On the Origin, Formation and Development of Chinese Xiqu

To explore the origin, formation and development of Chinese xiqu (classical drama), we have to clarify what is drama and what is xiqu. Since xiqu is a kind of synthetic art, its miniature form, xiaoxi, can only absorb or combine with other elements at the basis of a few basic elements. Due to the varieties of xiaoxi's constituent elements, the xiaoxi recorded in the historicaldocuments before the Song dynasty seemed so different. For example, the Shangui in the period of Warring States was based on Shaman's song and dance in religious occasions. The Donghai Huanggong in the reign of Emperor Wu of West Han was developed from the acrobatics performed in the theatrical competition before the Emperor. The canjunxi in the Latter Zhao was formed at the ground of the players' talk performance in the court. The tayaoniang in Northern Qi was produced at the root of song and dance to arouse countryfolk's laughter, Xiaoxi can be developed in different occasions of different areas and times. The above-mentioned different forms of xiaoxi are the real origin of xiqu. If we take the dates of their appearances in the historical documents as grounds of reasoning, then Jiuge or Shangui should be the first mininature form of Chinese xiqu. The completion of Chinese xiqu as a finds and organic synthesie of literature and art was first shown in nanxi and beiju formed in Song Jin period. These two forms of drama then developed into "qiangdiao juzhong" (drama of tune and melody) which refer to chqanqi, nan zaju and duanju. The reason why the scholarly field has no agreement of opinion for the above issues since late Qin and Early Republic period is because most scholars cannot identify what is xiju and xiqu, not knowing the difference between xiaoxi and daxi, or recognizing xiaoxi as xiqu's "miniature" form and daxi as xiqu's "mature" form. They usually regarded xiaoxi as "quanneng ju" , and daxi as the original form of xiqu, which did not appear unitl as late as song Jin period. Such a phenomenon is what I described as "confusion of origin and formation" in the foreword of this article. By "confusion," I mean the common unclear definitions of xiaoxi and daxi, and ignorance of the fact that xiaoxi has become a synthetic art with multiple constituent elements. The confusion of origin and formation leads to a wrong conclusion that xiqu was originated from xiaoxi's constituent elements or growing hotbed. In addition, some scholars did not recognize that since xiaoxi can be produced according to time, place and major constituent elements, its may be originated from multiple sources. They also neglect that while daxi is an organic synthesis of art and literature, its constituents could only be one origin with multiple divisions.