² The East Berlin Hamilton MS. Y is of no help in this matter: 655 = Kenney (munerae); 656 ‘quoque…mutis (sic)’ Y, mitis y. See Franco, Munari, Il Codice Hamilton 471 di Ovidio (Rome, 1965), p. 30Google Scholar.

³ Compare perhaps Am. 3.4.48 where the vir is urged not to insist on his rights, but to profit from the presents given to his wife at no expense to himself.

⁴ Note Paulus (third century), Opinions 2.26.1–17 ‘It has been decided that a husband who does not at once dismiss his wife whom he has taken in adultery can be prosecuted as a pander’; cf. Justinian, Digest 48.5.1 pr. ‘This law was introduced by the divine Augustus… The crime of pandering is included in the Julian law of adultery, as a penalty has been prescribed against a husband who profits pecuniarily by the adultery of his wife; as well as one who retains his wife after she has been taken in adultery’ – taken from Lefkowitz, and Fant, , Women's Life in Greece and Rome (Baltimore, 1985), p. 182Google Scholar.

⁵ Deletion is, for instance, suggested at Ars 3.433–8 by Tarrant, R. J., PCPhS 206 (1980), 85–8. I would, as it happens, oppose this deletion, although tentatively accepting Kenney's transposition of 435–6 to follow 454 (Tarrant, op. cit., p. 88 n. 8). My arguments, too lengthyto reproduce here, can be found ad loc. in ‘Ovid Ars Amatoria 3.101–498: an Introduction and Commentary’ (unpublished Oxford M.Litt. dissertation, Trinity 1989). Tarrant cites as other instances of interpolation in the Ars 1.585–8 and 2.669–74.Google Scholar

The omission of 656 in two MSS. should probably not be allowed to influence arguments for deletion here.