Saying that Baguwen is too formal, it is "binding thoughts", didn't the ancients understand this truth? Knowing that this is the case, or not changing it, then there must be a reason not to change it, and the pros and cons must have been carefully weighed. People who have taken the civil service examination should know that it is not easy to write an essay on the essay, which is often the key to pulling points, and the content is mainly the hot and difficult points of today, and there are also fixed formats to be set, what is the "syllogism", raising questions, analyzing problems, solving problems, and so on. In fact, isn't this the modern version of the eight-strand text? Of course, in comparison, its free play is slightly higher, but the disadvantage is that it is not well judged. Maybe from the point of view of form, it seems to be much more free than the eight-strand text, but sometimes I think the writing is very good and the discussion is wonderful, but it does not match the "standard answer", and the score is very low. Or the same article, this person read it and said it was good, but after changing the personal paper, he felt that it was nonsense, and the score was very low.

In fact, the ancients have long understood this truth, so there are strict requirements such as Baguwen, first of all, the formal unification of standards, the formulation of game rules, to ensure fair trade-offs, so as not to provoke criticism. Baguwen has format requirements, but there is no so-called "standard answer", and the test papers that are completed at that time will be returned to me, and there are traces of correction on them, which is a huge pressure on the markers, and they cannot but be serious and cautious. Compared with the previous life, who only knew the score, he couldn't check whether the changes in the volume were right or wrong, but he was much more open and democratic.

On the whole, the disadvantages of Baguwen have been exaggerated in modern times, and the great role it has played in selecting talents, ensuring fairness and fairness, continuing traditional Chinese culture, and maintaining social stability has been neglected.

In fact, the real biggest drawback of Baguwen, from a pragmatic point of view, is not in the style, but in the scope of the question. In the Ming and Qing dynasties, the scope of the examination questions was basically limited to the "Four Books" [Note: theoretically, the "Five Classics" is also counted, but in practice the examination is very few], when writing articles, it is almost not allowed to have their own thoughts, and they can only "speak on behalf of the sages", so it is no wonder that "imprisoning thoughts". Moreover, the exam questions are not only "Four Books", but also lead to trouble in the later stage - "Four Books" has been tested over and over again, and every sentence has been tested, and there are many "model essays" in each sentence. As a result, I had to "come up with ingenuity" and come up with all kinds of interception questions, although there are many whimsical and unique questions in these interception questions, but there are also some strange and speechless jokes.

In fact, when I had nothing to do in the past few years, there were a lot of contents about the reform of the imperial examination in the Ming reform plan made by Gao Pragmatic, but that was after he grasped the power in the future, and even not only the power - there must be huge prestige and a lot of foreshadowing made in the early stage as support, and then it can be reformed step by step and little by little.

As for the abolition of the imperial examination as those who wanted to engage in "****" in the previous life, Gao Pragmatic did not think about it at all - don't you see so many French Enlightenment thinkers who strongly advocate China's imperial examination system? Voltaire, the great of French Enlightenment thought, even wrote in "On Confucius": "No lawgiver has proclaimed a more useful truth to the world than Confucius" and "'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is the purest morality beyond the teachings of Christ." The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, annexed to the French Constitution of 1793, and the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and Citizen, annexed to the French Constitution of 1795, both contain Confucius's famous saying, "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which are defined as the moral limits of freedom and the principle of civic duty, respectively. This is the first case in which the aphorisms of foreign philosophers were written into the Constitution! This shows the extent to which Chinese civilization was revered in France at that time. [Note: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is now prominently engraved in the halls of the United Nations Headquarters in New York, and is known as the "golden rule" for handling state-to-state relations.] ]

In addition to worshipping Confucius, Voltaire praised the administrative operation of ancient China, believing that China was much more fortunate than the political forms of rule in India, Persia and Turkey. Here, he said, "everything is decided by the subordinate yamen, and officials have to go through several rigorous examinations before they are hired." In China, these yamen are the institutions that govern everything. The six were the heads of the imperial governments; The Ministry of Officials is in charge of the provincial officials; The Ministry of Household is in charge of finances; The Ministry of Rites is in charge of etiquette, science, and the arts; The War Department is in charge of the war; The Criminal Department is in charge of the prisons; The Ministry of Works is in charge of public works. The results of the transactions of these ministries are reported to a supreme body [note: this should mean the Cabinet]. Under the six ministries, there are 44 permanent subordinate offices in Beijing, and officials in each province and city have a subordinate yamen. ”

Therefore, in Voltaire's view, mankind certainly cannot imagine a better form of government than China, and the ancient Chinese government was not an authoritarian government like Montesquieu had in mind. Under this administrative system, it was impossible for the emperor to exercise arbitrariness. The general decree came from the emperor, but because of such a government agency, the emperor could not do anything unless he consulted an elected person who was well versed in the law. Even if people had to kneel before the emperor as if they were worshipping a god, and the slightest disrespect to him would be punished for offending the face of heaven, none of this would indicate that this was an authoritarian government.

Why? For in Voltaire's view, a dictatorship should be such that the monarch can deprive his subjects of property or life without breaking the law, without following a certain form, by his own will, without any reason. So if there was ever a country where people's lives, reputations, and property were protected by law, it was the "Chinese Empire". The more institutions that enforce these laws, the less arbitrary the administrative system becomes. Although sometimes a monarch can abuse his power against a few whom he knows, he cannot abuse it against a majority of the people he does not know and who are under the protection of the law.

In Gao Pragmatism's view, Voltaire's statement was somewhat "Sino-only", and there may have been an intention to use China's advanced at that time to promote the French Revolution. But it has to be admitted that Voltaire keenly discovered an important factor that limited the autocratic power of the Chinese emperor: that is, because Confucianism was deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, almost everyone, from the hundred officials to the common people, became a member of the supervision of the emperor's words and deeds.

Confucianism's requirements for "holy monarchs" are extremely strict, which also makes strict restrictions on the emperor's actions in public opinion and popular opinion, and this restriction eventually even forms a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of successive rulers - those who win the hearts of the people win the world. If you say the other way around: if you lose the hearts of the people, you are doomed to lose the world.

It's like Emperor Longqing is being criticized by his courtiers at every turn, isn't it because of this? It's just that Gao Pragmatic is used to being a "party cadre" in his previous life, and it is difficult to be satisfied with the performance of the current Da Mingyan officials after all - it is of course necessary to supervise the emperor, but the focus of supervision should not be those trivial things; And it is actually very simple for so many people to supervise the emperor alone, there is really no need to waste too much effort, and more importantly, it should be placed on the entire rule of officials, and it cannot be reduced to the end, let alone put the cart before the horse.