¹ The most important special studies devoted to them were Kalkmann, A., ‘Tatians Berichte über Kunstwerke’, RhM 42 (1887), 489–524Google Scholar and Kukula, R.C., ‘“Altersbeweis” und “Künstlerkatalog” in Tatians Rede an die Griechen’, in Waniek, G. (ed.), Jahresberichte des k. k. I. Staatsgymnasiums im II. Bezirke von Wien, 1899–1900 (Vienna, 1900), 3–28Google Scholar; recent ones are: Kuttner, A.L., ‘Culture and history at Pompey's Museum’, TAPhA 129 (1999), 343–73Google Scholar; Evans, J.D., ‘Prostitutes in the portico of Pompey? A reconsideration’, TAPhA 139 (2009), 123–45Google Scholar; Thorsen, T.S., ‘Sappho, Corinna and colleagues in ancient Rome. Tatian's catalogue of statues (Oratio ad Graecos 33–4) reconsidered’, Mnemosyne 65 (2012), 695–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar and, most recently and comprehensively, Sande, S., ‘The female portrait gallery in Pompey's theatre complex in Rome: appearance and impact’, AAAH 27 (2014), 41–70Google Scholar.

² Geiger, J., ‘Hebdomades (binae?)’, CQ 48 (1998), 305–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ Geiger, J., The First Hall of Fame. A Study of the Statues in the Forum Augustum (Leiden and Boston, 2008), 102CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that one had to squeeze somewhat the number of nations in order to arrive at fourteen.

⁴ Geiger (n. 3), 44–7, 99–108.

⁵ See now www.pompey.cch.kcl.ac.uk; Packer, J., ‘Reconstructing Pompey's Theater’, JRA 29 (2015), 587–90Google Scholar. Regrettably, our concern is not treated in these recent publications.

⁶ All dates in this paper are b.c.e.

⁷ Varro was Pompey's familiaris (Gell. NA 14.7.2) and is attested as acquainted with his plans as late as the summer of 51 (Cic. Att. 7.11.3, 6 July 51).

⁸ Coponius: Plin. HN 36.41; Sande (n. 1), 53 seems to be the only scholar to connect the two groups, probably following my argument (see at 52).

⁹ Plin. HN 34.60 mentions the statues of seven nude men and an old man in front of the Temple of Fortuna huiusce diei; Coarelli, F., ‘Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea’, RPAA 44 (1971–2)Google Scholar, 99–122 (= id., Reuixit ars [Rome, 1996], 360–88), 103–4 suggests that these may have represented the Seven against Thebes; if so, this would be an additional parallel for our pursuit, but see the reservations of Sande (n. 1), 54.

¹⁰ Tatian's other important work, the Diatessaron, is not considered here. There exist four recent editions of the text: Whittaker, M., Tatian: Oratio ad Graecos and Fragments (Oxford, 1982)Google Scholar; Marcovich, M., Tatiani Oratio ad Graecos, Theophili Antiocheni ad Autolycum (Berlin, 1995)Google Scholar; J. Trelenberg (ed.), Tatianos Oratio ad Graecos, Rede an die Griechen (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 165) (Tübingen, 2012). Even more recently, in the well-known format of SAPERE, Nesselrath, H.-G., Gegen falsche Götter und falsche Bildung. Tatians Rede an die Griechen (Tübingen, 2016)Google Scholar printed a text, criticizing Marcovich for being too radical, and Whittaker and Trelenberg for being too conservative. Among the many older translations, one should mention R.C. Kukula in Frühchristliche Apologeten und Märtyrerakten, vol. 1 (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 1.12) (Munich, 1913), which includes critical discussions.

¹¹ Kalkmann (n. 1), 502–3, who denies the genuineness of the otherwise unidentified female poets, counts fifteen, including both Mystis and the conjectured Nossis; on this issue, see below; for a partial exception, see n. 8 above.

¹² On top of the many admiring references to Justin, whom he must have met in Rome, Tatian explicitly states that he saw the statues in Rome (Oratio ad Graecos 35.1); see also Euseb. Hist. eccl. 4.29. Cf. Sande (n. 1), 45: ‘I do not believe that Tatian pretended to have seen these statues.’

¹³ This is disregarded by Thorsen (n. 1), 696–7, who ignores the fact that the fourteen female statues were a closed list, separated from the discussion of other statuary in the text. Kalkmann (n. 1) discusses all thirty-four statues mentioned by Tatian, but the separate position of the fourteen statues is maintained, for example, by Evans (n. 1), 132; however, her thesis of the statues belonging to comedic heroines is totally misguided. Pollitt, J.J., ‘The impact of Greek art on Rome’, TAPhA 108 (1978), 155–74, at 170–4Google Scholar provides an Appendix entitled ‘Topographical index of Greek statues and paintings in Rome’, but ignores the statues in the porticus Pompei, though he lists there five paintings mentioned by Pliny.

¹⁴ Not counting the substitution of Nossis for Myrtis.

¹⁵ Sande (n. 1), 49–52 I think unnecessarily widens the scope to women from the intellectual sphere.

¹⁶ The first to propose this seems to have been Brunn, H., Geschichte der griechischen Künstler (Stuttgart, 1857), 1.473Google Scholar.

¹⁷ This is denied by Kalkmann (n. 1), 398–9 in line with his general interpretation; see there for the first identifications of the statues.

¹⁸ For a lengthier discussion, see Sande (n. 1), 57–60.

¹⁹ On her, see Renaud, F., ‘Praxilla’, in Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001), 279Google Scholar.

²⁰ P. Moreno, ‘Lysippos (I)’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 2.27–39 identifies (at 33) the drunken flute player (temulenta tibicina) mentioned by Plin. HN 34.63 as one of Lysippus’ most famous works as this Praxilla.

²¹ On him, see Coulson, W.D.E., ‘Menestratos’, CJ 75 (1980), 200–3Google Scholar.

²² The manuscripts read Sianion; the correction of the unattested name is self-evident. For the statue, evidently the one taken by Verres from Syracuse (Cic. Verr. 4.126–7), see Heintze, H. von, Das Bildnis der Sappho (Mainz and Berlin, 1966)Google Scholar. For Silanion, see M. Weber, ‘Silanion’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 2.385–6.

²³ Included in Meleager's Garland (Anth. Pal. 4.1.10). Since the publication in 1929 of PSI 1090 with fragments of her Distaff, Erinna has generated a fair amount of interest and controversy. Among the more recent contributions one may mention Levin, D.N., ‘Quaestiones Erinneanae’, HSPh 66 (1962), 193–204Google Scholar; West, M.L., ‘Erinna’, ZPE 25 (1977), 95–119Google Scholar, who doubted the ascription to Erinna, since the poem was too good for a young girl, and the responses of Pomeroy, S.B., ‘Supplementary notes on Erinna’, ZPE 32 (1978), 19–21Google Scholar and Arthur, M.B., ‘The tortoise and the mirror: Erinna PSI 1090’, CW 74 (1980), 53–65Google Scholar.

²⁴ According to P.C. Bol, ‘Naukydes (I)’ and ‘Naukydes (II)’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 2.110–12, the sculptor of this statue was the younger Naucydes, the son of Mothon, perhaps the grandson of the older bearer of the name, son of Patrocles.

²⁵ References to her in P. Maas, RE 11.1393–7, s.v. no. 1.

²⁶ Otherwise unknown. W. Müller, ‘Boiskos’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 1.122 suggests that, ‘according to the literary tradition’, he was Boeotian, perhaps Theban; by literary tradition he apparently means Tatian.

²⁷ She is included in Meleager's Garland (Anth. Pal. 4.1.5); see her two epigrams in A.S.F. Gow, D.L. Page (edd.), The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965) (henceforth HE), 1.145, 2.413–14.

²⁸ P. Schultz, ‘Kephisodotos the Younger’, in O. Palagia and S.V. Tracy (edd.), The Macedonians in Athens 322–229 b.c. (Oxford, 2003), 186–93, at 191–2 dates the two statues by Cephisodotus mentioned here to c.320–300.

²⁹ The name is well attested, though not for a poet. Some commentators refer to the information that this was the name of the mother of Euripides.

³⁰ Plin. HN 36.36 mentions a statue of Callisthenes by Amphistratus: if a historian, why not a poet?

³¹ She is mentioned in Meleager's Garland (Anth. Pal. 4.1.5), and her twenty-four extant epigrams are collected in HE 1.35–9, 2.89–104, where (2.90) the editors understand Tatian as speaking of two statues, rather than of a statue by two artists. See Gutzwiller, K.J., ‘Anyte's epigram book’, Syllecta Classica 4 (1993), 71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² See J.J. Pollitt, ‘Euthykrates (I)’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 1.239–40.

³³ On her, see Renaud, F., ‘Telesilla’, in Der Neue Pauly 12/1 (2002), 96Google Scholar.

³⁴ B. Andreae, ‘Nikeratos’, in R. Vollkommer (ed.), Künstlerlexikon der Antike (Munich and Leipzig, 2001–4), 2.132–4 dates him to the first half of the second century.

³⁵ For her substitution by Nossis, including in the texts of Whittaker and Marcovich, see below.

³⁶ P. Maas, RE 11.1393–7, s.v. no. 1; Renaud, F., ‘Korinna’, in Der Neue Pauly 6 (1999), 737–8Google Scholar; for the Berlin papyrus, see Page, D.L., Corinna (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

³⁷ The following remarks are all based on the up to now published seven volumes of LGPN.

³⁸ The lack of attestation has been noticed by Kalkmann (n. 1), 506; it is only fair to admit that the much greater body of evidence presented by LGPN has still failed to find evidence for these names.

³⁹ Gomphus is accepted by Brunn (n. 16), 1.525 as belonging at the latest to the time of the Diadochi.

⁴⁰ In my view unique names do not point to a forger, unless to a very unintelligent one.

⁴¹ On the entire subject, see the exhaustive, though inconclusive, paper of Casement, W., ‘Were the ancient Romans art forgers?’, Journal of Art Historiography 15 (2016), 1–27Google Scholar.

⁴² Rather surprisingly, he is not only followed in this by A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page (edd.), The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams (Cambridge, 1968) (henceforth GP), 2.36, but they also state that ‘these [viz., the fake female poets in their view] are no more plausible than the sculptors who are alleged to have represented the poetesses.’ These sculptors included Menestratus, Amphistratus and Euthycrates; on them, see above.

⁴³ E.g. Amphistratus is otherwise known for one statue only: cf. n. 30 above.

⁴⁴ For some unsavoury art-dealers in Rome at the time, see, for example, Pollitt (n. 13), 163–4. I do not discuss here the questions of whether Tatian derived all his information from the inscriptions on the statue bases or also from guides. Varro concerned himself with Pompey's spoils from the East (Plin. HN 37.11); among the sources describing the copious booty (Strabo 12.3.31; Plut. Vit. Pomp. 45; App. Mith. 116; Cass. Dio 37.21.2) statues are only incidentally mentioned (Plin. HN 33.151; App. Mith. 116), but must have been plentiful.

⁴⁵ From some of his epigrams it may be deduced with great plausibility that he lived, at least for some time, in Rome: see GP 1.18–20.

⁴⁶ See her dozen epigrams in HE 1.151–4, 2.434–43; she is honoured with a mention in Meleager's introductory epigram (Anth. Pal. 4.1.10), together with Anyta and Moero (line 5), Sappho (line 6) and Erinna (line 12).

⁴⁷ Brunn (n. 16), 525 proposed, with a query, Μυρτίδος or Νοσσίδος, referring to Worth's edition; he has been followed by a number of scholars (see, for example, n. 35 above). I cannot see why Mystis was deleted in favour of Nossis—surely the fact that only her name would have fitted Antipater's metre would work the opposite way?

⁴⁸ See Coarelli (n. 9).

⁴⁹ Why Varro (Pompey?) should have ignored that famous female poet is anybody's guess.

⁵⁰ Cf. Sande (n. 1), 46.

⁵¹ It is of no relevance for the purpose of the present paper whether these were originals or so-called copies.

⁵² As stated above, no connection can be made with the arrangement of the other statues mentioned by Tatian, and it seems reasonable to assume that Varro's scheme, in so far as it was advanced by that time, was only one source for the display of works of art in the porticus Pompei: another obvious source must have been availability. At any rate, two groups of fourteen statues each may well have exhausted the application of Varro's ideas.

⁵³ See Geiger (n. 3), 102.

⁵⁴ Geiger (n. 3), 112–51; the title is derived from HA, Alex. Sev. 28.6.