Part 33 (1/2)

”Sin-a?e-iriba, king of the world, king of the land Aur, sat upon his throne of state, and the spoil of Lakisu pa.s.sed before him.”

It would be strange indeed if this event, of which he was evidently very proud, were omitted from the history of what he must have regarded as his glorious deeds. As it does not occur in the account of his expedition to the land of ?atti, there is hardly any doubt that it belongs to the later campaign there, when he took the city, though he failed, as has been seen, to take Jerusalem. In all probability there were two sieges of Lachish, and it was very possible that the city was taken only on the second occasion. In any case, it was from Lachish that Sennacherib sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah, with a great army to besiege Jerusalem, and it is noteworthy that the Rabshakeh reproaches him with trusting to Egypt, the power with which a.s.syria was at that moment in conflict; and in Sennacherib's second message to Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 9) the words accompanying it clearly show that the general opinion was, that it was the march of Tirhakah against him which called it forth. It is noteworthy in this connection, that Tirhakah cannot have been on the throne of Egypt so early as 700 B.C., the date of Sennacherib's first campaign against the West.

There are therefore many arguments in favour of two expeditions of Sennacherib to Palestine, with two sieges of Jerusalem, and also, to all appearance, two sieges of Lachish.

The following is the account of his death given in the Babylonian Chronicle-

”On the 20th day of Tebet, Sin-a?e-eriba, king of a.s.syria, his son killed him in a revolt. For (? 25) years Sin-a?e-eriba had ruled the kingdom of a.s.syria. From the 20th day of the month Tebet until the 2nd day of the month Adar, the revolt in a.s.syria continued. Month Adar, day 18th, Aur-a?a-iddina (Esarhaddon), his son, sat upon the throne in a.s.syria.”

According to Berosus, who agrees with the Biblical account in this, it was two of his sons who killed him, but it may be taken that, though they were both morally responsible, one only actually performed the deed. Shareser is not mentioned, either by Abydenus or Polyhistor, as taking part in the murder; it would seem to be very probable, that Adrammelech was the culprit. From Berosus it is also clear that Esarhaddon had nothing to do with it, and this is to a certain extent confirmed by his inscriptions, which, as will be seen farther on, represent him as warring in Armenia, whither his brothers had fled.

According to the received chronology, the a.s.sa.s.sination of Sennacherib and the accession of Esarhaddon took place in the year 680 B.C.

Esarhaddon.

It is a matter greatly to be regretted that the royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon have not come down to us in a complete state, and also that we do not possess the later portions of the a.s.syrian Eponym Canon with historical references, which would enable us to fix the date of the campaigns. Of course, there is every probability that they are mentioned in chronological order, but as their dates are not stated, at least some uncertainty must prevail.

[Plate XII.]

Esarhaddon, King of a.s.syria. The kneeling figure, which has the negro type of features and wears the uraeus ornament, is apparently Tirhakah, his opponent in Egypt. The prisoners here represented are regarded as being treated as the same king treated Mana.s.seh (2 Chr. x.x.xiii. 11, R.V. marg.).

Found at Zenjirli. From _Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_, Part XI., by permission of the publis.h.i.+ng-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

It is therefore impossible to say with certainty whether the recital, in forcible though apparently well-chosen language, of what took place in ?anigalbat, or Mesopotamia, belongs to the account of the conflict with his brothers (who would have liked to overthrow Esarhaddon that one of them might reign in his stead) or not. The wording, however, makes it very probable that the narrative does refer to them, for he overtook them on the Nineveh road, and the disappearance of their resistance was more than gratifying to the new king-

”The Nineveh-road, with difficulty (but) speedily, I traversed- before me, in the land of ?ani-galbat, the whole of their mighty warriors halted before my expedition, and prepared their weapons.

The fear of the great G.o.ds, my lords, overwhelmed them, and the attack of my mighty battle they saw, and became as demented.

Itar, lady of war and battle, lover of my priesthood, stood by my side, and broke their bows.

She scattered their serried battle(-array), and in their a.s.sembled ma.s.s they called out thus: ”This is our king.”

By her supreme command they came over to my side.”

Oracles encouraging Esarhaddon exist, and possibly refer to this expedition.

Unfortunately the mutilation of the record, by which the beginning is wanting, has deprived us of the names of both conspirators, which are, therefore, only preserved by the Bible, Berosus, Abydenus, and Polyhistor.

Various have been the conjectures as to what the true a.s.syrian forms of the names would be, and only one, that of Adrammelech, has been found with any probability of its being the right one. The name in question is that of Aur-munik, or, perhaps better, Aur-mulik, for whom Sennacherib built a palace. From its form in Hebrew, Sharezer should be ar-u?ur in a.s.syrian, _i.e._ ”protect the king,” the name of the deity called upon being omitted.

Though Esarhaddon's inscriptions do not give any chronological data, the Babylonian chronicle indicates the dates of his campaigns with sufficient precision. From it we learn that in his first year he had to put down a rebellion in Ur, led by Zeru-kenu-liir, whom Esarhaddon calls Nabu-zer-napiti-liir, son of Merodach-baladan. In the year 676 B.C., his expedition to Sidon took place, and Abdi-milkutti, the king, was beheaded in 675. After taking the spoil of the city, he says that he ”a.s.sembled the kings of ?atti and the sea-coast, all of them,” and there is every probability that it was at this time that he ”took Mena.s.seh with hooks,”

or, as the Revised Version has it, with chains, and bound him with fetters, and brought him to Babylon, where, as sovereign of that land also, he sometimes held court. Though severe, and probably also cruel sometimes, Esarhaddon was more mercifully inclined than his father, and allowed Mena.s.seh to resume the reins of government at Jerusalem. There is no reference to this in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, though he mentions, in his list of tributaries, Mena.s.seh king of the city of Judah.

This list, which is from a cylinder-inscription, is as follows-

”I gathered also the kings of ?atti and across the river ...