"Knowing the value of a lifetime, he never wastes his time, nor does he omit any necessary duty, so that in the light of his upright intentions, every action of his life may be considered as an adoration of God."

With this quoted sentence, as with many others, we can clearly see the impossibility of getting a useful biography of the Emperor. Because he is the emperor, his actions must necessarily align perfectly with the mores of the time—thus, while it is almost completely useless for any true exploration of Akbar the man, the document is quite useful in communicating to use those aforementioned mores. In other words, whatever the Emperor is described as doing must be what is considered most righteous in that society, as least for a head of state. What stands out to me is how the virtues seem to focus mostly on lack—what Akbar does not do, which stand in uneasy dialectic to the typical rapturous description of the King’s riches. Consider the section on the kitchen, one moment the author is describing the beautiful silver and gold dishes, tied up in red cloth. The next he is lauding the for his temperance, for never eating till he is full. Consider:

“Although surrounded by every external pomp and display, and by every inducement to lead a life of luxury and ease, he does not allow his desires, or his wrath, to renounce allegiance to Wisdom, his sovereign—how much less would he permit them to lead him to a bad deed! Even the telling of stories, which ordinary people use as a means of lulling themselves into sleep, serves to keep His Majesty awake.”

What a strange passage! Unlike the rest of the text, which seems to regard the emperor’s finery as an unquestioned good—what befits an emperor—here the text seems to regard luxury as dangerous and potentially immoral, the only saving grace here being the emperor’s superhuman self-control. Is this a response to civil unrest over the wealth gap? Or merely another way of demonstrating that Akbar is superman?

Further complicating the question, the text does not read exactly like a propaganda piece, where the only aim is to laud the ruler. On the contrary, painstaking detail is given as to how the royal lifestyle is kept up, and the work done by the servants is described in a ritualistic, almost religious manner, with a focus on a details that seem to have no reference beyond themselves. What is the significance of the copper utensils being tinned twice a month for the emperor, and once a month for princes? Who is the target audience of this piece of information—who would find it meaningful or connect it to something beyond itself? It’s a strange article, which seems to pull in many ways.

Overall though, the picture which is being painting of this mythic man, and thus of the virtue of the times, is relatively clear. Most of his virtues are abnegations, showing him to be a serious man who devotes himself to spirituality and his duties before his luxuries. But when half the text is describing his majestic harem and kitchen it seems a curious case of mixed messaging. Not being an expert on the culture I can only speculate, but despite it’s apparent contradictions, a connection could easily be made to the ideology of the modern right wing, especially here in America. On the one hand, that culture is strongly influenced by religion, and religion tends to go against riches and luxury-especially indulgence in these. On the other hand, that culture is also profoundly influenced by the doctrine of free market capitalism, where the rich deserve their riches because of their hard work and superiority. Such an ideology could well take root in a hierarchical caste system.