Why should there be wrath against the realm? In the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanns there was "wrath against the realm" of Persia in a very dangerous quarter, viz; Egypt. Egypt had revolted from the Persians in b.
c. 460, and in the following year, with the assistance of the Athenians, had driven the last Persian out of the country. A vain attempt was made by an embassy to Sparta, towards the close of b.c. 459, to force Athens to recall her troops.
In b.c. 458, Artaxerxes' seventh year, it was resolved that a Persian force should attempt the recovery of the revolted country. Artaxerxes gives his firman to Ezra when this expedition is preparing to start, and partly alludes to the past "wrath," shown in the success of the rebels, partly deprecates any further visitation.
Without pretending to penetrate the Divine counsels, it may be noticed that from the year b.c. 458 things went well for the Persians in Egypt. Memphis was recovered in that year or the next; and in b.
c. 455 the Athenians were finally defeated, and the province recovered. The king and his sons. This mention of the "sons" of Artaxerxes has been regarded as a proof that the Artaxerxes of Esther was Mnemon, and not Longimanus (Patrick).
But it is quite a gratuitous supposition that Longimanus, who had attained to manhood before he ascended the throne, had no sons in the seventh year of his reign. Ultimately he left behind him eighteen sons (Ctesias, 'Exc.
Pers.,' § 44).