What's funny about this is that, judging from later sources, it is likely that the English were serious at the time.

On the one hand, at that time, the "middle blow" was rampant, and scholars condemned the church for restricting scientific and technological progress, and Aristotle had plagued Europe for thousands of years, believing that it was necessary to learn from the advanced civilization of the East.

At that time, the European sages made words touting the East, Guo Kang's previous life probably couldn't stand it. Even now, it would be embarrassing for Seris to be at the top of the world and people really look down on barbarians.

Missionaries who have been to China often give very straightforward praises. The Italian missionary Maffei praised the imperial examination system, saying that there was no hereditary aristocracy, and that everyone became the "founder" of their own destiny.

The French missionary Li Ming put it more bluntly, arguing that Chinese young people study diligently and increase their wisdom because they have to take exams, putting an end to the ignorance and laziness of Europeans. Without hereditary succession, the emperor would be able to remove incompetent officials – something that European countries have been striving for, but have not been able to fully achieve.

On the other hand, the Portuguese missionary Tsang Tak Chiu believed that scholars with great merit and students who had not yet obtained a degree were actually nobles. However, this type of aristocracy relied on learning rather than lineage, so it was significantly more advanced.

Local scholars in Europe received the information brought by the missionaries and devoted themselves to research, and it became a common practice for a while.

Quenet admired Confucius very much, and bluntly said: "A copy of the Analects can defeat the seven sages of Greece." He believes that if the country wants to prosper and last, it should follow China's example, because it is the best example of governing according to the laws of nature. Accordingly, Quenet wrote a series of monographs that put forward the concept of "physiocratism" and even marked the place of publication as "BJ" to emphasize its importance.

The Physiocrats were not only popular thoughts, but also had a great influence on the policy of France as a whole. As a result, Quenet was revered by the French as the "Confucius of Europe".

After Quenet, Durgo, another representative of the Physiocrats, simply openly claimed that China's agriculture was 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 are united and inherit the rational system that their ancestors have retained from generation to generation; The laws of Europeans, on the other hand, are all about fraud and subterfuge. It can be seen that European agriculture is not good, it is a system problem, and it cannot be solved by simple technological innovation.

Moreover, since Europeans have generally never seen such a civil government with the imperial examination system and bureaucratic system, they do not hesitate to praise it.

Voltaire discovered that the government yamen was able to be subordinate to the first level, managing everything, and officials had to go through several rigorous examinations before being hired. He praised it.

He also asserted that the Chinese emperor was autocratic on the one hand, and on the other hand, limited and guided by philosopher-type officials, who were "the parents of the people" and advocated "people-oriented" and represented the voice of the people, which was the best government structure.

Another scholar, Kirchet, simply argues that China is a platonic ideal country. Because it was ruled by scholars and in accordance with the wishes of the divine philosophers, it must have been a happy kingdom.

Rousseau also praised China's policies and laws. He found that in China, even the excessive price of rice affected the political future of provincial governors; And in the event of a popular uprising, local officials will inevitably fall. The emperor often supported the people in conflicts between the government and the people, and for this reason did not hesitate to execute officials who provoked riots.

According to Rousseau, this shows that the quality of both the Chinese people and the emperor is quite high. The public never caused trouble for no reason, and trusted the emperor to judge fairly; The emperor also believed that the people were always motivated by public intentions, and every time he could find out the grievances behind the civil uprising. This is obviously a very fair system.

Diderot agreed, and in his Encyclopédie, he praised China's political ideology and Confucian moral philosophy. He said that people unanimously believe that the Chinese have a long history, noble spirit, superb art, outstanding intelligence, clear politics, and philosophical literacy. Therefore, the Chinese nation is superior to other Asian nations, and can even be comparable to the most developed countries in European civilization.

Others, on the other hand, thought he was too arrogant. Holbach, who is also an encyclopedist, argues that China is the only country that can combine the fundamental law of politics with morality. The fact that this country has been able to thrive for so long is to show people that prosperity must depend on morality. Therefore, he believes that China's moral principles and political system are the best models of social systems. European governments have no choice but to learn from China.

As for the reasons, Voltaire also analyzed. He observed that the Chinese emperor and government attached great importance to the construction of public facilities, the protection of public interests, and the construction of bridges and roads, the digging of canals, etc., to bring convenience to the people. And the reason behind this, Voltaire boiled down to the fact that Chinese patriarchy was at work.

He believes that, unlike other civilizations, China's patriarchy has not been weakened, and the "filial piety" of children to their fathers has always been the foundation of the state. That is why the Chinese government authorities love the people like children and are particularly keen on public welfare.

To this end, Voltaire also followed the Oriental news at that 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 agriculture more than him." The emperor also rewarded industrious and filial peasants, personally examined felony cases, apparently fulfilled his duties as a monarch, and proved his theory.

As for the deeper reason, Voltaire believed that it was the morality formulated by Confucius that produced such a good political system and political practice. So it goes without saying who you should learn.

He said it more tactfully. Another scholar, Poisville, even directly stated in "The Philosopher's Travels": "As long as the laws of the Chinese Empire become the laws of all nations, China can provide a fascinating picture of what the world might become." "I hope you will copy it all.

He also called on people to "Go to BJ!" Look at the greatest man in the world, who is the true perfect image of the Divine. "-And if you refer to the chronology, this person should be Qianlong.

Of course, there are some philosophers who disagree. Among the "Three Masters of Enlightenment", Montesquieu is different from the other two. He believed that China's political system was very problematic and therefore praised only its heavy agricultural policy. But because of this, he was repeatedly attacked by giants such as Quenet and Voltaire, and was sprayed every day by a group of "foreign loyal ministers" who advocated the Qing Dynasty government at that time......

However, these things are not too well-known in the East and West in later generations, and everyone has little motivation to publicize.

For Europeans, many of the things they boasted about back then were outrageous, and China's presence in the intellectual history of modern Europe was so strong that even if there was an element of boasting, it would attack the authority of the center of Europe and destroy the spiritual pillar of many people.

For Orientals, these things are all too familiar. It turns out that what I am experiencing is what the Europeans have done a long time ago. This will make people feel that in fact, human beings are all the same, destroying the particularity of "Western civilization" and even the sacredness of "learning from the outside world".

So, everyone doesn't really want to mention it.

(End of chapter)