Thus these chapters contain no mention whatever of the offender of 2 Cor. ii. 5-11, of whose case the intervening letter must have mainly treated; again, x. 1, 9, 10, 11 imply a previous sharp rebuke already administered, such as is hardly accounted for merely by First Corinthians; and finally, xii. 18 implies that these four chapters were not written until after Titus’s visit, that is, that they were written at just the same time as Second Corinthians.
An apocryphal correspondence of Paul and the church at Corinth, consisting of the church’s letter and Paul’s reply, had canonical authority in the Syrian church in the 4th century (Aphraates, Ephraem). It is preserved in Armenian and Latin manuscripts, and is now known to have been a part of the Acts of Paul, written in the 2nd century. The letters relate to the condemnation of certain Gnostic views. For a translation see Stanley’s Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthians (4th ed., 1876), PP. 593–598. See Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, i. pp. 37-39, ii. 1, pp. 506-508; Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, i. pp. 463–467; Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, pp. 362–364, 378-380.
Bibliography.—On the Corinthian Epistles consult the Introduction to the New Testament of H. Holtzmann (1885, 3rd ed. 1892); B. Weiss (1886, 3rd ed. 1897, Eng. trans. 1887); G. Salmon (1887); A. Jülicher (1894, 5th and 6th ed. 1906, Eng. trans. 1904); T. Zahn (1897–1899, 2nd ed. 1900); and the articles in the Bible dictionaries, especially those by A. Robertson in Hastings’s Dictionary. See also Lives of Paul; and the general works on the Apostolic Age of C. von Weizsäcker (1886, 2nd ed. 1892); O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum (1887, 2nd ed. 1902, Eng. trans. 1906); and A. C. M’Giffert (1897). Especially valuable for 1 and 2 Corinthians is E. von Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church (1902, Eng. trans. 1904).
In English, Dean Stanley’s work (1855, 4th ed. 1876) is now out of date. On First Corinthians reference may be made to the works of T. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary (1881); T. C. Edwards (1885); C. J. Ellicott (1887); Fr. Godet (1886–1887, Eng. trans. 1887); on both epistles to those of H. A. W. Meyer (5th ed. 1870, Eng. trans. 1877–1879) and J. J. Lias, in Cambridge Greek Testament (1886–1892). F. W. Robertson’s classic Sermons on St Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians (1859) should not be neglected. In German there are commentaries of much value by G. Heinrici (1880—1887) and in Heinrici’s revision of Meyer’s Kommentar (8th ed., 1896–1900), and by P. W. Schmiedel in Hand-Commentar (1891, 2nd ed. 1892). For further literature see Robertson’s art, “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” in Hastings’s Dictionary of the Bible. On early attestation see A. H. Charteris, Canonicity (1880), and the Oxford Committee’s New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (1905). (J. H. Rs.)
CORINTO, a seaport on the Pacific coast of Nicaragua, in the
department of Chinandega, built on the small island of Asserradores
or Corinto, at the entrance to Realejo Bay, 65 m. by rail
N.W. of Managua. Pop. (1900) about 3000. The town, which
was founded in 1849, and first came into prominence as a port
in 1863, has a spacious and sheltered harbour, the best in
Nicaragua. It possesses no docks or wharves, and vessels
anchor some 500 yds. off-shore to load or discharge cargo by
means of lighters. On the mainland is the terminus of a railway
to Leon, Managua and other commercial centres. Coffee, gold,
mahogany, rubber and cattle are largely exported; and more
than half the foreign trade of Nicaragua passes through this port,
which has completely superseded the roadstead of Realejo, now
partly filled with sandbanks, but from 1550 to 1850 the principal
seaport of the country. About 450 ocean-going ships, of some
450,000 tons, annually enter the port. Most of the foreign
vessels are owned in Germany or the United States. The coasting
trade is restricted to Nicaraguan boats.
CORIOLANUS, GAIUS (or Gnaeus) MARCIUS, Roman legendary hero of patrician descent. According to tradition, his surname
was due to the bravery displayed by him at the siege of Corioli (493 B.C.) during the war against the Volscians (but see below).
In 492, when there was a famine in Rome, he advised that the
people should not be relieved out of the supplies obtained from
Sicily, unless they would consent to the abolition of their tribunes.
For this he was accused by the tribunes, and, being condemned
to exile, took refuge with his friend Attius Tullius, king of the
Volscians. A pretext for a quarrel with Rome was found, and
Coriolanus, in command of the Volscian army, advanced against
his native city. In vain the first men of Rome prayed for
moderate terms. He would agree to nothing less than the
restoration to the Volscians of all their land, and their admission
among the Roman citizens. A mission of the chief priests also
failed. At last, persuaded by his mother Veturia and his wife
Volumnia, he led back the Volscian army, and restored the
conquered towns. He died at an advanced age in exile amongst
the Volscians; according to others, he was put to death by them
as a traitor; a third tradition (mentioned, but ridiculed, by
Cicero) represents him as having taken his own life.
The whole legend is open to serious criticism. At the traditional date (493 B.C.) Corioli was not a Volscian possession, but one of the Latin cities which had concluded a treaty of alliance with Rome; further, Livy himself states that the chroniclers knew nothing of a campaign carried on by the consul Postumus Cominius Auruncus (under whom Coriolanus is said to have served) against the Volscians. Only one of the consuls was mentioned as having concluded the treaty; the absence of the other was consequently assumed, and a reason for it found in a Volscian war. The bestowal of a cognomen from a captured city was unknown at the time, the first instance being that of Scipio; in any case, it would have been conferred upon the commander-in-chief, Postumus Cominius Auruncus, not upon a subordinate. The conquest of Corioli by Coriolanus is invented to explain the surname. The details of the famine are borrowed from those of later years, especially 433 and 411. The incident of Coriolanus taking refuge with the Volscian king, who, according to Plutarch, was his bitter enemy, curiously resembles the appeal of Themistocles to the Molossian king Admetus. Further, the tradition that Coriolanus, like Themistocles, committed suicide, renders it a probable conjecture that these incidents are derived from a Greek source. The contradictions in the accounts of the campaign against Rome and its inherent improbability give further ground for suspicion. Twelve important towns are taken in a single summer apparently without resistance on the part of the Romans, and after the retirement of Coriolanus they are immediately abandoned by the conquerors. It is strange that the Volscians should have entrusted a stranger with the command of their army, and it is possible that the attribution of their successes to a Roman general was intended to gratify the national pride and obliterate the memory of a disastrous war. It is suggested that Coriolanus never commanded the Volscian army at all, but that, like Appius Herdonius—the Sabine chieftain who in 460, with a band of fugitives and slaves, obtained possession of the capital—he appeared at the gates of Rome at the head of a body of exiles (but at a much later date, c. 443), at a time when the city was in great distress, perhaps as the result of a pestilence, and only desisted from making himself master of Rome at the earnest entreaty of his mother. This seems to be the historical nucleus of the tradition, which accentuates the great influence exercised by and the respect shown to the Roman matrons in early times.
Ancient Authorities.—Plutarch’s Life; Livy ii. 34-40; Dion. Halic. vi. 92-94, vii. 21-27, 41-47, viii. 1-60; Cicero, Brutus, x. 42. The story is the subject of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. For a critical examination of the story see Schwegler, Römische Geschichte, bk. xxiv.; Sir G. Cornewall Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History, ch. xii. 19-23; W. Ihne, History of Rome, i.; T. Mommsen, “Die Erzählung von Cn. Marcius Coriolanus,” in Hermes, iv. (1869); E. Pais, Storia di Roma, i. ch. 4 (1898).
CORIOLI, an ancient Volscian city in Latium adiectum, taken, according to the Roman annals in 493 B.C., with Longula and Pollusca, and retaken (but see above) for the Volsci by Gaius Marcius Coriolanus, its original conqueror, who, in disgust at his treatment by his countrymen, had deserted to the enemy. After this it does not appear in history, and we hear soon afterwards (443 B.C.) of a dispute between Ardea and Aricia about some land which had been part of the territory of Corioli, but had at an unknown date passed to Rome with Corioli. The site is apparently to be sought in the N.W. portion of the district between the sea, the river Astura and the Alban Hills; but it cannot be more accurately fixed (the identification with Monte Giove, S. of the Valle-Aricciana, rests on no sufficient evidence), and even in the time of Pliny it ranked among the lost cities of Latium.
