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

Document:
First Senator: Stay: whence are you? Second Senator: Stand, and go back. NAME_1: You guard like men; 'tis well: but, by your leave, I am an officer of state, and come To speak with Coriolanus. First Senator: From whence? NAME_1: From Rome. First Senator: You may not pass, you must return: our general NAME_2 no more hear from thence. Second Senator: You'll see your Rome embraced with fire before You'll speak with Coriolanus. NAME_1: Good my friends, If you have heard your general talk of Rome, And of his friends there, it is lots to blanks, My name hath touch'd your ears it is NAME_1. First Senator: Be it so; go back: the virtue of your name Is not here passable. NAME_1: I tell thee, fellow, The general is my lover: I have been The book of his good acts, whence men have read His name unparallel'd, haply amplified; For I have ever verified my friends, Of whom he's chief, with all the size that verity Would without lapsing suffer: nay, sometimes, Like to NAME_3 bowl upon NAME_3 subtle ground,

Summary:
1. NAME_1, NAME_3 Roman leader, attempts to pass by senators to speak with Coriolanus but is eventually denied entrance.
2. Despite NAME_1 pleading for Coriolanus to pardon Spain and its citizens, Coriolanus refuses to listen and turns him away.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain wh The response should be in all capital letters.
user