Like many Eastern potentates Akbar had a feeling of the paltriness of life, and an interest in religion. His father and grandfather had similar emotions, and these were also felt by his grandfather's great antagonist—Shaibānī Khān of Samarḳand. Unfortunately, Akbar, though a man of genius and one eager in the quest of truth, was less educated than were his ancestors. He could not even read and write. He had been told, perhaps, that the apostle Muḥammad was an ignorant man and this may have encouraged him to neglect studies. There also seems to be no doubt that for an oriental he was of singularly slow development. As a boy, he seems to have passed most of his time in amusements such as pigeon-flying, and in good eating. This, apparently, is what Abu-l-Faẓl means when he so often says that Akbar remained long under the veil. When he grew up, his flatterers told him that his educational deficiencies were an advantage. But he came too late into the world to play the part of an ignorant and inspired prophet, even if he had not been born in too high a position of power and responsibility to be fitted for it. It is probable that if he had known to read and write he would have been saved from one of his worst blunders and crimes, that of his putting to death the innocent and able Persian Shāh Manṣūr. For then he would have been able to detect the forgeries which caused the condemnation. Such knowledge also might have saved him from his rash interference with chronology. It is creditable to Akbar that he endeavoured to give a good educa­tion to his sons.

Like most religious innovators, he began by being very orthodox. Having been brought up as a Muḥammadan he began by being pious and very observant of the rules of the Qorān. Religion was in the air when he came to the throne and he strove to imitate the ceremonial exercises of Sulaimān Kararānī the ruler of Bengal and the other Sulaimān who was ruler of Badakhshān. This feeling continued to influence Akbar for many years, and Niāmu-d-dīn, the excellent and orthodox historian, tells us in his account of the 24th and 25th years of the reign that Akbar at that time used to join in the public prayers five times a day. See p. 344 of Newal Keshore's lithographed edition of the abaqāt-i-Akbarī. Akbar, indeed, continued his practices of outward devotion long after he had ceased to be a believer. See the accounts of his public devotion to an alleged Holy Stone, and his repeated visits to the Ajmere shrine. And Monserrate tells us that he had a private oratory carried about with him during his advance into Afghānistān, though it disappeared during his return journey. Probably this was used for quasi Christian practices such as an adoration of the Virgin Mary, and also for Parsee rites.

In May 1578 and the 23rd year of the reign, 14 Ṣafr 986 A.H. he had a strange experience which is described in the third volume of the Akbarnāma, see my note p. 345, and also Niāmu-d-dīn Aḥmad's history and in Badāūnī. Akbar had arranged to hold a great circular hunting-drive which is called by a word which is half Arabic and half Persian (Qamargāh) qamar being Arabic for the moon, and gāh, which is Persian for place. Birds and beasts had been gathered together, for miles round near the river Jhelam in a place called Nandana in the Pind Dādan Khān taḥsil of the Jhelam district of the Punjab. Suddenly, a change came over Akbar and he ordered every bird and beast to be released and the hunting arrangements to be abandoned. It was not known what had caused this change, but it was supposed to be a case of jaẕba or spiritual attraction. It was supposed that he had had a vision, or that some hermit had visited him. Shortly afterwards his mother came from Fatḥpūr Sikrī to see him. Probably, she had been alarmed at the news about her son, as it had caused a good deal of public commotion. The result was that he gave up further progress into the Punjab and went back with his mother to Fatḥpūr Sikrī. The incident reminds one of the “Tolle lege tolle lege” as St. Augustine's confessions. Both took place in a forest, and both were cases of a sudden conversion, or of a conviction of sin. But the two were not of equal value. St. Augustine's resulted in purification and change of life. Akbar's was less lasting and less beneficial. It does not appear that he led a better life afterwards or that it had any other effect upon himself or the world than to increase his self-conceit and to lead him to the fantastic attempt to establish a new Religion, the Divine Faith, which died out after his death. He was about the same age as St. Augustine when the change came to them both. But Akbar was not a student and he was more tied and bound by the chain of his sins and his position than was Augustine. His life too was probably far more worn. He was thirty-four or so when the jaẕba occurred, and St. Augustine was two or three years younger when the change came to him.

It will be seen that the attractive incident took place before the arrival of the Jesuit Mission.

I fear that Akbar was too much tied and bound with the chain of his sins—the sin which doth so easily beset us—and also by his regard for his wives of whom he had more than 300, to accept Father Rudolf's exhortations. Indeed who but a young and impetuous fanatic like the Duke's son could expect him to do so. I doubt very much if Monserrate made similar demands on the emperor.

There was a great discovery in our knowledge of Akbar's character and of his campaign in Afghānistān when Canon Firminger found the original Latin edition of Father Monserrate's commentaries in the Library of the Calcutta Cathedral. How General Maclagon would have been delighted if he had met in with the volume! But it fell into good hands when Canon Firminger discovered it in 1906 and when Father Hosten, S.J., edited it in 1914. The history of the MS. is a curious one, but is not yet completely known. Father Anthony Monserrate, the author, was a Spaniard and was born in Catalonia in 1536. His father was personally acquainted with Ignatius Loyola, and Anthony became a member of the S.J. In 1574 he embarked for India. He and Father Rudolf were the two missionaries who were sent to Akbar at his request to instruct him on the Bible. They left Goa in November 1579, and arrived at the Court in Fatḥpūr Sikrī in February 1580 and had an audience early in March. Rudolf was an Italian and of noble descent, his father having been Duke of Atri in the Abruzzi and his paternal uncle Claude Aquaviva being General of the Jesuits. Rudolf was born in October 1550 so that he was 15 or 16 years younger than Monserrate. The two missionaries lived together for a good while but in February 1581 Monserrate accompanied Akbar in his expedition to the Punjab and Afghānistān. See Commentary p. 580. In November 1582 Akbar and Monserrate returned to Fatḥpūr Sikrī. Rudolf, who had joined Akbar at Lahore, also came back with him. In May 1583 Rudolf took leave of Akbar and went to Goa, and in July of that year he was killed by the villagers. May 1583 is given in Father Goldin's book (Chronology Table) as the date of Rudolf's return, but Father Hosten says (p. 521) that he left in February, and perhaps May is the date when Rudolf arrived at Goa. Monserrate had already left for Goa in the end of 1582 in order to go with Akbar's Moghul Ambassador to Portugal. But the embassy never got any further than Goa. Monserrate was at Goa when Rudolf was killed, but apparently was not present at the martyrdom. Eventually Monserrate was sent on a mission to Ethiopia, but was wrecked at Dofar in Arabia and was captured by the Turks there and taken to Eynam and afterwards to Sanan where he was imprisoned for over six years. He finished his Commentary there in January 1591. He was ransomed and returned to Goa in 1596. He was afterwards posted to Salsette and died there in 1600.

Monserrate's simple piety gave an explanation of the real cause of the failure of the mission. It failed, he says, because Akbar's invitation for the mission had not been divinely inspired (Comm. 638) for if this had been the case nothing could have stopped or prevented its success. Nam si opus hoc a Deo fuisset, nullis incommodis, aut obstaculis, inpediri non potuisset. At vero, quia non erat a Deo, per seipsum, etiam renitente Rege, concidit et dissolutum est.

No, dear Father Monserrat! Your mission, at least as far as you were concerned, was not a total failure. It gave rise to a valuable book. We should remember too the lines in the Epic of Hades, which John Bright admired and which tell how far high failure overleaps the bounds of low success. Nor was Rudolf's blood altogether wasted. Doubtless his teachings and his death had a good influence on Akbar and Muḥammadan Court.

Monserrate has a long and eloquent eulogium on Father Rudolf who, no doubt, was a noble-minded man, but wanting in gnosis. He might have done much good at Agra. He might have converted Akbar's three sons who were all favourably disposed towards him and were allowed by Akbar to attend his teaching. He was a quick man and speedily attained a good knowledge of Persian. But he weakened himself by his fastings and scourgings and did much less good to India and the world than Monserrate. The latter produced a book of priceless value, and stuck to his post. Nor was he responsible for the deaths of four Christians, and for the cruel reprisals perpetrated by the Portuguese civil authorities.