Archive Page 2
April 13th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
We now get the first significant chunk of Islamic history.
5. When Abu Bakr became caliph, there was the first riddah [war] among the Arabs, but he fought those who did not remain in Islam to the end. Then he sent Khalid ibn al-Walid with a huge army into Iraq. Khalid encamped in Mesopotamia. The notables of the place came to meet them, he gave them a guarantee of security and they made a pact of peace with him by giving him seventy thousand dirhams: this was the first jizya in Iraq and the first money that was given to Abu Bakr from Iraq. Next Abu Bakr sent letters to Yemen, to Ta’if, Mecca and to other Arab people asking aid to subjugate Rum. They responded to his appeal, and Abu Bakr put in charge of the expedition Amr ibn al-As, Sarhabil ibn Hasana, Abu Ubayda ibn al-Garrah and Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan. He entrusted to them the fighters and designated as supreme head Amr ibn al-As, ordering them to focus on Syria taking the road to Aylah. He ordered them not to kill old people or children or women, not to cut down fruit trees, not to destroy the towns, not to burn the palms, not to cripple and kill sheep, cows and goats. They made their way until they came to a village called Tādūn, in the territory of Ghazza, on the border with al-Hiğāz. Having been informed that in the city of Ghazza the armies of Heraclius were concentrating, who was then in Damascus, Amr ibn al-As wrote to Abu Bakr asking for reinforcements, and making him aware of the plans of Heraclius. Abu Bakr then wrote to Khalid ibn al-Walid to bring his men to Amr ibn al-As to support him. So Khalid ibn al-Walid moved from Mesopotamia taking the way of the desert until he reached Amr ibn al-As. Meanwhile the soldiers of Heraclius were well fortified in Ghazza. Having come to Ghazza, the patrician who commanded the army of Heraclius turned to the Muslim soldiers and asked them to send him their commander, in order to know, through him, what they had to say. Khalid then said to Amr ibn al-As: “You go”, and Amr went. He opened the gate of Ghazza and entered. When he came to the patrician, he greeted him and said: “Why have you come into our country, and what do you want?” Amr ibn al-As replied: “Our king has ordered us to fight you. But if you embrace our religion, if you feel it is as useful to you as it is to us, and harmful to your interests as it is to ours, if you are our brothers, then we will not allow wrong or revenge to be done to you. If you refuse, you will pay the jizya: a jizya agreed between us, every year, forever, as long as we live, and you live: we will fight for you against anyone who dares to oppose you and lay claim on your territory, on your lives, on your assets, and on your children; we will take care of these things for you if you accept our protection by entering into an agreement for this purpose. If you refuse then there will be between us only the judgment of the sword: we will fight to the death, and until we get what we want from you.” On hearing the words of Amr ibn al-As and seeing the lack of hesitation that the subject gave him, the patrician said to his men: “I think he is the leader of the people.” So he ordered them to kill Amr as soon as he came to the gate of the city. There was with Amr a slave named Wardan, who knew Greek very well because he was Greek. Wardan informed Amr of what he had heard: “Be very careful how to escape.” The patrician then asked Amr ibn al-As: “Is there anyone like you, among your companions?” Amr replied: “I’m the the least of all who speak, and less authoritative than any other. I am merely a messenger, and repeat what was said to me by my colleagues, ten people more important than me, who are busy with soldiers and wanted to come with me, here with you. But they sent me to hear what you have to tell us. However, if you want me to make them come here, so you can listen to them, and to know that I told you the truth, I will.” The patrician said to him: “Yes, let them come.” In fact, he thought and said to himself: “I think it’s better to kill many than just one.” So he sent word to those, to whom he had given the order to kill Amr, not to do it, and to let him out without any trouble, in the hope that he would bring his ten companions and kill them all together. After he had come out of the gate, Amr ibn al-As informed his men of what had happened and said: “I never go back to someone like that,” and he finished talking, shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” The Rum came out against the Arabs and engaged in a violent battle with them, but were put to flight. The Muslims made a great slaughter of them, and then gave chase, driving them into Palestine and Jordan. They took refuge in Jerusalem, in Caesarea, and wherever they could. The Muslims left them and went away from the parts of al-Bathaniyyah. Then he wrote to Abu Bakr informing him of what had happened. When the messenger came to him, he was already dead and had been succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Abu Bakr himself, when he was sick, designated Umar ibn al-Khattab as his successor and ordered Uthman ibn Affan to put this in writing.
6. Abu Bakr died on the penultimate day of the month of ğumāda al-akhar, in the thirteenth year of the Hegira. The ritual prayers were held by Umar ibn al-Khattab. He was buried in the same house in which Muhammad had been buried. His caliphate lasted two years, three months and twenty-two days. He died at the age of seventy-three. Abu Bakr was tall, with a fair complexion which verged on pale, thin, with a thin, sparse beard, a gaunt face and sunken eyes. He dyed his beard with hinna and cetamo, and his waist could barely bear the izar. His minister was Abu Qahhafa as-Sandas and his hāgib was his freedman Sadid.
April 12th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Readers may remember that a few years ago I published a translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel Problems and Solutions (Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum). Today I learn from a correspondent that the main manuscript, Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 220, has been digitised and is now online at the Vatican website! Folios 61-91 contain the work, which is itself an abbreviation of the original in 3 books, which discussed differences between the start and end of each gospel, and attempted to resolve them.
It is interesting to see that there are scholia on some leaves. I include an image of one below. Does anyone know what it says?
Here’s the opening of the work (f.61) (click on the images for a clearer image):
Here is an example of the start of a “question” (f.92):
Here is where it breaks of, without any colophon (f.96):
And here on folio 90v is a scholion:
I’ve zoomed in somewhat, and it would be interesting to know what it says.
Seeing this crystal-clear manuscript makes me wish we had had it available, back when David Miller was working on the translation. As it is, we may be so grateful that this is now freely available online!
UPDATE: A correspondent in the comments has kindly translated the gloss for us – thank you! It reads:
No! But the true mother of the Lord herself is said mother of Jacob and Jose, who are considered brothers of the Lord, being natural sons of Joseph, from his first wife, Salome. For Joseph had four sons: Jacob and Jose and Simon and Jude. And as the mother of the Lord was considered wife of Joseph, so she was considered mother of his sons.
April 9th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Scholarship depends more than we sometimes admit on the support that we receive from library staff. I learned today that the lady, who for almost two decades has handled my interlibrary loans, died suddenly in the street. I’d like to acknowledge what she did for me, although she was a stranger to me.
I first became seriously interested in the Fathers and Tertullian in 1997, when I came onto the web and started the Tertullian Project. I live in a small town in the country. But the library service offered a free interlibrary loans facility, via the British Lending Library in Boston Spa, whereby scholarly books and articles could be obtained, so long as you were willing to wait for several weeks. I borrowed the volumes of Quasten, from which I learned most of what I know, before buying my own copies through Amazon. I borrowed all sorts of items, and became well known to the staff; and indeed I have done so now for almost twenty years. Sadly the free service soon became a charged-for service; and the prices rose so high that almost nobody can afford to use it.
One of the staff was a rather confused-looking cringing woman, who appeared to be a bit mentally deficient. I was rather dismayed, therefore, when she was placed in charge of handling interlibrary loans. Her name was Eve Parkes, and it could be rather a trial to explain to her what I wanted. She tended to just repeat herself a lot. I rather worried that the service would become impossible. But instead she grew into the role. Doing a responsible role successfully was good for her as well – she had found a niche in life, which she knew thoroughly, and she could even grow argumentative in her authority.
At one point the library service allowed me to order books by email. They soon found it convenient to stop this; but Eve allowed me to continue by emailing her directly. This was a great boon to me, as I often travel during the week, and it can be rather a trial of patience to get served in person on a Saturday.
A couple of years ago the county council decided to get rid of the library service in order to divert money to other purposes. The method chosen was not simple abolition, which might have attracted public outrage, but by the devious “slow death” method of replacing staff with “volunteers”, closing branches, etc. This shameful action meant many changes at the library. One of them was that British Library orders now cost $22 each – an impossible sum. But I learned from Eve that the “local” ILL service, which had only covered the county and its adjoining counties, now also could obtain books from university libraries. This was only $4.50; and it worked fine.
In recent years the availability of Google Books and PDFs online meant that I did fewer orders. But they all came through. Indeed I once needed books urgently, and she made it happen.
This week that I emailed an order in, and found to my surprise that it came back “unknown address”. I went into the library today (Saturday), and learned from her colleagues that she died suddenly, collapsing in the street. The cause of death is not known, but she was overweight and looked unhealthy; and no doubt it was a heart attack or something of the sort. She was only in her early 60’s.
I didn’t know her personally, but she looked after me down the years. I don’t suppose that anyone will remember her. So let me here acknowledge how much I owed to her, someone who made a difference.
May she rest in peace.
April 8th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
In my last post, we found Armenian writer Eznik of Kolb stating that the Avesta was not in written form in his own time, the 5th century AD. This information came to us via Zaehner’s book on Zurvan.
Zaehner also gives us a comment on Zoroastrianism by none other than Paul the Persian! This obscure writer will be familiar to few of us, as he wrote in Middle Persian, and almost none of the Christian literature in that language survives. However we know a little about him from Bar Hebraeus, and a few other sources.
Paul the Persian lived in the later 6th century. The Chronicle of Seert tells us that he hoped to be Bishop of Persis, but on failing to be elected, sadly he apostasised to Zoroastrianism.
He wrote works in Middle Persian on Aristotle, for the Sassanid Persian king. Some of these were translated into Syriac, some by Severus Sebokht, and so they exist in a shadowy form in Syriac manuscripts and obscure publications.
Zaehner quotes Paul on Zoroastrianism, and we will come to this in a moment. But his source is almost equally interesting. For he gives as a reference “Casartelli, The Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion under the Sassanids, p.1″. This itself is a curiosity. It can be found at Archive.org here, from which I learn that it is a translation from the French, and that it was published in 1889, in India! The translation was made by Firoz Jamaspji Dastur Jamasp Asa, rather than by an Anglo-Indian. Here is what the learned Indian – a Parsee? – has to say:
1. Paul of Dair-i Shar, a learned Persian, who flourished at the court of the greatest of the Sassanide kings, Khosrav Anosheravan (A. D. 531—57S) gives us, in an impressive picture, the different theories on the nature and attributes of God, which were shared at the time among the minds of his fellow-countrymen.
“There are some,” he says, “who believe in only one God; others claim that He is not the only God; some teach that He possesses contrary qualities; others say that He does not possess them; some admit that He is omnipotent; others deny that He has power over everything. Some believe that the world and everything contained therein have been created; others think that all the things are not created. And there are some who maintain that the world has been made ex nihilo; according to others (God) has drawn it out from an (preexisting matter).”
2. One might suspect that in this passage, amidst some general remarks on philosophical theories, Paul is speaking about various doctrines scattered over the whole world, especially as he was a Christian, and had studied the heathen philosophies of Greece in the schools of Nisibis or of Jondishapur. But it must be remembered that the writer is here addressing himself directly to king Khosrav, and mentioning to him details which must have been familiar to him, just as he cites elsewhere in proof of multi vocal words the Persian names of the sun. It is therefore very probable that the author is here describing the opinions which were current in his time in the bosom of the Eranian religion itself. Moreover, it cannot be doubtful to those who are aware of the divergence of opinions which separated the numerous Eranian sects, that Paul is here enumerating faithfully the characteristic doctrines of the Eranian sects of the Sassanide period.
 Paulus Persa, Logica, fol. 56; from Land, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. IV, Leyden, 1875 (translation p.8).
 Land, ibid., Scholia, p.100.
 Paulus Persa, Logica, fol. 58v.
Paul, then, is testifying that Zoroastrianism had no settled teachings on a good number of subjects even in the 6th century AD.
While looking up Paul, I discovered yet another interesting snippet.
The Encyclopedia Iranica informs us that Paul’s Treatise on the Logic of Aristotle the Philosopher addressed to King Ḵosrow or Chosroes I, as we would know him, is the Logica referenced above, published by Land, and extant in British Library ms. 988 [Add. 14660], foll. 55ᵛ-67ʳ; Wright, 1872, p. 1161. Apparently the first half of this work has been translated into French by Teixidor (1992, pp. 129-32; 1998b), which is good news for those who wish to read it in something other than a Latin translation.
Apparently Paul argued, either in this or a related lost work, that through knowledge one may attain certainty, allowing people to reach unanimous agreement. Faith, however, can neither gain exact knowledge nor eliminate doubt, leading to dissension and discord. These ideas influenced later Arabic writers, who record some of the ideas. Sadly I was unable to obtain access to either of the references. One would like to know exactly whose words these are; and how closely related to Paul’s own words.
April 8th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
A tweet by @BLAsia_Africa led me to a neglected passage in Eznik of Kolb, the 5th century Armenian writer, and a quotation from Paul the Persian! From it I learned that:
…the Avesta was transmitted orally and not written down!
The author drew this conclusion after reading some remarks by R. C. Zaehner in 1955:
However, whatever our view on the evidence of Paulus Persa, we have two other testimonies which can leave us in little doubt as to the fluidity of Zoroastrian dogma in Sassanian times. These are supplied by the Armenians Eznik of Kolb and Elise Vardapet. Eznik, like the nameless heretic of the Denkart, was struck by their inconsistency. ‘Their foolishness’, he says, ‘is enough to refute them from their own words which are mutually exclusive and self-contradictory’; and again, repeating the oft-made charge that they had no books, he says: ‘Since their laws are not in books, sometimes they say one thing with which they deceive, and sometimes another with which they seduce, the ignorant.’
 Ed. Venice, 1926, bk. ii, §2, p.128; Langlois, ii, p.375; Schmid, p.94.
 Venice, 1926, ii, 9, p.156; Langlois, ii, p.381; Schmid, pp. 111-12.
(Langlois = V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l’Arménie, 2 vols, 1867: p.179-251; Schmid = J.M. Schmid, Wardapet Eznik von Kolb: Wider die Sekten. Aus den Armenischen ubersetzt…, Vienna, 1900. Online here.)
There is actually a complete English translation, and I used to have a copy but it was mislaid. So let’s use Langlois, and just check the context of that quote. It appears in column 1 on p.381, in about the middle of the page:
En second lieu, pour cacher cette honteuse action, [Zoroastre] publie que pour le besoin des jugements [Ormizt et Arhmèn] ont créé [le soleil]. Aussi comme les dogmes religieux ne sont pas écrits, tantôt ils disent une chose, et se trompent, tantôt ils en disent une autre, et ils trompent les ignorants. Cependant si Ormizt était Dieu, il pouvait tirer les autres du néant, comme il avait créé les cieux et la terre, et non pas au moyen d’un commerce infame, ou bieu en raison de l’absence d’un juge.
Secondly, in order to conceal this shameful act, [Zoroaster] set forth that [Ormazd and Ahriman] created [the sun] to perform judgements. Also as the religious teachings are not written down, sometimes they say one thing, and are deceived, sometimes they say another about this, and deceive the ignorant. However if Ormazd was god, he could brings the others out from nothing, like he created the heavens and the earth, and not by means of an infamous commerce, or because there was no judge.
That does seem like a pretty clear statement that the Avesta, the Zoroastrian scriptures, did not exist in written form at this date as far as Eznik knew; and that in consequence Zoroastrian teaching was pretty fluid. I have seen popular claims that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrian sources; but if there really are similarities, chronology would suggest that the borrowing is in the other direction.
April 8th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Until 1940 Melito of Sardis was an obscure figure of the 2nd century AD, known mainly from Eusebius, who mentioned that he wrote a work on Easter. In that year there appeared an edition and translation of On Easter (De Pascha). It was based on a 4th c. papyrus codex which had come from Egypt. This had been broken up, and portions of the almost complete text were in Dublin at the Chester Beatty library while the remainder were at the University of Michigan. A more complete text was published in 1960 from Bodmer Papyrus XII (start of the 4th c.), and a modern edition appeared in 1979.
Coptologist Alin Suciu recently published pictures of manuscript pages on his facebook page, showing the start and end of the work. I thought that many people might perhaps like to see them.
First the start of the work (following the end of Enoch), from the Chester Beatty codex. Click on the image for a larger picture.
There is a large ENWX, then a line, and then MELITWN (Of Melito). The title, however, is missing.
The Chester Beatty-Michigan manuscript is defective at the end, so we don’t know how the final portion of it looked. But in the Bodmer manuscript, both the start and end of the work are present, and the name and title are shown in both places as Μελίτωνος Περὶ Πασχα. I am told that in fact there is a title page with this on, before the first actual page of text.
The work ends with MELITWNOS PERI PASXA. This is followed by two lines which Alin translates for us:
After the subscription of the work, the scribe added a “colophon” (actually a scribal note): “Peace to the one who wrote, to the one who reads, and to those who love the Lord with sincerity of heart.”
An otherwise lost work found in damaged papyrus codices… Indiana Jones, eat your heart out!
UPDATE: My thanks to the correspondent who pointed out my mistake in supposing these images were from a single manuscript; and also that the Chester Beatty portions of the ms. are online here.
April 8th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Here is another old print (from 1606, by Aegidius Sadeler) of the Colosseum and a curious view of the Meta Sudans to the right. I found it here. Click on the picture to get the full size image.
The site adds:
Rare and early copper engravings by Aegidius Sadeler (c. 1570-1629)from Vestigi delle antichita di Roma Tivoli Pozzuolo et altri luoghi. … “Vestigij della parte di fuora dell’Anfiteatro di Tito…”. This is the second edition published by De Rossi. Uncommon engraving in very good condition. Aegidius Sadeler (c. 1570-1629) was a Flemish baroque era painter and engraver; the best (Hind) of a notable dynasty of engravers, who were also significant as dealers and distributors of prints. He spent most of his career based in Prague where Emperor Rudolf II commissioned many of his works.
The original is 16 x 27 cms (27 x 39 cms sheet).
All images of the Meta Sudans are interesting, but one which shows the upper section, which disappeared before the mid-19th century, is of particular interest. The lower section is half-buried in the debris.
April 4th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Anthony Alcock has continued his invaluable series of translations of Coptic literature. The new item is a translation of the hagiographic Life of Saints Maximus and Domitius, who were brothers. He adds a preface – read all about it!
There is an article online in the Coptic Encyclopedia here, from which I learn that the work is probably fifth century.
March 31st, 2016 by Roger Pearse
We now come to the start of the portion of the Annals where the Muslims take centre stage. But there is still some Roman and Sassanid Persian history to run.
CALIPHATE OF ABU BAKR (11-13 / 632-634)
1. The Muslims were unanimous in giving the bay`ah to Abu Bakr, i.e. to ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Uthman b. ‘Amir b. Ka’ab b. Sa’d b. Taym b. Murra. His mother was Selma, daughter of Sakhr b. ‘Amur b. Ka’ab b. Sa’d b. Taym b. Murra. He was given the bay’ah on the same day that Mohammed died. His influential advisers were Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan. This was in the eleventh year of the reign of Heraclius, King of Rum. In that year there was made patriarch of Rome Honorius. He held the office for eighteen years and died.
2. As for Kisra, son of Hormuz, now in his city, and seeing the killings and destruction that Heraclius had caused there, he was deeply distressed, but he did not cease his despotic behavior. The people felt oppressed by his authority, their patience broke down and they said: “This is a man who has a jinx. During his reign the Persians have been killed and their homes have been destroyed.” So they deposed him, after a thirty-eight year reign, and put in his place his son Qabād, whose real name was Shirūyeh, son of Mary, the daughter of king Maurice, king of Rum, because of whom all those misfortunes had arisen: in fact he had been killed and Kisra had tried to avenge him as his son-in-law. Having become king, Qabād, son of Kisra, proclaimed justice, made public the misfortune of which the sons of his father were the architects, who were adverse to him because of his mother, and had eighteen of them killed. Others managed to escape. Then he said: “I will free the people from tax, because of my justice and my good will.” Unfortunately it was not long before the plague fell upon the people of his kingdom. Many died and among them the king Shirūyeh, i.e. Qabād, and his father Kisra. His reign had lasted eight months.
3. After him reigned Azdashīr, son of Shirūyeh, but the governor of the neighboring western state attacked him, and killed him. His reign had lasted five months. Then a man named Gurhan advanced his claims over the kingdom, a man who did not belong to the royal line, and none of whose lineage had ever aspired to be king before him. He was the same man whom Abarwiz had sent to fight against the Rum and had named Shahrmārān, and he was then murdered by a woman of the royal house, named Arazmindukht, who managed to make him fall by his own treachery. His reign lasted twenty-two days and he does not appear in the list of Kings. After him there reigned a descendant of Hurmuz who was based in Turkey. He came when he learned that he was in line for the succession. His name was Kisra, son of Qabād, son of Hurmuz. But the governor of the neighboring state of Khurasan attacked him and killed him. His reign lasted only three months and he does not appear in the list of Kings. After him reigned Murli, daughter of Kisra II, sister of Kisra on her mother’s side, for a year and a half; she did not demand tribute and divided her property among the soldiers. She reigned and was counted in the number of the kings of Persia. After her reigned a man named Hushnastadih, a son of the paternal uncle of Kisra. He reigned for two months, then he was killed. He does not appear in the list of Kings. There reigned after him Azarmindukht, daughter of Kisra, but only for a short time because she was poisoned and died. She reigned one year and four months. She reigned and was counted in the number of the kings of Persia. After her reigned a man named Farrukhrādkhushri for a single month and was killed. He is not counted among the kings of Persia.
4. The period during which Shirūyeh and the men and women who succeeded him reigned, whether included or not included in the number of the kings of Persia, up until Farrukhrādkhushrī, including an interruption between [the] two reigns, was four years. It was a period of unrest and turmoil. But when the Persians became aware of the discord that reigned over them, of the ascendancy that was gradually going to Rum and of the corruption into which their religion and their ordinary life had fallen, they sent for a son of Kisra named Yazdagard, who had run away from Shirūyeh when he had had his brothers put to death. They proclaimed him their king even though he was only fifteen. There were various parties and their factions were divided, warring against each other. The inhabitants of each place, town or village of the kingdom fought against their neighbors. Such a diffusion of disorder, of division of the community, corruption of the kingdom and discord among the people in the city lasted for eight months. The reign of Yazdagard coincided with the first year of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and the eleventh year of the reign of Heraclius, King of Rum.
March 30th, 2016 by Roger Pearse
Regular readers will be aware that I am interested in the Meta Sudans, a Roman fountain that stood in Rome outside the Colosseum, and behind the Arch of Constantine, until it was demolished by Mussolini in the 1930s. By that time it was merely a stump, but earlier representations show that it was originally much taller.
Today I came across a paper by Dafina Gerasimovska, which collected representations of the Colosseum, as a way to learn more about Roman architecture.:
When talking about architectural buildings from Antiquity we rely on archaeological finds and written sources. Even coins can provide information about the look of ancient Roman architecture. …
An additional rich source of clues to the original appearance of buildings and their condition at certain times, however, can be found in paintings, drawings, engravings, etchings, prints, watercolours, old reconstructions and other artistic works of different periods in the past. Many painters, engravers, architects, travellers and diplomats interested in architectural remains have left works that serve as alternative sources for the study of cultural history and the architectural monuments which form a part of that history.
This article is not intended to highlight the artistic value of the achievements of famous artists inspired by Roman buildings but to emphasize the significance of these works as historical documents—as evidence of their existence, of changes in their appearance over time, of their ruin or of their recovery.
Inevitably this paper contained images of the Meta Sudans. Here are some of them. I apologise for the rather awkward way that WordPress displays these – click on the image to get the full size original.
The oldest one is by Dutch artist Gaspar van Wittel (1653–1736) who went to Rome in 1675. From his views of the Colosseum, I have excerpted the following:
Gaspar van Wittell, Colosseum – extract view of the Meta Sudans
Note the slender, tall appearance of the fountain, which I have marked with a red box. The next one is by Giovanni Paolo Panini (c.1691–c.1765), from his 1758 Gallery Displaying Views of Ancient Rome.
Panini (1758) – Meta Sudans
The interesting part of this one, is that it shows a band around the Meta Sudans, about halfway up. This sort of thing appears in the ancient coins that depict the Meta Sudans.
The final item is a drawing by Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720–1778) from his The Antiquities of Rome in 1756:
Again this shows a tall Meta Sudans, although not clearly.
All of these are very interesting evidence on the shape of a now vanished Roman monument.