rone was pointed out by G. Smith, who thought he could fix
the date about 673 B.C., three or four years before the
death of Esarhaddon. Tielo showed that Assur-bani-pal was
then only made viceroy, and assigned his association in the
sovereignty to the year 671 or 670 B.C., about the time of
the second Egyptian campaign, while Hommel brought it down
to 669. Winckler has, with much reason, placed the date in
668 B.C. The Assyrian documents do not mention the
coronation of Shamash-shuniukin, for Assur-bani-pal
afterwards affected to consider his brother a mere viceroy,
appointed by himself after the death of his father
Esarhaddon; but an examination of all the circumstances has
shown that the enthronement of Shamash-shumukin at Babylon
was on a par with that of Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh, and
that both owed their elevation to their father.

On the 12th of Lyyar, 668 B.C., on the day of the feast of Gula, he
presented their new lord to all the inhabitants of Assyria, both small
and great, who had assembled to be present at the ceremony, which ended
in the installation of the prince in the palace of Bitriduti, reserved
for the heirs-apparent. A few weeks later Esarhaddon set out for Egypt,
but his malady became more serious on the journey, and he died on the
10th of Arakhsamna, in the twelfth year of his reign.*

* Arakhsamna corresponds to the Jewish Marcheswan, and to
our month of May.

When we endeavour to conjure up his image before us, we fancy we
are right in surmising that he was not cast in the ordinary mould of
Assyrian monarchs. The history of his campaigns shows that he was as
active and resolute as Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III., but he did
not add to these good qualities their inflexible harshness towards their
subjects, nor their brutal treatment of conquered foes. Circumstances
in which they would have shown themselves merciless, he seized upon as
occasions for clemency, and if massacres and executions are recorded
among the events of his reign, at least he does not class them among
the most important: the records of his wars do not continually speak of
rebels flayed alive, kings impaled before the gates of their cities,
and whole populations decimated by fire and sword. Of all the Assyrian
conquerors, he is almost the only one for whom the historian can feel
any regard, or from the study of whose reign he passes on with re