Esarhaddon (686-668), [Footnote: Inscriptions of the reign collected by Budge,_History of Esarhaddon_, 1880.] like the others of his dynasty, prepared elaborate Annals. [Footnote: First reference, G. Smith, TSBA. III. 457. Boscawen, _ibid_. IV. 84 ff.; III R. 35, 4; Budge, 114 ff.; Rogers, _Haverford Studies_, II. Winckler, _Untersuch z. altor. Gesch._, 97f; Winckler, _Textbuch_, 52 ff.; Ungnad, I. 123; Rogers, 357 ff. Cf. also G. Smith, _Disc_. 311ff.; Delattre, _L'Asie_, 149; Olmstead, _Bull. Amer. Geog. Soc_., XLIV. 1912, 434.] It is a poetic justice rarely found in history that the man who so ruthlessly destroyed the Annals of Tiglath Pileser IV is today known to us by still smaller fragments of his own. Aside from five mutilated lines from the ninth expedition, only a part of the first expedition against Egypt has survived and that in a very incomplete manner. We are accordingly dependent for our knowledge of the reign on the display inscriptions, with all their possibilities for error, and only the Babylonian Chronicle gives a little help toward fixing the relative order of events. The greater part of the history of the reign must be secured from the three most important cylinders. A and C are complete and are practically identical. [Footnote: 48-10-31, 2; L. 20 ff.; I R. 45 ff.; Abel-Winckler, 22 ff.; Budge, 32 ff.; Harper, _Hebraica_, III. 177 ff. IV. 99 ff. Abel, KB. II. 124 ff.; Oppert, _Ins. des Sargonides_, 53 ff.; Talbot, _Jour. Sacr. Lit_., IX. 68 ff. _Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit_., VII. 551 ff.; RP¹, III 109 ff.; Menant, 241ff; Harper, 81ff. C was used by R. for restoring A. Text, Harper, _Hebraica_, IV. 18 ff., with the parallels 80-7-19, 15, and K. 1679. Also King, _Supplement_, 108 f.] B is broken and was originally considerably fuller, but seems to be from the same general series. [Footnote: 48-11-4, 315; III R. 15 f.; Budge, 20 ff.; 97 ff.; Harper, _Hebraica_, III. 177 ff.; IV. 146 ff.; Abel-Winckler, 25 f. Winckler, KB, II. 140 ff. Harper, 80 f.; Menant, 248 ff.; Talbot, RP¹, III. 102 ff.; _North Brit. Rev_., 1870, quoted Harper, _Hebr. l. c_.] The date of all three is probably 673. [Footnote: C is dated in the month Abu, cf. Harper, _Hebr_, IV. 24; B, according to Budge, _ad loc_., has Abu of the year 673, but Winckler, _l. c_., omits the month. If the month is to be retained, the identity of month points to identity of year, and there is nothing in B to prevent this conjecture. A is from Nebi Yunus, B from Koyunjik.] In comparing the texts of A-C and B, we note that in the first part, there seem to be no important differences, save that B adds an account of the accession. In the broken part before this, B must have given the introduction and the murder of Sennacherib. Computation of the minimum in each column of B, based on the amount actually preserved in A and C, will give us some idea of what has been lost. Column II of B must have been devoted in part to the final defeat of the rebels and in part to the introduction to the