Probably the Romans were not of the Mediterranean stock, and their native _ludi_ were athletic rather than mimetic. But the drama gradually filtered in from the neighbouring peoples. Its earliest stirrings in the rude farce of the _satura_ are attributed by Livy to Etruscan influence[3]. From Campania came another type of farce, the _Oscum ludicrum_ or _fabula Atellana_, with its standing masks of Maccus and Bucco, Pappus and Dossennus, in whom it is hard not to find a kinship to the traditional personages of the Neapolitan _commedia dell’ arte_. About 240 B. C. the Greek Livius Andronicus introduced tragedy and comedy. The play now became a regular element in the _spectacula_ of the Roman festivals, only subordinate in interest to the chariot-race and the gladiatorial show. Permanent theatres were built in the closing years of the Republic by Pompey and others, and the number of days annually devoted to _ludi scenici_ was constantly on the increase. From 48 under Augustus they grew to 101 under Constantius. Throughout the period of the Empire, indeed, the theatre was of no small political importance. On the one hand it was the rallying point of all disturbers of the peace and the last stronghold of a public opinion debarred from the senate and the forum; on the other it was a potent means for winning the affection of the populace and diverting its attention from dynastic questions. The _scenici_ might be thorns in the side of the government, but they were quite indispensable to it. If their perversities drove them from Italy, the clamour of the mob soon brought them back again. Trajan revealed one of the _arcana imperii_ when he declared that the _annona_ and the _spectacula_ controlled Rome[4]. And what was true of Rome was true of Byzantium, and in a lesser degree of the smaller provincial cities. So long as the Empire itself held together, the provision firstly of corn and secondly of novel _ludi_ remained one of the chief preoccupations of many a highly placed official.