艾爾曼 (Benjamin Elman) 教授的大作題目為《帝制中國晚期的科舉文化史》(A Cultural History of Civil Examinations in Late Imperial China)。 這本書長達八百多頁，使用的材料十分廣，含括面也很周全，可以說是近數十年來關於明清考試制度一本十分重要的著作。 我這篇論文想就他的著作來討論研究中國考試制度的可能方向，並進而探討考試制度如何影響了中國人的教育方法，以及中國人的思維方式。 簡單地說，過去考試制度的研究重視的是它所能產生的社會流動這個問題。一九七○年代以後，學者開始注意它如何影響了社會結構。學者們──主要是研究宋代科舉考試的學者──特別注意到家族的組成與考試的關係。近十幾年來，學者又進而注意科舉如何影響學術的發展，以及八股文如何左右士子的思考方式，是屬於思想史的問題。艾爾曼在這些方面都有仔細的討論。他並交代諸如科舉對自然學文的影響，以及清代所謂漢學興起與科舉考試的關系。 艾爾曼所探討的這些問題，當然以前也都有個別學者提出他們的看法，甚至提出相同的意見。但是艾爾曼的研究使用了大量的史料，舉證翔實，不只是泛泛地發表意見而已。我認為中國研究的未來一定要在這方面下功夫，才能可靠而周密的證實我們平常思考的意見，提出令人信服的結論。

This review essay begins by summarizing the content of Elman’s substantial and important book. It is pointed out that Elman opened up a number of important issues that have not been studied before. The reviewer points out, above all, that Elman seeked to give a positive view about the cultural significance of China’s civil service examination system, especially the eight-legged essays, in the Ming and Ch’ing times. The reviewer points out that Elman's new argument about social mobility is that it did occur, but primarily within the elite circle. Elman is trying to balance the optimistic assessment of the social mobility created by the examination system, as argued by Ho Ping-ti, et al, and the quite negative opinion, held by Hartwell and Hymes, et al, that the system resulted in very little mobility. The reviewer believes that while Elman’s effort is admirable, it could be further strengthened by studying, above all, the informal channels (especialy office-purchasing) that were open to non-degree holders, so as to explain why mobility was happening only within the elite circle. The reviewer further points out that, while the examination system affected the development of scholarship, the connection between the two was exaggerated. The “eight-legged essays” cannot have been created out of a vacuum in the mid-fifteenth century, simply because Wang Ao performed very well in the examinations. The reviewer also believes that philological studies (especially including textual criticism in classical learning) perhaps did not start at the time when examiners began to use expressions such as “meticulous and in accordance with authority” (有考據) to mark scripts. The reviewer believes that expressions like this should not be read as “critical towards texts” (考證).The reviewer, nonetheless, points out that Elmans’ discovery of the use of “考據” as starting in the sixteenth century is a major contribution. The reviewer then examines Elman’s opinion about eight-legged essays, and questions if they could really be relied on to assess the candidates’ knowledge about nature and science. He also insists that the style, limiting itself to the exposition of the classics actually fettered the opportunity for a candidate to develop an imaginative mind, much less a coherently argued article. Elman did not cite any scholar who has held a positive view about “eight-legged essays.” Ch’ien Mu was cited as approving the use of them, but Ch’ien was really only arguing that the essays could at least be more “fairly marked”. All in all, the reviewer praises the substantial efforts made by the author to give his readers a balanced view about the examination system, and to give them access to an enormously impressive collection of materials.