The funny thing about this incident is that, judging from later information, the English were probably serious at the time.
On the one hand, "Chinese propaganda" was rampant at that time, and scholars condemned the church for restricting scientific and technological progress. Aristotle had harmed Europe for thousands of years and believed that it was necessary to learn from the advanced civilization of the East.
The European sages at that time spoke highly of the East, and people in Guo Kang's previous life probably couldn't stand it. Even now, when Siris is still at the top of the world and people really look down on barbarians, it will be embarrassing.
Missionaries who have been to China often express very direct praise. The Italian missionary Maffei praised the imperial examination system, saying that there were no hereditary nobility and that everyone became the "founder" of his own destiny.
French missionary Li Ming put it more directly, believing that Chinese young people study diligently and increase their wisdom because they have to take exams, thus eliminating the ignorance and laziness of Europeans. The absence of a hereditary system would also allow the emperor to replace incompetent officials - this is what European countries have been pursuing but have not been able to fully achieve.
On the other hand, the Portuguese missionary Zeng Dezhao believed that famous scholar-bureaucrats and students who had not yet obtained a degree actually belonged to the nobility. However, this kind of noble relies on knowledge rather than lineage, so it is obviously more advanced.
After receiving the information brought by the missionaries, local European scholars also invested in research, and it became a common practice for a while.
Quesnay admired Confucius very much and bluntly said: "One copy of The Analects can defeat the Seven Sages of Greece." He believed that if a country wanted to prosper and last, it should imitate China, because it is the best example of governance in accordance with natural laws. Based on this, Quesnay wrote a series of monographs, put forward the concept of "physiocrats", and even specifically marked the place of publication as "BJ" to emphasize its importance.
The Physiocrats school was not only a popular trend of thought, but also had a great influence on the entire French policy. Quesnay was therefore revered as the "Confucius of Europe" by the French.
After Quesnay, Turgot, another representative of the Physiocratic School, simply publicly claimed that China's agriculture is more developed than that of any other country in the world, not because of their advanced technology, but because of their superior system: The Chinese We are united and inherit the rational system preserved by our ancestors from generation to generation; but the European laws are full of fraud and tricks. It can be seen that the failure of European agriculture is due to institutional problems, which cannot be solved by simple technological innovation.
Moreover, because Europeans generally have not seen this kind of civil government that adopts the imperial examination system and bureaucracy, they do not hesitate to praise it.
Voltaire discovered that government offices could be subordinate to one level and manage everything, and officials had to pass several rigorous examinations before being hired. He was full of praise for this.
He also claimed that on the one hand, the Chinese emperor was autocratic, and on the other hand, he was restricted and guided by philosopher-type officials. These officials were "parents of the people" and advocated "people-oriented" and represented the voice of the people. Good government structure.
Another scholar, Kircher, simply concluded that China is a Platonic utopia. Because it is ruled by scholars, in accordance with the wishes of the divine philosophers, it must be a happy kingdom.
Rousseau also praised China's various policies and laws. He discovered that in China, even the excessive price of rice would affect the political future of provincial governors; and once a popular uprising occurred, local officials would inevitably fall. The emperor often supported the people in conflicts between the government and the people, and was willing to execute officials who provoked riots.
Rousseau believed that this showed that the quality of the Chinese people and the emperor was quite high. The public never causes trouble without reason, and they believe that the emperor can make fair judgments; the emperor also believes that the people are always public-minded and can discover the grievances behind the civil uprising every time. This is obviously a very fair system.
Diderot also agreed with this and praised China's political and ideological system and Confucian moral philosophy in his "Encyclopedia". He said that people unanimously believe that the Chinese people have a long history, noble spirit, exquisite art, outstanding intelligence, political clarity, and philosophical literacy. Therefore, the Chinese nation is superior to other nations in Asia and can even rival the most civilized countries in Europe.
Others thought he was too proud. In "Social System", Holbach, who is also an encyclopedist, believes that China is the only country that can combine the fundamental laws of politics with morality. The fact that this country has been able to thrive for so long tells people that prosperity must rely on morality. Therefore, he believes that China's moral principles and political system are the best examples of social systems. European governments must learn from China.
As for the reasons, Voltaire also analyzed it. He observed that Chinese emperors and officials attached great importance to building public facilities and safeguarding public interests, and carried out projects such as building bridges, paving roads, and digging canals to bring convenience to people. The reason behind this, Voltaire concluded, is that China’s patriarchy is at work.
He believes that unlike other civilizations, China's patriarchal power has never been weakened, and children's "filial piety" to their fathers has always been the foundation of the country. Therefore, the Chinese government authorities love their people as their own children and are particularly keen on public welfare undertakings.
For this reason, Voltaire also followed the Oriental news at the time, and concluded that the new emperor Yongzheng loved the law and valued public welfare more than his father, so that "no one among the emperors spared no effort to encourage farming more than him." The emperor also rewarded hard-working and filial farmers and personally reviewed serious cases, apparently fulfilling his duties as a king-father and proving his theory.
As for the deeper reason, Voltaire believed that it was the morality formulated by Confucius that produced such good political systems and political practices. So it’s self-evident who we should learn from.
He said it more tactfully. Another scholar, Poisvert, even said directly in "The Travels of the Philosophers": "As long as the laws of the Chinese Empire become the laws of all countries, China can provide a fascinating picture of what the world may become." I hope everyone will take a comprehensive view. copy.
He also called on people to "go to BJ! Pay homage to the greatest man in the world. He is the truly perfect image of God." - If you refer to the era, this person should be Qianlong.
Of course, there are some philosophers who hold a different view. Among the "Three Masters of Enlightenment", Montesquieu was different from the other two. He believed that China's political system had serious problems, so he only praised its agrarian policy. But he was criticized many times by giants such as Quesnay and Voltaire, and he was criticized every day by a group of "foreign loyal ministers" who advocated the Qing government at that time...
However, these things were not very famous in the East and the West in later generations, and there was no motivation to publicize them.
For Europeans, many of the things that were boasted back then were too outrageous, and China had such a strong presence in the intellectual history of modern Europe. Even if there was an element of boasting, it would undermine the authority of the European center and destroy many people's ideas. emotional support.
To Easterners, these things are all too familiar. It turns out that what I am experiencing has been done by Europeans a long time ago. This will make people feel that in fact all human beings are the same, destroying the particularity of "Western civilization" and even destroying the sanctity of "foreign learning".
Therefore, everyone actually doesn’t want to mention it.
(End of chapter)
