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 …show more content…
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