欲探討中戲曲的淵源、形成與發展，首先要弄清楚一些前提，即何謂戲劇，何謂戲曲。而戲曲既為綜合之藝術，則其雛型之「小戲」只能以一二元素為基礎，由此而吸納或結合其他元素而成立。由於「小戲」構成之主要元素可以不相同，所以宋代以前見於文獻之「小戲」，成於戰國時代之《九歌．山鬼》，在宗教祭祀場合中以巫覡之歌舞為基礎；成於西漢武帝時之《東海黃公》在御前百戲競奏中以藝人雜技為基礎，成於後趙之「參軍戲」在宮廷君王娛藥中以俳優?說為基礎，成於北齊之《踏謠娘》在鄉土群眾歡笑中以歌舞為基礎。可見「小戲」可以異時異地在不同之孕育場所中滋生。它們各領「風騷」，因為源生有別便很難譜寫其間之血源。這樣的「小戲」才是實質的戲曲之「源頭」，而如果以文獻出現之早晚為論據，那麼《九歌》或《九歌》中之《山鬼》應當是中國戲曲的第一個「雛型」，亦即中國戲曲以此為「源頭」。 而若論中戲曲之完成，則是多元且不簡陋不粗糙結為有機體之「綜合文學與藝術」，亦即成立於宋金之大戲「南戲北劇」，而其發展則為流播後之「腔調劇種」，則為交化後之「傳奇」、「南雜劇」與「短劇」。 晚清民初以來，學者之所以有所論爭、派系林立、莫衷一是，實因未辨明何謂「戲劇」何謂「戲曲」；未明「劇曲」有「小戲」、「大戲」之吸，未知「小戲」為「戲曲」之「雛型」，「大戲」為「戲曲」之「成型」；因之或以「小戲」為「全能劇」，率爾宣布戲曲之完全成立，或以「大戲」方始能符合「戲曲」之命義，而謂中國古典戲劇晚至宋金乃始見，這也就是本文引言裡所說的「誤以淵源為形成，或誤以形成為淵源」的現象。而於「小戲」與「大戲「，亦未有明確之界義，且未認知「小戲」已為多元素構成之綜合藝術；因之或以構成小戲之主要元素或以孕育小戲之溫床為戲曲之淵源，以致有如瞎子摸象而不自知。此外，又因不知小戲可以因時因地因主要元素而生發，以其構成元素簡陋而可以多元並起；大戲既為具「綜合文學藝術」之有機體，以其構成元素之多元複雜而縝密精緻，便只能一源多派。凡此筆者不揣譾陋，以一得之愚，求教方家，非敢唐突群賢也。

　　　　　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 If we take the dates of their appearances in the historical documents as grounds of reasoning, then Jiuge or Shangui should be the first mininature form of Chinese xiqu.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.