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

Document:
VOLUMNIA: Honourable NAME_1, my boy NAME_2 approaches; for the love of NAME_3, let's go. NAME_1: Ha! NAME_2 coming home! VOLUMNIA: Ay, worthy NAME_1; and with most prosperous approbation. NAME_1: Take my cap, NAME_4, and I thank thee. NAME_5! NAME_2 coming home! VOLUMNIA: Nay,'tis true. VOLUMNIA: Look, here's a letter from him: the state hath another, his wife another; and, I think, there's one at home for you. NAME_1: I will make my very house reel tonight: a letter for me! NAME_6: Yes, certain, there's a letter for you; I saw't. NAME_1: A letter for me! it gives me an estate of seven years' health; in which time I will make a lip at the physician: the most sovereign prescription in Galen is but empiricutic, and, to this preservative, of no better report than a horse-drench. Is he not wounded? he was wont to come home wounded. NAME_6: O, no, no, no. VOLUMNIA: O, he is wounded; I thank the gods for't. NAME_1: So do I too, if it be not too much: brings a' victory in his pocket? the wounds

Summary:
1. NAME_2 returns to Rome as a celebrated war hero, now named Coriolanus, after his triumphs in battle.
2. His friends and family, as well as the citizens of Rome, welcome him with great admiration, though some remain doubtful of his newfound fame.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you The word "physician" should not appear in your response.
user