy thoughts of revenge. In the city of the Volscians, Antium, there lived a noble man, Tullius, who, thanks to his wealth and courage, enjoyed royal honor. Coriolanus knew that Tullius hated him more than all the other Romans, because they often measured their strength during the war. One evening the exile Marcius appeared at this man’s house and, unrecognized by anyone, with his head covered, silently sat down by the fireplace. Tullius, called by the servants, who were looking at the strange stranger with bewilderment, asked the latter who he was and why he had come. Then Marcius opened his face and extended his hand to the enemy of the Romans in a joint fight against the hated city. Tullius gladly showed hospitality to his recent enemy, and both began to consider means of again raising the Volscians to war with Rome, since the Volscians, weakened by several defeats and a pestilence, had not long before concluded a two-year truce with the Romans.
Tullius undertook to cause a resumption of the war through cunning. It was at this time that the Romans were preparing to celebrate the great games and invited their neighbors to this celebration. A large number of Volscians went to Rome, and Tullius was among them. But before the games began, Tullius, in accordance with the agreement with Coriolanus, went to the consuls and expressed suspicion that the Volscians intended to attack the Romans during the festival and set fire to the city. Frightened by this news, the consuls, through the medium of a herald, ordered all Volscians to clear the city before sunset. Indignant at this insulting order, the Volscians left Rome, and Tullius, having already left the city earlier and was waiting for his compatriots on the road, inflamed their anger to such an extent that soon the whole people began to urgently demand vengeance. Ambassadors were sent to Rome to demand the return of all the cities hitherto conquered by the Romans. This demand amounted to a declaration of war. The Romans answered: “If the Volscians are the first to draw their sword, the Romans will be the last to sheathe it.” The Volscians chose Tullius and Coriolanus as their leaders.
Tullius remained to guard the cities of the Volscians, and Coriolanus set out on a campaign against Rome and the Latin cities allied with it. First he approached the Roman colony of Circe and took it. In a short time, he conquered 12 Latin cities and stopped with his victorious army at the Cilia ditch, 5 thousand steps, or 5 Roman miles, from Rome. Rome saw itself in the most critical and helpless state; internal strife weakened all forces, and there was nothing to hope for help from the Latin cities. Attempts to gather an army remained unsuccessful, and at this time the soldiers of Marcius plundered and devastated the city gates; but they did not touch the lands belonging to the patricians, either because Marcius wanted to take out his hatred first on the plebeians, or because he wanted to further strengthen the hostile relations between the two classes. He achieved both goals; The plebeians suspected the patricians of an agreement with Coriolanus and refused to supply people to the army, so as not to ruin themselves by the treason of the patricians.
In such a plight, the Senate had no choice but to send an embassy to Coriolanus with a proposal for reconciliation and return to the fatherland. For this purpose, five senators were sent to the enemy camp. They were personal friends of Coriolanus and hoped for a warm welcome; but he received them proudly and sternly and responded to their meek, peace-loving speeches that he was here not on his own behalf, but as the leader of the Volscians; that there can be no talk of peace until the Romans return to the Volscians all the conquered lands with cities and grant them civil equality, which was given to the Latins. Coriolanus gave them 30 days to discuss this proposal. After this last one, the Romans sent a new embassy to ask for more lenient terms. It returned with the same failure as the first, receiving a final 10-day reprieve. Then the city priests tried to appease the cruel man; the pontifexes, flamens and ephors in festive attire went to the enemy camp, asked and begged Coriolanus to retreat from there and then begin negotiations with the Romans about the affairs of the Scavens; but Marcius did not deviate from his first decision. Upon the return of the priests, the Romans decided to calmly remain in the city, limit themselves to guarding the walls and wait for help only from time and some random miracle, because no one could come up with another means of salvation. Women moved in sad crowds from one temple to another and prayed to the gods to eliminate the great disaster. Among them was Valeria, sister of Poplicola, who provided such services to the state. On the last day of this reprieve, she, along with other noble women, lay in the dust before the altar of Jupiter Capitoline and prayed; suddenly a happy thought flashed in her head. She got up, went with the rest of the women to Coriolanus’ mother Veturia and his wife Volumnia and asked them to go to Coriolanus and beg him to turn away from the city of the storm. Veturia and Volumnia - the latter holding the hand of her two sons - moved to the camp at the head of noble Roman women. Their appearance inspired respectful compassion in the enemy. When Coriolanus heard that his mother, wife and children were among those approaching the camp, he rushed to meet them with open arms and hugged and kissed them with tears. The reproaches and pleas of his beloved mother, the silent crying of respectable women, the sight of kneeling children and his wife - all this finally crushed the harsh stubbornness of the vengeful man. “Mother,” he exclaimed, “what have you done to me! I obey you, you have defeated me; but I will never return to Rome again. Preserve the fatherland in my place, since you have made a choice between Rome and your son.” Then, after talking again privately with his mother and wife, he released them and, as soon as it was dawn, led his army on the return journey.
Among the Volscians, Coriolanus lived to a very old age and, as they say, often complained that for an old man exile was a great disaster. According to other, less reliable legends, the Volscians killed him in indignation that he had taken them away from Rome, which they already looked at as sure prey.
In gratitude to the women for saving the city, the Roman Senate decided to build a temple in honor of the goddess - the patroness of women (fortuna muliebris).
The stories of Roman historians about Coriolanus differ from each other in many points, so that from this circumstance, in addition to the whole nature of the stories, it should be concluded that these stories are drawn not from modern sources, but from legendary legends, inaccuracies and improbabilities discovered by new logic in the history of Coriolanus , we will mention only a few here. The conquest of the city of Corioli by the Romans is very doubtful, since the oldest tradition says nothing about the Roman campaign against the Volscians in that year. The dominion of the Volscians at that time did not extend to the area where Corioli was located, and this city is listed among the Latin cities in the treaty of Cassius, which was concluded in the same 493. Therefore, Coriolanus could not receive this nickname thanks to the feat during the capture of Corioli; Moreover, in the first centuries the public was not in the habit of receiving nicknames (nomina) after the names of conquered cities or won battles. Nicknames named after cities, but not given for successful military exploits, were often encountered in other cases; such, for example, are Collatinus, Camerinus, Medullinus, etc. Coriolanus was such a nickname, and on the basis of it they invented a feat for the person to whom it belonged, supposedly accomplished under Corioli. It is incredible that, given the national reverence of the peoples at that time, their aversion to everything foreign, Coriolanus, as a foreigner, could become the commander of the Volscians; it is incredible that they obeyed this stranger unquestioningly when he led them back from Rome. The indicated number of cities conquered during this short campaign seems very doubtful, since at that time a whole summer campaign was usually required to take at least one fortified city. It seems very likely that Niebuhr’s position is that Coriolanus, expelled by the Romans, was not the commander of the Volscians, but the leader of several detachments of the same expelled and fled Romans who strengthened their composition with adventurers greedy for prey - and that he and these warriors devastated Roman possessions and threatened even the capital, but retreated thanks to the prayers and tears of his mother. This seems to be the historical basis of the stories about Coriolanus. We have a similar example in the Sabine Appius Gerdonia, who in 460 BC, leading Roman exiles and slaves, attacked the Capitol and took possession of it. The legend did not indicate exactly what time Coriolanus fought at the head of his volunteers. But since, according to the entry in the spiritual books, the first sacrifice in the temple fortuna muliebris was made on December 1, 488. , and the temple of this goddess, according to legend, was founded in honor of the salvation of the city by women, then the retreat of Coriolanus from Rome was attributed to December 1 of the previous year. Niebuhr correctly found that the campaign of Coriolanus should be dated several decades later, to the time great war with the Volscians, when the Latin cities mentioned in the history of Coriolanus actually came under the power of the Volscians and Aequians and Rome itself was in danger. At this time, due to the fierce struggle of parties in Rome, the number of fugitives and exiles was, of course, very large. It may very well be that, under the leadership of Coriolanus, they acted together with the Volscians.
Translation by V. Alekseev
I. The ROMAN patrician house of Marcius counts among its members many famous people, by the way, Ancus Marcius, grandson of Numa, who inherited the throne after Tullus Hostilius. Publius and Quintus also belong to the family of Marcius, to whom Rome owes the construction of the aqueduct, which supplied it with an abundance of beautiful water, and then Censorinus, who was twice elected censor by the Roman people and then convinced them to accept the law he proposed,1 prohibiting anyone from holding this title twice.
Gaius Marcius, whose biography we offer, was raised by a widowed mother after the death of his father, and proved that orphanhood, despite the many troubles associated with it, does not prevent him from becoming an honest person and only bad people scold him and complain about the lack of supervision over them as the cause of his moral depravity. On the other hand, he also made it possible to be convinced of the validity of the opinion of those who think that the inclinations of the noble and kind in the absence of upbringing, together with the good, give a lot of bad, as well as fertile soil devoid of processing. His strong, powerful mind in all respects inspired him with a ardent and ardent desire for beauty; but his terrible temper and anger that knew no bounds made him a person with whom it was difficult for others to live in peace. They looked with surprise at his indifference to sensual pleasures and money, at his love of work, his, as they put it, moderation, justice and courage, and did not like his interference in state affairs because of his unpleasant disposition and oligarchic habits. Indeed, the highest benefit that a person receives from the Muses is that education and upbringing ennoble his character; thanks to them, his mind is accustomed to moderation and freed from excess.
In general, in Rome at that time, the most highly valued feats were those in war and on campaign. This is evident from the fact that the concepts of “virtue” and “courage” are expressed in Latin by the same word, and that a separate word for the concept of courage has become a general name for virtue.
II. MARCIUS loved military affairs most of all and already in early youth began to learn to wield weapons. Considering the acquired weapons useless for those who do not try to learn to master the natural, to skillfully handle the natural, he prepared his body for all kinds of struggle, as a result of which he ran excellently, and in fights and battles in war he discovered a strength that was impossible to cope with. Those who argued with him regarding firmness and courage and admitted defeat explained the reason for their failure by the irresistible strength of his body, capable of enduring any hardship.
III. AS A boy, he took part in the campaign for the first time, when the dethroned former Roman king, Tarquinius, after many battles and defeats, decided to experience happiness for the last time. Most of the Latins joined him; Many other Italian peoples flocked under his banner, who moved towards Rome not so much out of a desire to show kindness to the king, but out of fear and envy of the growing power of Rome with the goal of destroying it. In this battle, while his fate remained undecided, Marcius, fighting heroically in front of the dictator, noticed that one of the Romans had fallen. He did not leave him without help, but stood in front of him and, covering him, killed the attacking enemy soldier. When the victory was won, Marcius was one of the first to receive an oak wreath as a reward from the commander: according to the law, this wreath was given to those who saved their fellow citizen in the war. Perhaps oak is preferred out of respect for the Arcadians, called by the oracle “acorn eaters,” or because soldiers can quickly and easily find oak everywhere, or because an oak wreath, dedicated to Jupiter, the patron of cities, is considered a worthy reward for salvation citizen. Further, of all wild trees, oak bears the best fruit, and of all garden trees, the strongest. Not only were bread baked from its acorns, but it also provided honey for drinking; finally, he made it possible to eat the meat of animals and birds, delivering bird glue, one of the hunting tools.
According to legend, the Dioscuri also appeared in that battle. Immediately after the battle, they appeared on lathered horses in the forum and declared victory - at the place where they currently built a temple at the source. On this basis, the day of victory, the Ides of July, is dedicated to the Dioscuri.
IV. AWARDS and distinctions received by young people seem to have a different effect. If they are received too early, they extinguish in the souls of the superficially ambitious any thirst for glory, soon satisfy this thirst and produce satiety in them; but on persistent, courageous souls, rewards have an encouraging effect; they distinguish them from others and, like the wind, carry them towards what is considered beautiful. They think that they did not receive a reward, but they themselves gave a pledge, and they are ashamed to betray their glory and not declare themselves with even more similar deeds.
So it was with Marcius. He saw himself as a rival in courage in himself and, wanting to always surpass himself in exploits, added new deeds to his glorious deeds, and new booty to his previous spoils in war, as a result of which his previous bosses always argued with his new ones about rewards for him and tried to surpass regarding rewards to him one another. At that time, the Romans fought many wars, battles took place very often; but Marcius did not return from any of them without a wreath or some other reward. Other young people tried to show themselves brave out of a desire to become famous; he longed for fame to please his mother; so that she could hear him being praised, see him with a wreath on his head and, hugging him, cry with joy - that was the highest glory and greatest bliss in his eyes! Epaminondas, they say, was animated by the same feelings: he considered it his greatest happiness that his father and mother managed to see him as a commander during their lifetime and hear about the victory he won at Leuctra. But he had the enviable fate of seeing that both his father and his mother shared his joy, his successes, while Marcius had only one mother alive. He considered it his duty to show her the respect that he was obliged to show to his father. That is why he never tired of pleasing and honoring his Volumnia. He even married according to her desire and choice, and when he had already become a father, he still lived with his mother. V. HE MANAGED to acquire great fame and influence for himself through his exploits in the war, when the Senate, defending the rich, armed against itself the people, who considered themselves terribly oppressed by numerous oppressions from usurers. Those who had an average fortune lost everything by mortgaging it or through an auction; those who had nothing were dragged into prison, despite their numerous wounds and hardships to which they were subjected in campaigns for the fatherland, especially in the latter against the Sabines. At that time, the rich announced that their demands would be more moderate, and by decision of the Senate, the consul Manius Valerius had to guarantee this. The people fought heroically and defeated the enemy; but the moneylenders did not become any more lenient, while the Senate pretended to have forgotten the promise given to them and watched indifferently as they dragged debtors to prison or took them into bondage. The capital was worried; Dangerous gatherings gathered there. At this time, the enemies, who noticed disagreements among the people, invaded the Roman possessions and devastated them with fire and sword. The consuls called to the banner of all those capable of bearing arms; but no one responded to their call. Then the opinions of the magistrates were divided. Some advised to give in to the poor and apply the laws less strictly to them, others did not agree with them. Among the latter was Marcius. In his opinion, the main cause of the unrest was not monetary matters, but the insolence and impudence of the mob; therefore, he advised the senators, if they had any sense, to stop, to destroy attempts to break the laws at their very beginning.
VI. CONCERNING this, the Senate held several meetings in a short time, but did not make a final decision. Then the poor people suddenly gathered together and, advising one another not to lose heart, they left the city, and, occupying the present Sacred Mountain, camped on the banks of the Aniena River. They did not carry out any violence and did not raise the banner of rebellion - they only shouted that, in fact, the rich people had driven them out of the city long ago; that Italy would give them air, water and a place for a grave everywhere, and that, living in Rome, they received nothing else as a reward for fighting for the rich. Frightened by this, the Senate sent to them as ambassadors its eldest and most gentle in character and people-friendly members. Menenius Agrippa was the first to speak. He addressed the people with ardent requests, spoke a lot and boldly in defense of the Senate, and ended his speech with a well-known fable. One day, he said, all the members of the human body rebelled against the stomach. They accused him of the fact that he alone does nothing with his whole body, sits in it without any benefit, while others, to please his whims, work and work terribly. But the stomach laughed at their stupidity: they did not understand that even if all the food goes into it, it still gives it back and divides it among the other members. “This is what the Senate does towards you, citizens,” concluded Agrippa; plans and decisions originate in him, which he carries out with due care and which bring good and benefit to each of you.”
VII. HIS speech disposed the people towards peace. The people demanded from the Senate the right to elect five persons to protect helpless citizens, the current tribunes of the people, and achieved this right. The first tribunes elected were the leaders of the dissatisfied, Junius Brutus and Sicinius Bellut. When calm was restored in the city, the people immediately took up arms and willingly went on a campaign together with their commanders. Marcius personally was dissatisfied with the victory of the people and the concessions of the nobility and saw, in addition, that his opinion was shared by many other patricians, nevertheless he advised them not to yield to the people in the war for the fatherland and to distinguish themselves before the people more by their valor than by their influence. VIII. AT THIS TIME the Romans were at war with the Volscians. Of their cities, Corioli enjoyed greater fame than others. When the troops of the consul Cominius surrounded him, the rest of the Volscians, in fear, went from everywhere to his rescue in order to fight under the walls of the city and attack the Romans from both sides. Cominius divided his army - he himself moved against the Volscians, who wanted to force him to lift the siege, and entrusted the latter to the bravest of the Romans, Titus Larcius. The Coriolanians, disdainful of the remaining enemy troops, made a sortie. In the battle, they first managed to defeat the Romans and force them to take refuge in the camp; but Marcius ran out from there with a group of soldiers, killed the first enemies he came across, stopped the advance of others and began in a loud voice to call the Romans to take part in the battle a second time. He had everything that Cato demands from a soldier - not only a hand that dealt heavy blows, but and a loud voice and gaze that terrified the enemy, causing him to flee. When soldiers began to gather around him and there were many of them, the enemies, in fear, began to retreat. This was not enough for Marcius - he began to pursue them and drove them, already in wild flight, all the way to the city gates. Noticing that the Romans had stopped pursuing - arrows were raining down on them from the walls, but the bold idea of breaking into a city filled with enemy troops with the fugitives could not occur to anyone - Marcius himself stopped and began to call the Romans, encouraged them and shouted that, by good fortune, the gates of the city were opened rather to the pursuers than to the fugitives. Only a few decided to follow him. He fought his way through the crowds of enemies, rushed to the gates and burst into the city along with the fugitives. At first he met no resistance anywhere: no one dared to come forward to meet him; but when the enemies then noticed that there were very few Romans in the city, they ran together and entered into battle. Both the Romans and the enemies were mixed up. It was then that Marcius, they say, showed miracles of courage in a battle in the city itself - in this battle they recognized his strong arm, quick feet and brave soul: he defeated everyone he attacked. He drove some opponents to the most remote parts of the city, forced others to surrender, lay down their arms, and thus gave Lartius the full opportunity to bring the Roman troops who were in the camp into the city.
IX. THUS the city was taken. Almost all the soldiers rushed to rob, looking for expensive things. Marcius was indignant and shouted that, in his opinion, it was base for soldiers to walk around the city, collecting valuables, or to hide from danger under the pretext of profit, at a time when the consul with his army perhaps met the enemy and entered into battle with him. battle. Few listened to him, so he took with him those who wanted to follow him, and set off along the road along which, as he noticed, the army had set out. He either encouraged his soldiers and advised them not to lose heart, or prayed to the gods so that he would not be late, come at a time when the battle was not yet over, and take part in the battle, sharing the dangers with his fellow citizens.
At that time, the Romans had a custom - after lining up in ranks before battle and picking up a toga, they made oral wills, appointing an heir for themselves, in the presence of three or four witnesses. Marcius found the soldiers doing this, already standing in sight of the enemy. At first some were frightened when they saw him covered in blood and sweat, accompanied by a small group of soldiers; but when he ran up to the consul, extended his hand to him in delight and announced the capture of the city, Cominius hugged and kissed him. Both those who learned about what had happened and those who guessed about it were equally encouraged and shouted and demanded to be led into battle. Marcius asked Cominius what position the enemy was occupying and where his best troops were stationed. He replied that, if he was not mistaken, the best troops consisted of the Antians, located in the center and inferior to no one in courage. “I ask you,” said Marcius, “grant my desire, put me against these soldiers.” Surprised by his courage, the consul fulfilled his request. At the very beginning of the battle, Marcius rushed forward; the first ranks of the Volscians wavered. The part of the army that he attacked was immediately defeated. But the enemy flanks made a turn and began to go around him. Fearing for him, the consul sent his best soldiers to help him. A fierce battle raged around Marcius. In a short time, both sides suffered heavy losses. The Romans, however, continued to move forward, pressed the enemy, finally defeated him and, during the pursuit, asked Marcius, exhausted from fatigue and wounds, to retire to the camp. He remarked to them that the victors should not know fatigue, and chased after the fugitives. The rest of the enemy army was also defeated. There were many killed and many captured.
X. WHEN Larcius arrived the next day, the consul, in view of the army gathered together, ascended the eminence and, having rendered due gratitude to the gods for the brilliant victory, addressed Marcius. First of all, he warmly praised him, he saw some of his exploits personally, heard about others from Lartius - then he ordered him to choose a tenth of the mass of valuable things, horses and prisoners, before the general division of all this. In addition, he gave him a horse in full harness as a reward. The Romans accepted his words with delight. Then Marcius stepped forward and said that he accepted the horse and was glad to hear the consul’s praises, but, considering the rest as payment and not as reward, he refused it and would be content with a share equal to the others. “I want one favor from you and I urgently ask for it,” continued Marcius, turning to the consul; I have an acquaintance and friend among the Volscians, a kind and honest man. Now he is in captivity and from a happy rich man has become a slave. A lot of grief has accumulated over his head, we need to save him from at least one thing - being sold.” Marcius' words were met with even louder shouts of approval. Most were surprised more at his selflessness than at his courage in battle. Even those who were jealous of his brilliant award and who wanted to act as his rivals agreed then that he deserved a big reward for refusing to take a big one, and they were more surprised by his moral qualities, which forced him to refuse a huge sum, than by what he deserved it. Indeed, it is more honorable to use wealth wisely than to know how to wield weapons, although the ability to use wealth is lower than refusing it.
XI. WHEN the crowd stopped shouting and making noise, Cominius demanded to speak. “Brothers in arms,” he said, “you cannot force a person to accept an award if he does not accept it and does not want to accept it. Let us give him a reward that he cannot refuse to accept - let him be called Coriolanus, unless his exploits gave him this nickname before us.” Since then, Marcius began to be called by a third name - Coriolanus. From this it is absolutely clear that his personal name was Gaius, his second generic name was Marcius. The third name was not given immediately, and it had to resemble a feat, happiness, appearance or moral qualities. Thus, the Greeks gave the nicknames Soter or Callinicus in memory of any exploits, for appearance - Fiscon or Gripus, moral qualities - Euergetes or Philadelphus, the happiness of Eudaimon, the nickname that Battus II bore. Some of the kings received nicknames even in mockery - Antigonus Doson and Ptolemy Latyr. Nicknames of this kind were even more common among the Romans. One of Metellus was named Diadematus because the wounded man walked for a long time with a bandage on his head, another Celerus because, just a few days after the death of his father, he managed to give gladiatorial games in honor of the deceased, surprising him with the speed and haste with which he knew how to arrange them . Some Romans are still given nicknames, depending on when they were born - to the son born during his father's departure - Proclus, after his death - Postumus. One of the twins, who survived his brother, is called Vopisk. In the same way, nicknames are given for physical defects, and, moreover, not only such as Sulla, H games or Rufus, but also Caecus or Clodius. The Romans do well, teaching people not to be ashamed or to mock blindness or other physical defects, but to see them as nothing more than distinctive signs. However, this issue is dealt with in a different kind of writing.
XII. WHEN the war ended, the people's leaders began to stir up unrest again. They had no new reason or just basis for this; they only charged the patricians with those misfortunes that were the necessary consequence of their previous discord and unrest. Almost all the fields remained unsown and unharvested, meanwhile the war did not allow stocking up of grain from abroad. The need for bread was very great, so the leaders, seeing that there was none, and even if there was, the people had nothing to buy it with, began to spread slander about the rich, as if they had caused this famine out of their hatred of the people.
At this time, ambassadors arrived from Velitre, who wanted to annex their city to the Roman possessions and asked to give them colonists: the plague that they had was so devastating, it killed so many people that barely a tenth of the entire population remained. Smart people they thought that the request of the Velitrians and their desire could not be more opportune - due to the lack of bread, the republic needed a kind of relief - at the same time, they hoped for an end to disagreements if the city was freed from the extremely restless crowd, which, together with its leaders, was disturbing the order of the crowd, as from something harmful, dangerous. The consuls added the names of such persons to the list and intended to send them as colonists, others were appointed to the ranks of the army that was to go on a campaign against the Volscians - wanting to stop the unrest within the state in the hope that, serving in the same army and being in the same camp, the poor and the rich, the plebeians and the patricians will no longer treat each other with the same hatred, they will begin to live in greater harmony.
XIII. HOWEVER, the popular leaders Sicinius and Brutus rebelled against their plan. They shouted that the consuls wanted to call the beautiful name “relocation” to highest degree heartless act; that they push the poor, as it were, into an abyss, sending them to a city where the plague rages and unburied corpses lie in heaps - so that they live there, subject to the vengeance of a foreign deity; that it is not enough for them that they starve some of the citizens and send others to be sacrificed to the plague - they begin to at will war; let the citizens experience all the misfortunes for not wanting to go into bondage to the rich!.. Impressed by their words, the people refused to become soldiers when the consuls announced recruitment, and did not want to hear about resettlement.
The Senate did not know what to do; Marcius, at that time already arrogant, self-confident, respected by the most influential of the citizens, was the most ardent opponent of the mob. Those who were destined to go as colonists were nevertheless sent away under pain of severe punishment, but others resolutely refused to go on the campaign. Then Marcius took with him his clients and other citizens - those whom he managed to win over to his side, and raided the possessions of the Antians. He captured a lot of grain, took huge booty from livestock and people, but left nothing for himself and returned to Rome, and his soldiers carried and carried many different kinds of things, as a result of which others repented and envied the soldiers who had become rich, but were embittered against Marcius and are dissatisfied with the fact that he enjoyed fame and influence, which, in the opinion of the dissatisfied, was increasing to the detriment of the people.
XIV. SOON Marcius emerged as a candidate for a consular post. The majority were on his side. The people were ashamed to offend a man who stood out among others for his origin and courage, to offend him when he had rendered so many important services to the state. At that time, it was not customary for candidates for a consular position to ask for the assistance of citizens, take them by the hand, walking around the forum in one toga, without a tunic, in order, perhaps, to win their modest appearance in favor of fulfilling their request, or in order to show their scars as a sign of their courage - who had them. The Romans wanted the petitioners to go without a belt and tunic not because, of course, they suspected them of distributing money to bribe voters - this kind of buying and selling appeared later, after for a long time; then only money began to play a role in voting in the People's Assembly. From here, bribery spread to the courts and the army and led the state to autocracy: money enslaved weapons. Someone quite rightly said that the first person to take away the people’s freedom was the man who presented the people with food and distributed gifts. Probably, in Rome this evil spread secretly, gradually, and was not discovered immediately. I don’t know who set the example of bribing the people or the judges in Rome, but in Athens the first to bribe the judges, they say, was Anthemion’s son, Anytus, who was put on trial for treason because of Pylos at the end of the Peloponnesian War, when in the Roman Forum there was still a golden age of morality.
XV. BUT MARCIUS could, of course, show his many wounds, received by him in many battles, where he showed himself at his best, participating in campaigns for seventeen years in a row, and the citizens, out of respect for his courage, gave each other their word to elect him consul . On the day appointed for voting, Marcius solemnly appeared at the forum, accompanied by senators. All the patricians around him clearly showed that no candidate was as pleasant to them as he was. But this is what deprived Marcius of the favor of the people, which was replaced by hatred and envy. They were joined by another new feeling - fear that an ardent supporter of the aristocracy, deeply respected by the patricians, having become consul, could completely deprive the people of their freedom. On this basis, Marcius failed in the elections.
Other candidates were elected. The Senate was unhappy; he considered himself more insulted than Marcius. The latter was no less annoyed. He could not take what had happened calmly. He gave full vent to his anger because of his offended pride, since he saw this as a sign of greatness and nobility. Firmness and friendliness, the main qualities of a statesman, were not instilled in him by education and upbringing. He did not know that a person who wants to act as a statesman must most of all avoid conceit, “the inseparable companion of solitude,” as Plato calls it - he will have to deal with people, and he must be patient, although some laugh cruelly over such a character. But Marcius never betrayed his straightforward, stubborn character: to overcome, to completely defeat everyone - he did not know that this was evidence not of courage, but of weakness, for rage, like a tumor, is generated by a sick, suffering part of the soul. Full of embarrassment and hatred of the people, he retired from the People's Assembly. The young patricians, the entire proud aristocracy, who always ardently held his side, did not leave him at that time, remained with him and, to his detriment, aroused his anger even more, sharing with him sorrow and grief. On campaigns he was their leader and kind mentor; in military affairs - he knew how to arouse in them competition in glory, without envying each other.
XVI. AT THIS TIME bread was brought to Rome; A lot of it was bought in Italy, but no less was sent as a gift by the Syracusan tyrant Gelon. Most citizens flattered themselves with the hope that, along with the supply of grain, internal disagreements in the republic would cease. The Senate immediately assembled for a meeting. The people surrounded the Senate building and waited for the end of the meeting, hoping that bread would be sold at a cheap price, but that received as a gift would be given away for nothing. Some of the senators thought so too. Then Marcius rose from his seat. He made a thunderous speech against those who wanted to do something to please the people - he called them self-interested traitors to the aristocracy; said that they themselves grew the bad seeds of impudence and insolence that they had sown among the people, while prudence demanded that they be destroyed at the very beginning, and not allow the people to have such strong power in their hands; that he is terrible for one reason only: that all his demands are fulfilled; that he does not do anything against his will, does not listen to the consuls, but says that he has his own bosses - the leaders of the leaderless! He said that if the Senate decides to distribute and divide bread at a meeting, as happens in the Greek states, with their extreme democracy, he will thereby indulge the rebellious people to the common destruction. “Then,” he continued, “the people will not say that they thanked him for the campaigns in which he refused to take part, for the indignation when he betrayed his fatherland, for slander towards the senators - they will think that we are conceding to him from fear, we make him leniency, indulgences, out of a desire to curry favor with him. He will not stop being disobedient, he will not live in harmony, calmly. To do this is completely stupid, on the contrary, if we have any intelligence, we must abolish the office of tribunes, which threatens the destruction of the consulate, creates discord in the republic, which no longer forms one whole, as before, but is divided into parts, which does not allow us to unite , neither think alike, nor recover from our illness, from our mutual enmity.”
XVII. Marcia's LONG speech conveyed the same strong inspiration to the young senators and to almost all the rich. They shouted that the only person in the republic, invincible and free from flattery, was him. Some of the older senators objected to him, fearing the consequences. Indeed, nothing good came of it. The tribunes present at the meeting, seeing that the opinion of Marcius prevailed, ran out to the people shouting and began to ask the mob to gather and help them. A noisy People's Assembly took place. The tribunes conveyed to him the contents of Marcius's speech. The irritated people almost broke into the Senate meeting. But the tribunes accused Marcius alone and sent ministers after him so that he could justify himself; but he lost his temper and drove them away. Then the tribunes appeared along with the aediles to take it by force. They had already grabbed him; but the patricians surrounded him and drove out the tribunes, and even beat the aediles.
The coming evening put an end to the riots. Early in the morning a terrible excitement began among the people. Seeing that it was flocking from everywhere, the consuls, fearing for the fate of the city, convened a meeting of the Senate and invited it to decide with what benevolent speeches and mild decrees it would be possible to establish peace and tranquility among the masses. They said that at the present moment it was not the time to show their ambition or argue about honors - matters were in a dangerous, aggravated situation; An intelligent and lenient government is needed. The majority agreed with them. Then the consuls appeared at the National Assembly and addressed the people with a speech that was most necessary. They tried to calm him down, politely rejected the slander leveled against them, without going beyond the boundaries of moderation, advised him to improve, condemned his behavior and assured that regarding the price of the sale of grain, the Senate would act together with the people.
XVIII. The PEOPLE, with few exceptions, agreed with them. The order and silence with which he behaved clearly proved that he was listening to them, sharing their opinion, and was calming down. But then the tribunes intervened in the matter. They announced that the people would obey the smart decisions of the Senate in everything that could be useful, but they demanded Marcius to justify his actions: did he excite the senators and refuse to appear at the invitation of the tribunes not in order to create unrest in the state and destroy democracy? Having rained down blows and abuse on the aediles, he wanted to kindle, as far as it depended on him, an internecine war, to force the citizens to take up arms... Their speech was intended to humiliate Marcius if he began, in contrast to his proud character, to flatter the people, or, when he remained true to his character, to arm the people against him to the last degree - which is what they most counted on, having studied him perfectly.
The accused appeared as if to justify himself. The people fell silent; Silence reigned. They expected Marcius to beg for forgiveness, but he began to speak, not only without any embarrassment, but also accused the people more than his frankness allowed, and with his voice and appearance showed courage bordering on contempt and disdain. The people became furious and clearly showed their displeasure and irritation as a result of his speeches. The most daring of the tribunes, Sicinius, after consulting a little with his comrades in office, then loudly announced that the tribunes were pronouncing the death sentence on Marcius, and ordered the aediles to lead him to the top of the Tarpeian rock and from there immediately throw him into the abyss. The Aediles seized him; but even to the people the act of the tribunes seemed something terrible and impudent; as for the patricians, they, in frenzy and rage, rushed to Marcius’ cry for help. Some pushed those who wanted to take him and surrounded him, others stretched out their hands in supplication to the people. Speeches and individual words were lost in such terrible chaos and noise. Finally, the friends and relatives of the tribunes, convinced that Marcius could be taken away and punished only by killing many patricians, advised the tribunes to cancel the unusual punishment for the defendant, to mitigate it, not to kill him by force, without trial, but to subject him to the trial of the people. After this, Sicinius rose and asked the patricians why they were taking Marcius away from the people who wanted to punish him. In turn, the latter asked them: “Why and why do you want to punish without trial in the most cruel and lawless manner one of the first people in Rome?” “Do not consider this a pretext for your disagreement and enmity with the people: they will fulfill your demand, the accused will be judged,” answered Sicinius. - We order you, Marcius, to appear on the third market day and convince the citizens of your innocence. They will be your judges."
XIX. NOW the patricians were pleased with the decision and dispersed cheerfully, taking Marcius with them. In the period of time before the third market day - the Romans have a market every ninth day, which is called “Nundines” - a campaign against the Antians was announced, which gave the patricians hope of postponing the trial. They hoped that the war would drag on, would be long, and during this time the people would become softer; his anger will subside or completely cease amid concerns regarding the conduct of the war. But peace was soon concluded with the Antians, and the troops returned home. Then the patricians began to gather often: they were afraid and consulted how not to betray Marcius to them into the hands of the people, on the other hand, not to give the leaders a reason to outrage the people. The sworn enemy of the plebeians, Appius Claudius, gave a strong speech, where he said that the patricians would destroy the Senate and completely destroy the state if they allowed the people to have an advantage over them in voting. But the older senators, who were distinguished by their commitment to the people, said, on the contrary, that, as a result of concessions, the people would not be rude and harsh, but, on the contrary, affectionate and soft; that he does not despise the Senate, but thinks that the latter despises him, therefore he will consider the upcoming trial as an honor being done to him, will find consolation in it, and that his irritation will cease as soon as the voting stones are in his hands.
XX. Seeing that the Senate was wavering between favor towards him and fear of the people, Marcius asked the tribunes what they accused him of and for what crime they were bringing him to trial by the people. When they replied that they accused him of striving for tyranny and would prove that he was thinking of becoming a tyrant, he quickly stood up and said that now he himself would appear before the people to justify himself, would not refuse any trial and, if proven guilty, will be ready to undergo any punishment. “Just don’t try to change the charge and deceive the Senate!” - he said. They promised, and on these terms the trial opened.
When the people gathered, the tribunes began by voting not by centuries, but by tribes, so that the poor: restless, indifferent to justice and goodness, the mob would have an advantage in voting over the rich, respected and obligated citizens to perform military service. Then, abandoning the accusation of the defendant's desire for tyranny as unfounded, they again began to recall what Marcius had previously spoken in the Senate, preventing the cheap sale of grain and advising the abolition of the title of tribune of the people. The tribunes also came up with a newer accusation - they accused him of having mismanaged the booty taken in the region of Antia - not bringing it into the state treasury, but dividing it among the participants in the campaign. This accusation, they say, confused Marcius most of all: he was not prepared, he could not answer the people immediately and properly. He began to praise the participants in the campaign, as a result of which those who did not take part in the war, and there were more of them, began to make noise. Finally, the tribes began to vote. A majority of three votes resulted in a guilty verdict. He was condemned to eternal exile.
After the announcement of the verdict, the people dispersed with such pride, with such joy that they had never been proud, even after victory over the enemies; but the Senate was in grief and deep sorrow. He repented and regretted that he had not taken all measures, had not experienced everything before allowing the people to abuse him and give such power into his hands. At that time there was no need to distinguish citizens by clothing or other distinctive features: it was immediately clear that the cheerful plebeian, the sad one was a patrician.
XXI. ONE Marcius was firm, did not bow his head; neither in his appearance, nor in his gait, nor in his face was there any sign of excitement. Among all those who regretted him, he was the only one who did not regret himself. But this did not happen because he was in control of reason, or because he had a meek heart, not because he patiently endured what happened - he was terribly angry and enraged; it was what constitutes real suffering that most do not understand. When it turns into anger, then, having burned out, it becomes something solid and active. That is why angry people seem active, like someone with a fever - burning: his soul is boiling, excited, in tension.
Marcius immediately proved his state of mind by his actions. Arriving home, he kissed his mother and wife, who were crying loudly, advised them to bear what had happened cheerfully, and immediately left and headed to the city gates. Almost all the patricians accompanied him to them; he himself did not take or ask for anything; he left, accompanied by three or four of his clients. He spent several days alone on his estates. He was worried about many thoughts inspired by his irritation. There was nothing good in them, nothing honest: they were aimed at one thing - he wanted to mark the Romans and decided to involve them in a difficult war with one of their neighbors. Marcius decided to try his luck first with the Volscians, knowing that they were rich in men and money, and hoping that previous defeats had not so much reduced their strength as increased their desire to enter into a new struggle with the Romans and hatred of them.
XXII. IN THE CITY OF ANTIIA lived Tullus Amphidius, a Volscian, who, due to his wealth, courage and noble origin, became king. It was no secret to Marcius that he hated him more than any other Roman. Once in battle, showering threats and challenging each other, they boasted of their rivalry, as is usually the case with warlike, ambitious and proud young people. The general enmity of the Romans with the Volscians was joined by a personal one. Despite this, Marcius saw a certain kind of nobility in Tulla and knew that none of the Volscians would wish harm to the Romans as ardently as he did at the first opportunity. Marcius confirmed the validity of the opinion that “it is difficult to fight anger: it pays for passion with its life.” He put on clothes and took on an appearance under which he could least of all be recognized, even if he was seen, and as Odysseus entered the “city of a hostile people.”
XXIII. It was evening. He met many; but no one recognized him. He went to Tullus's house and, entering, sat down immediately by the fireplace, with his head covered, without saying a word. Those in the house looked at him with surprise, but they did not dare to force him to get up - there was something majestic in his appearance, as in his silence. This strange incident was told to Tull, who was having dinner at that time. He stood up, approached the stranger and asked who he was, where he came from and what he needed? Then Marcius opened his head and, after a short silence, said: “If you do not recognize me, Tullus, and, seeing me in front of you, do not believe your eyes, then I myself have to be my own accuser. I am Gaius Marcius, who did much harm to the Volscians and bears the nickname of Coriolanus, a nickname that I cannot renounce. For my many labors and dangers I have acquired nothing except a name that speaks of my enmity towards you. It remained not taken away from me, but I lost everything else due to the envy and arrogance of the people and the spinelessness and treason of the magistrates, the title of my equals. I am exiled and, as one begging for protection, I resort to your home altar, not because I was concerned about my personal safety or salvation - why should I come here if I am afraid of death? - no, I want to celebrate those who expelled me and have already celebrated them by making you the master of my life. If you are not afraid to attack the enemy, take advantage, noble friend, from my misfortune, make my grief a blessing for all the Volscians. I will wage war for you more successfully than against you, just as those who know the position of the enemy fight more successfully than those who do not know it. But if you don’t accept my advice, I don’t want to live, and you shouldn’t save your former enemy and enemy, now a useless, unnecessary person.” When Tull heard his proposal, he was extremely happy, gave him his hand and said: “Get up, Marcius, and take courage - it is a great happiness for us that you have come over to our side. But wait, you will see even more from the Volscians.” Then he cordially treated Marcius. In the following days they consulted with each other regarding the campaign.
XXIV. AT THIS TIME, Rome was worried due to the hostile attitude of the patricians towards the people, mainly due to the verdict over Marcius. Fortune tellers, priests and private individuals spoke of many omens that deserved attention. One of them, they say, was of the following kind. Titus Latinius, who did not occupy a particularly brilliant position, yet was a peaceful, honest and not at all superstitious and even less vain man, saw in a dream that Jupiter appeared to him and ordered him to tell the senators that ahead of the procession in his honor, Jupiter, they had sent a crappy, an extremely indecent dancer. Titus, he said, did not pay any attention to this at first. The dream was repeated a second and third time; but he treated him just as casually. Then he lost his beautiful son, and he himself felt that the members of his body suddenly became so weak that he could not control them. He announced this in the Senate, where he was brought on a stretcher. They say that when he finished his story, he immediately felt that his strength was returning, got up and walked by himself. Surprised senators ordered a thorough investigation into this matter. The case was as follows. Someone gave his slave to other slaves, with orders to drive him, scourging, through the forum and then kill him. Carrying out his orders, they began to beat him. In pain, he began to squirm and, in agony, made all sorts of indecent movements. By chance a religious procession was moving behind. Many of the participants were unhappy seeing this painful scene; but no one moved from words to deeds - everyone limited themselves to scolding and cursing the person who ordered to punish another so cruelly. The fact is that then the slaves were treated extremely gently - the owners themselves worked and lived together with the slaves, so they treated them less strictly, more leniently. It was considered a great punishment for a guilty slave if he was forced to put a wooden slingshot around his neck, which is used to support the drawbar of a cart, and walk around with his neighbors with it - no one had confidence in the one who suffered this kind of punishment in front of others. His name was "f_u_rtsifer" - "furca" in Latin means "prop" or "fork".
XXV. WHEN Latinius spoke about the dream he had seen, the senators could not understand who the “indecent and vile dancer” was who was walking at the time in front of the procession. But some remembered the punishment of a slave, due to his strangeness, a slave who was driven, scourged, through the forum and then killed. The priests also agreed with their opinion, as a result of which the slave’s owner was punished, and the solemn procession and games in honor of the deity were repeated.
Numa, who was distinguished for his wise orders of a religious nature in general, gave, among other things, the following order, which deserves full praise and disposes others to be attentive. When magistrates or priests perform any ritual, the herald goes ahead and shouts in a loud voice: “Hok age!”, i.e. “Do this!”, ordering to pay attention to the religious ceremony, not to interrupt it with any extraneous matter or occupation - people do almost all work in most cases out of necessity, reluctantly. The Romans usually repeat sacrifices, solemn processions and games, not only because of such an important reason as the one mentioned above, but also because of an insignificant one. When one day one of the horses carrying the tensa stumbled, and the driver took the reins in his left hand, it was decided to repeat the procession. Later there was a case where one sacrifice was started thirty times - each time some flaw or error was found. Such is the reverence of the Romans for the gods!
XXVI. MARCIUS and Tullus had secret conferences in Antia with the most influential citizens and incited them to start a war, until the hostility of the parties had not ceased in Rome. They were refused on the grounds that a peace treaty had been concluded with the Romans for a period of two years. But at this time the latter themselves gave reason to consider it invalid: either as a result of some suspicions or slander, only they ordered, during the solemn public games, all the Volscians to leave Rome before sunset. Some say that this was due to a trick, the cunning of Marcius, who sent a messenger to Rome to the magistrates with false news that the Volscians intended to attack the capital and burn it during the celebration of the games. The order to expel the Volscians further armed them all against the Romans. Tull, fanning the insult and inflaming passions, finally achieved that ambassadors were sent to Rome to demand the return of the lands and cities ceded by the Volscians at the end of the war. After listening to the ambassadors, the Romans were outraged and gave the following answer: the Volscians will be the first to take up arms, the Romans will be the last to put them down. Then Tull convened a large National Assembly, where it was decided to start a war. Then he began to advise inviting Marcius, forgiving him of his previous guilt, and trusting him: he would bring more benefit as an ally than he brought harm as an enemy.
XXVII. MARTIUS came to the invitation and in his speech to the people showed that he knew how to use words no worse than weapons, and was as warlike as he was smart and brave, so he was appointed chief commander of the army together with Tullus. Fearing that the Volscian preparations for war would drag on and the opportune moment to act would be missed, he ordered the most influential citizens and city authorities to transport and stock up on everything necessary, and without waiting for the recruitment of troops, he persuaded volunteers, quite brave people, to follow him, and invaded into Roman possessions suddenly, when no one expected him. He collected such booty that the Volsky soldiers could neither carry it away nor carry it away. But this rich booty, the terrible harm and devastation caused by Marcius to the land, were still the most insignificant consequences of this campaign: the main objective his goal was to discredit the patricians in the eyes of the people. That is why Marcius, devastating everything, sparing nothing, strictly forbade touching their estates, did not allow them to be harmed or take anything away from them. This gave new food to suspicions and mutual disagreements. The patricians accused the people of undeservedly expelling such a powerful man; the people reproached the patricians for sending Marcius out of malice against the plebeians; that while others fight, the patricians sit as calm spectators; that the war with external enemies was undertaken in order to guard their wealth and fortune. The successes of Marcius brought great benefit to the Volscians - they instilled in them courage and contempt for their enemies. He then retreated happily.
XXVIII. SOON all the Volsk troops gathered. They willingly went on a campaign and were so numerous that it was decided that some of them would remain to guard the cities, and some would go on a campaign against the Romans. Marcius gave Tullus the right to command one of the units by choice. Tull said that in his eyes Marcius was in no way inferior to him in bravery and that in all battles luck had been more favorable to him, so he offered to take command of the army assigned to invade the enemy's borders, while he himself remained to guard the cities and supply the soldiers with everything they needed.
When reinforcements came to Marcius, he moved first of all against the Roman colony of Circe, and, taking it without resistance, did no harm to it, then began to devastate Latium, hoping that the Romans would give him battle, since the Latins, who had sent to them asking for help were their allies. The people, however, did not pay attention to this; the consuls had little time left before leaving office, and during this time they did not want to be exposed to danger, so the Latin ambassadors returned with nothing. Marcius turned to the Latin cities themselves - he took Tolerium, Labiki, Ped and Bolu by storm, which offered resistance to him. Their inhabitants were sold into slavery; cities were plundered. But if the city surrendered voluntarily, he made great efforts to ensure that no harm was done to the inhabitants without his desire, therefore he camped at a far distance from the city, bypassing their possessions.
XXIX. UPON THE CAPTURE of Bovillus, a city located no more than a hundred stadia from Rome, he ordered the killing of almost everyone capable of bearing arms, and a huge booty fell into his hands. Then the Volcan troops, which were supposed to occupy garrisons in the cities, could not stand it and moved with arms in their hands to join Marcius, saying that they recognized him as their only leader and only commander in chief. Since then, the fame of his name has spread throughout all parts of Italy. They were surprised at the courage of one man, when he went over to the side of his former enemies, things took a completely different turn.
The Romans were in turmoil. They were afraid to give battle; The parties quarreled with each other every day. Finally, news was received that the enemies had besieged Lavinium, where the Romans had temples of their native gods and where the beginning of their nationality was: after all, Aeneas founded the city. This news produced an amazing change in the mood of the masses, in the thoughts of the patricians - completely incredible and unexpected: the people wanted to cancel the sentence against Marcius and call him to the city, the Senate, discussing the proposal in one of the meetings, rejected it and did not allow it to be carried out . Perhaps, out of pride, he wanted to act in everything generally against the will of the people, or he did not want Marcius to return by the grace of the people, or he was irritated against him because he did evil to everyone, although not everyone did evil to him; because he declared himself an enemy of the fatherland, where, as he knew, the best and most influential part of the citizens sympathized with him and shared with him the insult inflicted on him. The decision of the Senate was announced to the people. Meanwhile, the people could not approve anything by vote or by law without the prior consent of the Senate.
XXX. HAVING learned about this, Marcius was even more indignant. He lifted the siege of a small city, in irritation moved towards the capital and camped forty furlongs from the city, near the Cleliian ditches. His appearance brought with it fear and terrible confusion, but immediately stopped mutual hostility - none of the highest magistrates or senators dared to contradict the people’s proposal to return Marcius from exile. Seeing, on the contrary, women running around the city; that old people, with tears, go to churches, begging for help; that everyone lost heart; that no one could give saving advice - everyone admitted that the people’s proposal to reconcile with Marcius was prudent and that, on the contrary, the Senate made a grave mistake by remembering the old evil when it should have been forgotten. It was decided to send ambassadors to Marcius, invite him to return to his fatherland and ask him to end the war with the Romans. The Senate ambassadors were close relatives of Marcius. They expected a warm welcome, especially at the first meeting, from their friend and relative. They were wrong. They were led through the enemy camp to Marcius, who sat with a proud look and an arrogance that had no example. He was surrounded by the most noble Volscians. He asked the ambassadors what they needed. They spoke politely and kindly, as they should in their position. When they finished, he personally recalled in response with bitterness and irritation the insults inflicted on him, and on behalf of the Volscians he demanded as a commander that the Romans return the cities and lands they had conquered to the Volscians and give them civil rights on a par with the Latins - the war, in his opinion, could end only if peace was concluded on equal, fair terms for each side. He gave them a thirty-day period to answer. After the departure of the ambassadors, he immediately cleared the Roman possessions.
XXXI. THIS was the main reason for his accusation by some of the Volscians, who had long been burdened by his influence and envied him. Among them was Tullus, who was not personally offended by Marcius in any way, but was influenced by human passions. He was angry with him because, thanks to Marcius, his glory had been completely eclipsed, and the Volscians began to treat him with contempt. Maraki was everything to them; as for the other commanders, they had to be content with the part of the power and leadership allocated to them. This was the first reason for the secret accusations spread about him. Gathering in circles, the Volscians were indignant, considering his retreat a betrayal: he missed not fortifications or weapons, but a convenient time, on which, as in everything else, either the success of the battle or failure depends; It was not for nothing that he gave the Romans a thirty-day period: in less time during the war, important changes could not occur. Marcius managed to take advantage of this time. He entered the possessions of the enemy's allies, plundered and devastated them; Among other things, seven large and populated cities fell into his hands. The Romans did not dare to give them help - a feeling of fear gripped their hearts; they just as wanted to go to war as a frail and stagnant person.
When the time had passed, Marcius returned again with all the troops. The Romans sent a new embassy to Marcius with a plea for mercy and a request to withdraw the Volscian troops from Roman possessions and then begin to do and say what he considered beneficial for both sides. They said that under threat the Romans would not concede anything; but if he wants to extract any benefit for the Volscians, the Romans will agree to everything as soon as the enemy disarms. Marcius replied that, as the commander of the Volscians, he could not say anything to them, but while he was still a Roman citizen, he warmly advised them not to be so persistent in satisfying just demands and to come to him in three days with a positive answer, otherwise let them know, that they will not be allowed into the camp if they show up again with empty talk.
XXXII. The AMBASSADORS returned and made a report to the Senate, which, as it were, threw its “sacred” anchor as a sign that the ship of state had to withstand a formidable storm. All the priests of the gods, all who performed the sacraments or supervised their fulfillment, all who knew the ancient rules of fortune telling by the flight of birds used by their ancestors, had to go to Marcius, each in priestly clothing required by law, and ask him to stop the war and enter into negotiations with his fellow citizens regarding peace with the Volscians. True, Marcius allowed the priests into the camp, but did not make any concessions to them either in words or in deeds - he offered them either to accept his previous conditions, or to continue the war.
With this answer the priests returned. Then it was decided to lock ourselves in the city, occupying fortifications to repel enemy attacks. The Romans pinned their hopes only on time and an unexpected change in happiness: personally, they did not know any means for their salvation. Confusion and fear reigned in the city; At every step, bad omens were visible in him, until something happened like what Homer speaks about more than once, but which many do not find faith in. Regarding serious and incredible actions, he expresses himself in his poems, about someone that he
The bright-eyed daughter of Zeus, Athena, inspired desire,
The gods tamed my anger by imagining to my heart what
There will be a rumor among the people...
Was there suspicion in him, or was it the demon who advised him?
Many do not pay attention to this kind of expression - in their opinion, the poet wanted to deny the reasonable manifestation of free will in man with impossible things and incredible inventions. But this is not what Homer wanted to say: he considers everything probable, ordinary, and not contrary to the requirements of reason to be the action of our free will, as can be seen from many places:
Then I approached him with a bold intention of my heart,
He said, and Pelidu felt bitter: a mighty heart
In the hairy chest of the hero, thoughts were agitated between the two...
...but he was adamant towards the seeker
Filled with noble feelings
Bellerophon is immaculate.
On the contrary, where we're talking about about an incredible and dangerous matter where inspiration or inspiration is required, he represents the deity not destroying, but arousing in us the manifestation of free will, not inspiring us with the desire to commit any act, but only drawing pictures in our imagination that force us to decide on it. With them, it does not force us to do anything under duress, it only gives an impetus to free will, while infusing courage and hope into us. Indeed, if the gods are deprived of all influence, all participation in our affairs, in what other way would their help and assistance to people be expressed? - They do not change the structure of our body, do not give a certain direction to our arms or legs, as they should, - they only excite the active principle of our soul, expressed in free will, a certain kind of sensations, ideas or thoughts, or, on the other hand , hold her back, interfere with her.
XXXIII. IN ROME at that time all the churches were full of women praying. Most of them, belonging to the highest aristocracy, prayed at the altar of Jupiter Capitoline. Among them was Valeria, sister of the famous Poplicola, who rendered many important services to Rome during war and peace. From the biography of Poplicola it is clear that he died earlier. Valeria enjoyed fame and respect in the capital - with her behavior she supported the glory of her family. Suddenly she was overcome by the mood I spoke about earlier. A happy thought, inspired by her from above, sank into her soul. She stood up herself, forced all the other women to stand up, and went with them to the house of Marcius’ mother, Volumnia. When she entered, she saw his mother sitting with her daughter-in-law and holding Marcius' children in her arms. Valeria ordered the women to stand around her and said: “We came to you, Volumnia and Virgilia, as women to women, not by decision of the Senate, not by order of the magistrates. Probably, God himself heard our prayers and instilled in us the idea of coming here to you and asking you to do something that can save ourselves and the rest of the citizens, and, if you agree, he will give you glory louder than that which the daughters of the Sabines acquired for themselves, persuading their fathers and husbands to end the war and conclude peace and friendship among themselves. Let us go together with the petitionary branch to Mardius and say in defense of the fatherland, as a fair, impartial witness, that he did him a lot of evil, but it did not take out its anger on you, did not do and did not want to do anything bad to you, no, it is returning you him, even if he himself cannot expect mercy from him in anything.” When Valeria finished, she sobbed loudly along with the other women. “And we, my dears, equally share a common sorrow,” answered Volumnia, “in addition, we have a personal grief: the glory and honor of Marcius no longer exists when we see that, hoping to find salvation in the weapons of his enemies, he found I'm more likely to be captured. But the most terrible of our misfortunes is that our homeland, in the most complete powerlessness, places its hopes for salvation on us. I don’t know if he will pay attention to our words, if he has not done anything for the sake of the fatherland, which in his eyes always stood above his mother, wife and children. We are ready to help you, take us and lead us to him. If we can do nothing else, we will beg him for mercy of the fatherland until our last breath.”
XXXIV. THEN Virgilia took her children in her arms and, accompanied by the other women, went to the Volsky camp. Their appearance, which spoke of their misfortune, aroused a feeling of respect for them even on the part of their enemies. Nobody said a word.
Marcius at this time was sitting on a dais, surrounded by the commanders of the army. Noticing the approaching women, he was surprised. He recognized his mother, who was walking at the head of the others, and decided to remain adamant, not to betray himself; but a feeling began to speak within him. Confused by the picture that met his eyes, he could not sit still as they approached. He jumped up and walked towards them with a faster gait than usual. He kissed his mother first and held her in his arms for a long time, then his wife and children. He could not hold back his tears, not give free rein to the caresses - his feeling carried him away like a stream.
XXXV. FINALLY he satisfied him completely. Noticing that his mother wanted to address him with something, he surrounded himself with the Volscians, members of the military council, and heard the following from Volumnia: “My son, we do not say a word; but our dress and unenviable appearance prove what a solitary life we had to lead during your exile. Think now - we are the most unfortunate of these women: fate has turned the most beautiful of sights into the most terrible - I must see my son, my daughter-in-law, her husband camped here, in front of the walls of his native city!.. For others, prayer serves as a consolation in all kinds of misfortunes and sorrows, for us it is a terrible torment. You cannot pray to heaven at the same time for the victory of the fatherland and for your salvation - and our prayer contains everything with which the enemy can curse us. There may be only one choice - your wife and children must lose either their fatherland or you: I will not wait until the war decides what fate is destined for me. If you do not want to listen to me and turn discord and misfortune into friendship and harmony, become a benefactor of both peoples, and not the scourge of one of them, know and get used to the idea that you will attack hometown, just stepping over the corpse of his mother. I should not wait for the day when I see my son either defeated by his fellow citizens or celebrating victory over his fatherland. If I began to ask you to save the fatherland at the cost of the death of the Volscians, my request would seem to you unfair and difficult to fulfill: it is dishonest to kill fellow citizens, how low it is to betray those who trusted you. But now we ask you only to save us from disaster, which can be equally saving for both peoples. For the Volscians it will be even more flattering, it will bring them more honor, since they, the victors, will give us the greatest of blessings - peace and friendship - having accepted no less from us. If this becomes reality, this honor will be attributed mainly to you; no - both sides will reproach you alone. How the war will end is unknown; all that is known is that if you remain victorious, you will be a spirit of vengeance for your homeland; but if you fail, you will be called a man who, under the influence of anger, plunged his benefactors and friends into a sea of disasters ... "
XXXVI. MARCIUS listened while Volumnia spoke, but did not answer a word. She came; but he stood silent for a long time. Then Volumnia began again: “My son, why are you silent? “Is it really good to give free rein to your anger and feelings of revenge in everything, and bad to give in to your mother in such an important matter?” Isn't it great person must remember only the harm done to him; Shouldn't great and honest people have feelings of gratitude and love for the good that children see from their parents? No, no one should be more grateful than you, since you punish ingratitude so cruelly. You have already punished your fatherland severely, but you have not thanked your mother in any way. Voluntary fulfillment of the mother’s request in such a wonderful and just cause is the most sacred duty; but I can't beg you. What is my last hope?!." With these words, she, along with her daughter-in-law and children, fell at his feet. “My mother, what have you done to me!” - Marcius exclaimed. He helped her get up, squeezed her hand tightly and said: “You whitewashed: but victory brought happiness to the fatherland, it ruined me: I’m retreating. You alone defeated me." Having said this, he talked a little alone with his mother and wife, sent them back to Rome at their request, and retreated at night with the Volscian troops. Their feelings towards him were not the same, not everyone looked at him with the same eyes. Some were indignant both at Marcius and at his action, while others did neither one nor the other - they were disposed to end the war, to peace. Still others were dissatisfied with what happened, but did not speak ill of Marcia, but forgave him due to the fact that he yielded to the noble impulses that took possession of him. Nobody objected; but everyone went with him out of respect for his moral qualities rather than for his power.
XXXVII. THE END of the war proved even more clearly the fear and danger in which the Roman people were during its continuation. When the population noticed the retreat of the Volscians from the walls, all the temples were opened; citizens wore wreaths, as if they had won, and made sacrifices to the gods. The joyful mood of the population of the capital was proved most of all by the love and respect for the named women on the part of the Senate and the people; everyone called and considered them the only ones responsible for saving the state. The Senate decided that the consuls should give whatever they required as a sign of honor or gratitude; but they asked only for permission to build a temple of Women's Luck. They only wanted to collect money for the construction; as for religious objects and worship, the city had to take these expenses into its own account. The Senate thanked the women for their wonderful deed, but ordered the temple to be built at public expense; in the same way, he assumed the expense of making a statue of the deity. The women, however, collected money and ordered another statue. The Romans say that when she was installed in the temple, she said approximately the following: “Pleasing to the gods, O wives, is your gift.”
XXXVIII. BY SAYING that this voice was heard even twice, they want to make us believe in something that cannot be. It can be assumed that some statues sweat, cry or emit drops of blood. Often even wood and stones become covered with mold from dampness and give off various kinds of colors, taking on color from the air around them, which, however, does not prevent some from seeing this as signs from the gods. It is also possible that the statues make sounds similar to moaning or crying when a rapid rupture or separation of particles occurs within them; but for a soulless object to speak quite clearly, accurately and in a purely articulate language, this is completely impossible, since the soul and God, if they do not have a body equipped with an organ of speech, cannot make loud sounds and speak. However, since history forces us to believe this, citing many credible examples as proof, then we should think that our belief in external phenomena involves our inner feeling, based on the ability of the soul to draw various kinds of ideas; so in a dream we hear without hearing, and we see without actually seeing. But people imbued deep love and disposition towards the deity, people who cannot reject or disbelieve in anything like that base their faith on the incredible, incomparably greater than ours, power of the deity. There is nothing in common between it and man - neither in nature, nor in actions, nor in art or strength, and if it does something that we cannot do, does something that we cannot do, there is nothing incredible in it: differing from us in everything, it is mainly different from us, has no similarity with us in its actions. In many things that have to do with the deity, the cause of our ignorance, says Heraclitus, is our unbelief.
XXXIX. AFTER Marcius returned with his troops to Antium, Tullus, who had long hated him and could not tolerate him out of a feeling of envy, immediately began to look for an opportunity to kill him - he thought that if he was not killed now, he would not be able to capture him a second time. Gathering many around him and arming them against him, he announced that Marcius must resign as commander and give an account to the Volscians. Marcius was afraid, however, of becoming a private person while Tullus held the title of leader and enjoyed enormous influence among his fellow citizens, so he announced to the Volscians his readiness to resign from his command general requirement this, since he accepted it with their common consent, and said that he did not refuse to give a detailed account to the Antians now, if any of them demanded it. In the People's Assembly, the leaders, according to a premeditated plan, began to incite the people against Marcius. He rose from his seat, and the terribly noisy crowd fell silent out of respect for him and allowed him to speak freely. The best of the citizens of Antium, most rejoicing at the conclusion of peace, clearly showed their intention to listen to him kindly and judge him impartially. Tull was afraid of the defense of Marcius, a remarkable orator; moreover, his previous merits exceeded his latest guilt; Moreover, the entire accusation brought against him spoke only of gratitude for his feat: the Volscians could not have complained that they had not conquered Rome if they had not been close to conquering it thanks to Marcius. The conspirators decided that they should not hesitate and win over the people to their side. The most daring of them began to shout that the Volscians should not listen to or tolerate in their midst a traitor who was striving for tyranny and did not want to relinquish the title of commander. A crowd of them attacked him and killed him, and none of those around him defended him. That this happened against the wishes of the majority is evident from the fact that citizens of various cities immediately began to come running to look at the corpse. They solemnly interred him and decorated his grave, as a hero and commander, with weapons and objects of booty taken from the enemy. When the Romans learned of his death, they did not show him any honors, but they were not angry with him either. At the request of the women, they were allowed to mourn for him for ten months, as each of them did for her father, son or brother. The period of this deepest mourning was established by Numa Pompilius, as we had occasion to talk about in his biography.
Soon the state of affairs among the Volscians made them regret Marcia. At first they quarreled with their allies and friends, the Aequians, over the command of the troops. The quarrel turned into a bloody battle. Then the Romans defeated them in a battle, where Tullus fell and almost the entire best part of the army died. The Volscians had to accept a highly shameful peace, recognize themselves as tributaries of the Romans and carry out their orders.
