These performances were given both in public and in private houses. The former might well be restrained as leading to riots; the objection to the latter was undoubtedly the open ridicule of the government; for the Atellan farce, which was originally chiefly spoken, had adopted the procedure of the mimics who acted entirely in dumb show, and it is not difficult to imagine the roars of laughter which would greet the appearance of Tiberius himself and other eminent personages upon the private stages of the Roman nobility. In penalizing actors Tiberius in fact checked the liberty of the press, and destroyed whatever popularity he had hitherto enjoyed. The Romans were passionately devoted to acting, and never forgave the man who discountenanced their favourite amusement. There was no readier road to popularity at Rome than an exhibition of actors or gladiators. Cæsar and Augustus had both encouraged the taste, and in the later Republican days profusion in giving treats of this kind had been a necessary step in the ladder by which political eminence was reached. The wisdom of Tiberius in thus checking the expression of popular feeling may be open to question, for we are not in a position to judge how far the passions excited by the actors constituted a real danger to public order, but the line which he took with reference to another kind of legislation is indisputably wise. Sumptuary laws are a well-known weakness of governments. We are by no means rid of them yet, as is testified by the importance of the temperance party in England. The Pagans of Greece and Italy were no less eager than the Christians of the Middle Ages, or the Puritans of the Reformation, to prescribe for men how they should dress, or how they should eat, and the history of the Roman Senate offers many instances of attempts to enforce moderation of living by stringent laws. The Senate of Tiberius had not forgotten its old traditions; in the year 16 A.D. the subject of increasing luxury had been discussed in the Senate, and the Emperor had evaded action by stating that the matter would be attended to when the period of the Censorship came round. Apparently nothing was done, for in the year 22 A.D. the Ædiles drew the attention of the Senate to the continued and indeed increasing expenditure upon silken robes, household plate, and the pleasures of the table; new laws were demanded, and vigour in administering the old laws. Even on the evidence of Tacitus Tiberius himself was moderate in his household expenditure; Suetonius indeed reproaches him with niggardliness in this matter, saying that he would serve up the remainder of a feast at a second day’s entertainment with the observation “that the part had the same qualities as the whole.” His personal example was entirely in the direction of temperate living, and it was from no want of sympathy with the worthy aspirations of the Senate that he refused to legislate in the matter. Tacitus has