I ask you, have you read Legge's 'The Texts of Taoism'? I very much doubt you have... Legge wrote without a hint of "encapsulated prose" about the so-called 'Authority of the Chinese Classics.' Legge neither cajoled literature and deism, which is the 'Tao signature' of ancient scripts; odiously his academia 'overlooked' the innocent charm of universal nothingness. I don't like to be overly dramatic, but there's a case of mistaken identity / misinterpretation present, as I will explain later, and I am being outlandishly dignified, for I take it earnestly that Legge translated ancient text to coalesce his own self-beliefs. Worth noting, I am no James Legge polemicist per se ----- however, there's an idiom that translates, not that Legge could translate Chinese etymology proficiently: 'choose your intellectual fight carefully.' This wasn't in Legge's jurisdiction of the onus much of his deranged 'scholarly muses' were correctly banjaxed. Passionate demonstrators who avidly saw the scripts as a self-obsessed crusade to gainfully verify non-validity; again if you possess the ability to research Legge's missionary quest in Hong Kong in the 1840s; there's a pungent scent of irrationality - I'll explain.
I initially had no intention of highlighting deformed Legge commentary when I embarked on this durable correspondence after reading your nebulous post Mr Williams - henceforth, the temptation to lecture you is too irresistible. You'll understand why I found your article bone-crunchingly disparaging. His 'extraordinariness' granted religion as having monasteries, nunneries and frivolous rituals; as they did so - according to Legge they possessed superstitions merely peculiar to itself. You probably can see the miscommunication here; then again Legge attempted to rig up Tâo as a formulaic 'system' affiliated to longevity; something close to exemplifying an afterlife... very convenient don't you think. If I allowed Legge a scapegoat --- is it Deistic duration or humankind duration? Only a bygone, peripheral academic of his arbitrary ilk knows. Basically he rejoined up the meaning of Tâoism to suit his ministry pursuit in Hong Kong, and ye-s, I can verify this; unlike his Great Grandson Christopher Legge. By 1852, Legge's ministry entered jails of the pretext to offer a deeper sense of right and wrong, under Legge's own self-righteousness --- although, merely conditionally; first they had to abide by the concept of an eternal prophecy - by now, you may acknowledge Legge was guilty of a religious predisposition, not exactly an educator by today's standards. He and Max Muller's 'Sacred Books of the East' (1879) volumes was a product of Victorianism invention; oh yes, the epoch did more than build behemoth infrastructures, they reinvented the ancient scripts of the East. To call them 'sacred' is implies these authors deemed themselves above or on an equal par to omnipotent theories. Indeed, Monsignor Alexander Munro actually accused Legge and his comrades of divine reinvention of unorthodox deism; he was correct.
Another actuality is originally Tâo derived from Latin I believe in 1788, prior to any Western translation. Even Legge himself openly expressed thanks to the Roman Catholic Missionaries who initiated the first Chinese to Latin script translations. You now may gather there's a discrepancy in Legge being the *first* Professor of Chinese at Oxford University in 1876. Obviously Legge had opportunism on his side to enable him to lecture on Chinese Studies at Oxford, which I'll explain later; alas, the study program was embryonic. I do feel Roper played a vital part in Legge's professorship fortune too, you see the means of which Roper gave light to allow Western Christian indoctrination to encroach their theist theories onto Tâoism sublimely disingenuous. Absolute educative irregularity shouldn't be rewarded today; as I'm sure you agree Mr. Williams. I could question Muller and Legge's level of deceit more so - if it wasn't so ludicrous, and stupefyingly hilarious - But, graciously I'll expand, nevertheless: after their 'sacred script vanity project,' there was a noisy murmur they attempted to discredit Darwinism theories, notably this was out of the remit of educative scientific prose and I can clarify Charles Darwin found their idiocies beyond amusing, to the point pure comedy. They collectively treated Darwin as if he was a religion not a scientist. Call it a garish injustice or better still, corruptible opportunism - there's a sense Legge deliberately wanted to misinformed evolution validations; i.e. Darwinism; I grant thee......does this warrant a blue plaque honour?
Remarkable isn't it that Tâoism doesn't embody phantasmagorical strains and is divinity wise nameless, those who practice it just adore the universe and cradles harmonious well-being. Only a fool would entice a Chinese followership and profess doctrine ownership by spoiling the harmony by claiming there's only one pathway to eternal peace. And in any case the Tâo scripts aren't complete - notably, and I draw this to your attention Mr. Williams: the Emperor Ch'ang remarked subsequent parts of the ancient Books are missing. Perhaps it'll be just, if a substantial part of James Legge's blue plaque went missing; or got tampered with - I'm sure the Emperor Ch'ang would nod agreeably. The ancient doctrines are universal orphans; typical of Tâo, I think it was Homer who relayed: "Strife might perish from among gods and men!" Legge's delusional translations really was praying for the destruction of the universe; for if his prayers were heard , all things would pass away. However, here we are in the twenty-first century still waiting for the Homer philosophy to strike us down. When it came to missionary policy and 'scholarly' debate; Legge was a man possessed with a will far greater than any Oxford fellowship combined. His unwavering assertiveness was infamously frightening - a belief system like Tâoism was no match for the demonstrative ire of Legge.
----- I alert you to Brian Daizen Victoria's 'Zen at War,' R&L Publishers (2006) -- have you read it? Worth a glance with a mug of Horlicks, although you can only have so much war and peace Mr Williams. Y'see the Confucians and Tâoists weren't so easily indoctrinated when the early Buddhists introduced themselves as a religion and discussed Buddhism in a Tâo vocabulary. A smidgen like reinventing the radio knowing full well you've got to do the broadcasts. Ironically, Buddhists also wanted to rewrite Tâoist doctrines, over a considerable period, a truce was made - even the most abhorrent can't get too worked up about the 'Son of Heaven' ideology. Tao is temperate and harmless - no wonder James Legge viewed Tâoism as a mission unlikely impossible.
Historians generically write without disdain while referring to James Legge, almost as if his 'accolades' deserve the ignorant treatment, because no-one discusses the white elephant in the room which is whatever happened to the 'Non-Conformist University Test Act (1871)?' Admittedly, since reading your article I have lost sleep over this and for good reason, for what I am about to tell you will ink the water if you're still a Legge advocate. Initially the University reforms had to abolish the Anglican Church alliance to allow Legge to lecture, he wasn't willing to abide by the CoE specifics of self-professed principles; however, there was a condition. Legge couldn't promote non-conformist aspirations during his 'test period' - that went against the Anglican Church values; he did.
This is the crux of my angst, for it proves Legge had a conflict of interest and financial discrepancies via his donations to the Oxford University in May 1878; to secure his position allegedly from Robert and Andrew Jardine and James Macadam. Questionable financial aides to say the least due to the following: (1) regretfully, Robert Jardine bankrolled James Legge's 'The Chinese Classics' (London Mission Printing) in 1861 and parted on bad terms due to the papers / letters appearing in 'China Mail' - Legge apparently claimed full intellectual property while in Hong Kong. Therefore, it was highly implausible the Jardines donated to safeguard Legge's Chair. (2) Another major discrepancy is the 'Turnpike Trusts,' the other donor was named as James Macadam, a major benefactor of the Trusts... the trade was onerously lucrative, because it allowed private landlords to charge Road Tolls for alleged road maintenance.
Eventually private Road Tolls was interdicted in 1888 and the local governance took the roads into public ownership - ultimately, the Victorians validated 'TT' as an impediment to free trade. Hence-forth, any form of beneficiary is deemed highly corrupt. Oxford University's Dr. Liddell and Sir Rutherford was under immense pressure from the endowment committee to safeguard the Chair of Chinese position; at no point was the reputation of Oxford going to be in question; - yeh, James Legge was 'extraordinary' in the factor he was nonchalantly risking a major controversy on an illustrious institution; indirectly this made the 'scholar' indispensable. But he was never part of the Corpus Christi fellowship, Legge was merely a member. He even lied to his daughter Helen on that score.
Not sure if you've heard of the Roman antiquity adage; "Fiat justitia ---- ruat caelum." Do justice, and let the skies fall. In every epoch , there have been those to argue that 'greater' goods, such as tribal solidarity or social cohesion, take precedence over the demands of justice. It is supposed to be an axiom of 'Western' civilisation that the individual / truth may not be sacrificed to hypothetical benefits such as 'order.' Sometimes the best outcome Mr Williams is to struggle on and opt for a quiet life. Oxford University under Sir Rutherford was no different in June 1878, the position of Chair of Chinese was temporary not permanent much to the dismay of committees alike. In other terms Oxford firmly stated the Chair will expire on James Legge's demise; to quash any murmurrings in a bid to keep the establishment's reputation intact, to save embarassment, they commanded in offering the position to Legge as an infinite occupancy.
I have a tendency to be lenient on Sir Rutherford and Dr. Liddell purely on the simple fact they stood up to the Endowment Committee and warned that funds would be returned if the subject of the permanent Chair position continued. In retrospect, I'll do exactly the same - for true scholars embrace pantheons of educative prestige; unlike the charlatans of the 'Sacred Text' who unheedly tamper with ancient doctrines and archaic educative prophecy as if it doesn't matter. His contempt for the non-conformist part of his lecture contract that was a specifically restructured Act for Legge triggered a plethora of humanity warning signs which I will expand on at a later date, I'm sure you'll be pleased to read another Legge related correspondence Mr Williams.
The blue plaque at No 3 Keble Terrace, Oxford just stirs up trouble again. Dare I say it, I am not a spectator of unfairness or stupidity, but I have good reason to conclude you are also Mr. Williams not a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Nor do I seek out argument and disputation for their own sake, as there's much time for silence. Keep your powder dry for the battles ahead and know when and how to spot self-obsessed acts and irrational prose. James Legge is a good place to start.
Comments
Post a Comment