1. Mao's views are summarized in Mao Tse-tung on Art and Literature (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

2. See a brief discussion of this subject in Boorman, Howard L., “The literary world of Mao Tse-tung,” The China Quarterly (CQ) 13 (1963), pp. 16–24Google Scholar.

3. On this subject see Munro, Donald J., “The malleability of man in Chinese Marxism,” CQ 48 (1971), pp. 609–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the same author's The Concept of Man in Contemporary China (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

4. References are to the English translation in Selected Works of Mao Tsetung, Volume III (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965), pp. 69–98Google Scholar. Examples of analyses of the “Talks” written in English from different points of view are Hsia, C. T., A History of Modern Chinese Fiction, 1917–1957 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), pp. 308–313Google Scholar (hostile to Mao's ideas), and Suyin, Han, The Morning Deluge: Mao Tsetung and the Chinese Revolution 1893–1953 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1972), pp. 453–58Google Scholar (sympathetic to them). Cf. also Fokkema, D. W., Literary Doctrine in China and Soviet Influence, 1956–1960 (The Hague, London, Paris: Mouton and Co., 1965), pp. 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5. The forum of which this is a summary was held from 2 to 20 February 1966. See p. 3 of the “Summary” itself. References are to the English translation published by the Foreign Languages Press in Peking, 1968.

6. Some of the issues I have discussed here, in addition to some I have not, were earlier pointed out by Yang, C. K. in “Cultural Revolution and revisionism,” in Ho, Ping-ti and Tsou, Tang (eds), China in Crisis: Volume 1, China's Heritage and the Communist Political System, Book Two (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 512–524Google Scholar. Yang accepts that Chou Yang and his group were indeed revisionists.

7. “Talks,” p. 86.

8. Cf. Jen-min jih-pao (hereafter Jen-min), 29 May 1970, p. 2, and 16 October 1970, p. 2. Some of the newspaper articles cited in this paper have been translated in the Survey of China Mainland Press, the first quoted here in No. 4674, 11 June 1970, pp. 73–82. However, unless otherwise stated, translations given here are my own.

9. Jen-min, 6 May 1971, p. 2. Cf. ibid. 16 October 1970, p. 2.

10. See Kuang-ming jih-pao (Kuang-ming), 30 May 1970, p. 2.

11. Ibid. 19 April 1970, p. 2. Cf. ibid. 21 April 1970, p. 3; Jen-min, 29 May 1970, p. 2, 16 October 1970, p. 2, and 12 December 1970, p. 3; Hung-ch'i 4 (1970), pp. 46–47. Mao discusses the question of “art for whom?” in his “Talks,” pp. 75–79.

12. This rigid control which the ruling classes attempted to keep over the theatre in the past is evident from the enormous number of edicts issued against “malpractices” of every kind. See Hsiao-ch'uan, Wang (ed.), Yüan Ming Ch'ing san-tai chin-hui hsiao-shuo hsi-ch'ü shih-liao (Peking: Tso-chia ch'u-pan she, 1958)Google Scholar.

13. See Jen-min, 11 June 1972, p. 4.

14. Kuang-ming, 19 April 1970, p. 2. Cf. Jen-min, 16 October 1970, p. 2, and 3 July 1971, p. 3.

15. On the question of tradition and the theatre in recent years see also Fokkema, D. W., “Maoist ideology and its exemplification in the new Peking opera,” Current Scene, Developments in Mainland China X:8 (1972), pp. 15–17Google Scholar.

16. Kuang-ming, 28 August 1970, p. 4. Cf. Hung-ch'i 5 (1970), pp. 60–61.

17. Unfortunately I have been unable to consult the original of this editorial and have therefore taken this excerpt from a broadcast over Canton radio on 18 May 1972 as translated in Summary of World Broadcasts, Part 3, The Far East (published by the monitoring service of the British Broadcasting Corporation and hereafter abbreviated as SWB), 23 May 1972, FE 3996.

18. See Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Volume II, p. 381.

19. See Hung-ch'i 6 (1972), p. 22Google Scholar.

20. From her speech “On the revolution in Peking opera” made in July 1964 but published in Chinese Literature 8 (1967), p. 120Google Scholar. It is said that Mao objected to the Red Guard bans on traditional popular literature and told his niece, who defended them, that she was “being purely metaphysical.” See Karnow, Stanley, Mao and China, From Revolution to Revolution (New York: The Viking Press, 1972), p. 35Google Scholar.

21. See len-min, 10 December 1971, p. 4, and 16 October 1970, p. 2. Cf. also “Summary,” p. 19. Chou Yang's views on socialist realism in 1953 are discussed by Fokkema, in Literary Doctrine, pp. 36–42Google Scholar. Fokkema makes no mention of Chou's anti-Maoist leanings, but this is not surprising since the Chinese themselves did not perceive his revisionism at that time nor in the year Fokkema's book was published (1965).

22. “Talks,” pp. 74–75.

23. See further notes on heroism in the model operas in Fokkema, , “Maoist ideology,” pp. 17–19Google Scholar.

24. The Chinese original was published in Hung-ch'i 5 (1970), pp. 23–46Google Scholar, and translated into English in Chinese Literature 8 (1970), pp. 8–52Google ScholarPubMed. For a collection of articles on the 1964 Hung-teng chi, see Ching-chü “Hung-teng chi” p'ing-lun chi (Peking: Chung-kuo hsi-chü ch'u-pan she, 1965)Google Scholar.

25. These attempts have been excellently discussed by Ahn, Byung-joon in “The politics of Peking opera, 1962–1965,” Asian Survey XII:12 (1972), pp. 1066–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Hung-ch'i 5 (1970), pp. 47–48Google Scholar. Similar claims had already been made during the Cultural Revolution, e.g., Jen-min, 22 December 1966, p. 6, and Hsi-chü chanpoo, 21 May 1967, p. 2. In all cases Chiang Ch'ing is given the credit for the revisions. Cf. Ahn, Byung-joon, “The politics,” p. 1074Google Scholar.

27. Hung-ch'i 5 (1970), pp. 48–49Google Scholar. Note that the May 1970 version was merely an official formalization of ideas put forward earlier about this character. See Jen-min, 3 January 1970, p. 3, and many other press articles.

28. Further material on villains, although in novels of the earlier period, may be found in Huang, Joe C., “Villains, victims and morals in contemporary Chinese literature,” CQ 46 (1971), pp. 331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29. Hung-ch'i 5 (1970), pp. 54–55Google Scholar. See also the ideals laid down for the portrayal of war in “Summary,” pp. 19–20.

30. The records I have used are, for the old version, KM–126, issued by the Chinese Record Company in March 1965, and, for the new, DM–6170, put out by the same company in December 1970. The cast of the main characters, which is the same in both recordings, is as follows: Ch'ien Hao-liang (Li Yü-ho), Kao Yü-ch'ien (Grandmother Li), Liu Ch'ang-yü (Li Tieh-mei) and Yüan Shih-hai (Hatoyama).

31. I should add that the extent of the “westernization” of the music in the revised operas varies from item to item and scene to scene. In Hai-kang, for instance, there are quite a few long passages in which the western instruments remain silent.

32. During my recent visit to China I noticed, however, that amateurs and children sometimes use only Chinese instruments, even in Hung-teng chi.

33. Huai-chü is a regional style of parts of northern Kiangsu and Shanghai.

34. See Kuang-ming, 20 April 1967, p. 3.

35. The Chinese original was published in Hung-ch'i 2 (1972), pp. 22–48Google Scholar, and translated into English in Chinese Literature 5 (1972), pp. 52–98Google Scholar.

36. On the story and history of the drama see also “Theatre,” China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), pp. 2–6Google Scholar. But note that the writer there has mistakenly regarded Han Hsiao-ch'iang as a woman.

37. Jen-min, 30 March 1972, p. 3.

38. Kuang-ming, 3 November 1966, p. 4, refers to Ch'ien as a “capitalist,” and ibid. 20 August 1968, p. 4, as a “typical capitalist representative.”

39. In the earliest versions the backward but basically good worker was called Yü Ch'ang-pao.

40. In the version performed in 1966 both Han's uncle and Fang Hai-chen take part in re-educating Han. See Kung-jen jih-pao, 3 November 1966, p. 4.

41. Hung-ch'i 5 (1972), p. 56Google Scholar.

42. According to Hsien-tai hsi-ch'ü ch'ang-ch'iang hsüan, ti-erh chi (Peking: Yin-yüeh ch'u-pan she, 1965), p. 54Google Scholar, it was set in September 1963.

43. Hung-ch'i 5 (1972), p. 51Google Scholar. Cf. also Kuang-ming, 2 March 1972, p. 3.

44. See notes on the history of this drama in China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), p. 4Google Scholar.

45. The Chinese original was published in Hung-ch'i 3 (1972), pp. 36–62Google Scholar, and translated into English in Chinese literature 7 (1972), pp. 3–52Google ScholarPubMed.

46. Hung-ch'i 1 (1972), p. 44Google Scholar.

47. See a fuller account of the story in China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), p. 2Google Scholar.

48. Jen-min, 27 September 1972, p. 4.

49. See Hung-ch'i 6 (1972), p. 18Google Scholar.

50. The text of the five act play is contained in Chü-pen (1964) 3, pp. 7–42Google Scholar.

51. Jen-min, 25 June 1972, p. 4. I should add that the phrase san t'u-ch'u does occur in the literature on Hung-teng chi, but with a different meaning. Thus, in an article in Jen-min, 12 May 1970, p. 3, there is a passage running: “It [i.e., Hung-teng chi] obeys the creation principle of the ‘san t'u-ch'u’ by giving most emphasis to the main heroic character among the positive characters, by making the negative characters contrast with the main heroic character, and by making the heroic image of Li Yü-ho, like a main peak standing erect amid a crowd of peaks, come through even higher and more grandiose.”

52. E.g., Jen-min, 2 February 1970, p. 4, and 9 February 1970, p. 3; Kuangming, 5 January 1970, p. 2, 10 January 1970, p. 3, 27 January 1970, p. 3, 1 May 1970, p. 3, 10 May 1970, p. 2, and 12 May 1970, p. 3.

53. E.g., for Ode, Jen-min, 25 January 1972, p. 2, 9 March 1972, p. 3, 21 March 1972, p. 4, and 27 September 1972, p. 4; Kuang-ming, 25 March 1972, p. 2; and for On the Docks, Jen-min, 11 March 1972, p. 3, and 30 March 1972, p. 3; Kuangming, 7 February 1972, p. 3, 2 March 1972, p. 3, and 21 May 1972, p. 2. There are of course exceptions, for instance Kuang-ming, 28 April 1972, p. 2, which singles out Chiang Shui-ying, and 3 February 1972, p. 3, but note that this mentions “Fang Hai-chen and other heroes “ (italics mine).

54. E.g., Kuang-ming, 3 February 1972, p. 3, and Jen-min, 30 March 1972, p. 3, both in praise of Kao Chih-yang.

55. E.g., Davies, Derek in Far Eastern Economic Review 77:30 (1972), pp. 12–13Google Scholar, and unsigned article “New ground rules for Peking opera?“ Current Scene X:3 (1972), pp. 14–15Google Scholar. The second piece deals in particular with dramas which I have not examined here. In support of its claim that the change in hero portrayal is deliberate it quotes an article in Hung-ch'i 12 (1971), pp. 55–62Google Scholar.

56. China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), p. 4Google Scholar.

57. See Maloney, Joan M., “Chinese women and Party leadership: impact of the Cultural Revolution,” Current Scene X:4 (1972), pp. 10–15Google Scholar.

58. The Chinese word translated as “popularization” or “popularize” is p'u-chi which actually means “disseminate widely” and lacks the connotation of causing to be loved, inherent in the English word “popularize.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives as one of its definitions of this word to “cause to be generally known or liked.” However, it is adopted here because the Chinese themselves use it in English-language publications, notably in the English version of Chairman Mao's works. See above all the opening passages of part 2 of the “Conclusion” of “Talks.’

59. SWB, 16 October 1971, FE 3814. Cf. also Jen-min, 5 March 1972, p. 4, and 11 June 1972, p. 4.

60. Ho-nan jih-pao, broadcast over Honan provincial radio, 20 February 1972, and quoted in China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), p. 6Google Scholar.

61. T'ien Han claimed in 1960 that there were 470 kinds of opera, Jen-min, 9 September 1960, p. 7, but the figure normally quoted to me in China from 1964 to 1966 was about 300.

62. See Hua-tung hsi-ch'ü chü-chung chieh-shao, 6 vols. (Shanghai: Hsin wen-i ch'u-pan she, 1955)Google Scholar; my article “The growth of the Chinese regional drama in the Ming and Ch'ing,” Journal of Oriental Studies IX:1 (1971), pp. 58–91Google Scholar.

63. SWB, 28 August 1970, FE 3468.

64. See China News Analysis 878 (21 04 1972), p. 6Google Scholar.

65. Kuang-ming, 3 June 1972, p. 2. Although p'u-t'ung-hua is used in regional operas if the local dialect is close to it, Li Hsi-fan claims that there is no plan to introduce it into the operas of those areas where standard Chinese is still unintelligible to the masses.

66. Peking Review XVI:6 (1973), p. 16Google Scholar.

67. Brief biographical notes on Wu Teh can be found in Current Scene X:9 (1972), pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

68. See examples from Chekiang provincial service on 31 August 1970 in SWB, 10 September 1970, FE 3478; Fukien provincial service on 26 September 1970 in SWB, 3 October 1970, FE 3498; Hupeh provincial service on 28 July 1970 in SWB, 31 July 1970, FE 3444; Shensi provincial service on 23 May 1972 in SWB, 30 May 1972, FE 4001; and Liaoning provincial service on 23 May 1972 in SWB, 3 June 1972, FE 4005.

69. See my Amateur Theatre in China, 1949–1966, Contemporary China Papers No. 5 (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1973), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

70. SWB, 10 September 1970, FE 3478. The section in inverted commas is a direct quotation from the broadcast, the rest is the BBC's précis.

71. See SWB, 6 May 1972, FE 3982, report of a Nanchang radio broadcast of 1 May 1972.

72. Apart from the model revolutionary pieces, the trend in China is strongly towards very short dramas. A tuan-p'ing in Jen-min, 17 November 1972, p. 4, called “Advocating short dramas ” noted that “in ideology they are strong, they are fresh and lively, and complete in variety.”

73. Kuang-ming, 9 November 1972, p. 2. Another reason given for not wanting to go to the countryside is that there are no theatres and sometimes no electricity there. Ibid. 28 February 1972, p. 2. But of course such arguments are regarded merely as excuses.

74. The need for the PLA to “play an important role in the socialist cultural revolution” was emphasized in the “Summary,” pp. 11–12, but its role had been very significant for a long time before that.

75. Jen-min, 27 May 1972, p. 3, and 30 May 1972, p. 4; Kuang-ming, 16 May 1972, p. 3, 2 June 1972, p. 1, and 5 June 1972, p. 3.

76. Kuang-ming, 18 May 1972, p. 4. See similar reports in ibid. 28 February 1972, p. 2, 24 April 1972, p. 4, and Jen-min, 9 November 1972, p. 3.

77. New China News Agency – English, Sian, 19 May 1972. The need for mass criticism of literature and art works was emphasized in the “Summary,” pp. 16–18.

78. Jen-min, 30 May 1972, p. 4.

79. E.g., report in Kuang-ming, 18 May 1972, p. 4.

80. NCNA – English, Chengchow, 4 February 1972. Cf. Kuang-ming, 28 February 1972, p. 2.

81. NCNA – English, Huhehot, 26 February 1972.

82. See Jen-min, 1 March 1972, p. 4; Kuang-ming, 9 August 1972, p. 2, and “light cavalry of culture,” Chinese Literature 5 (1972), pp. 143–150Google Scholar.

83. NCNA – English, Kwangchow, 27 May 1972.

84. Hung-ch'i 5 (1972), p. 60Google Scholar. See similar claims, also in general terms and without evidence given, in Jen-min, 21 May 1967. p. 4.

85. Kuang-ming, 23 May 1972, p. 2.

86. Cf. also Jen-min, 5 March 1972, p. 4, and 11 June 1972, p. 4; Kuang-ming, 18 May 1972, p. 4, 19 May 1972, p. 3, and 9 November 1972, p. 2; Hung-ch-i 5 (1972), pp. 60–61Google Scholar.

87. I have discussed these in Amateur Theatre, pp. 18–19, 23–25, 27–34. The principal one was the tendency towards “professionalization.” See below.

88. E.g., Jen-min, 3 September 1972, p. 4.

89. Kuang-ming, 19 May 1972, p. 3.

90. See my Amateur Theatre, pp. 11–12.

91. Wen-hui pao (Shangai) (broadcast over Shanghai radio on 17 May 1972 and summarized with quotations in SWB, 23 May 1972, FE 3996, Kuang-ming, 29 April 1972, p. 2.

92. It is worth commenting that the three-in-one (san-chieh-ho) principle was found in the Chinese theatre practice before the Cultural Revolution, though to a smaller extent For instance, Hung-teng chi was said to have been revised by a three-in-one method of creation: by the leadership, professional personnel and the masses. Jen-min, 3 June 1965, p. 6.

93. Kuang-ming, 19 May 1972, p. 3.

94. Jen-min, 15 February 1972, p. 2. Similar stories can be found in the period before 1966. See my Amateur Theatre, p. 15.

95. SWB, 10 September 1970, FE 3478.

96. Kuang-ming, 29 April 1972, p. 2; cf. ibid. 18 May 1972, p. 4.

97. The point is of course made clearly by Mao, in his “Talks,” pp. 82–83, 90Google Scholar.

98. Jen-min, 5 March 1972, p. 4.

99. An example of the harmful results of landlord participation in amateur theatre is given in a broadcast from Sian on 24 March 1971: see SWB, 3 April 1971, FE 3651.

100. A short description of an amateur theatrical performance given by the student-cadres in a 7 May school near Peking can be found in Macciocchi, Maria Antonietta, Daily Life in Revolutionary China (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), pp. 102–104Google Scholar. This work was originally published in Milan in 1971 under the title Dalla Cina: dopo la rivoluzione culturale.

101. Amateur Theatre, pp. 22–23.

102. Jen-min, 11 December 1972, p. 4. Cf. an article in ibid. 14 November 1972, p. 2, on the spare-time activities of youth in a factory in Han-tan City, Hopeh.

103. E.g., Kuang-ming, 4 June 1972, p. 3, and 20 August 1972, p. 3. These two articles refer specifically to Lhasa and Peking.

104. Interviews with Li Hsi-fan, 14 June 1973, and two representatives of the Lü-ta Municipal Cultural Bureau, 5 June 1973.

105. Kuang-ming, 23 May 1972, p. 2, and 5 June 1972, p. 3.

106. E.g., ibid. 11 April 1972, p. 2, and 9 November 1972, p. 2; Jen-min, 23 December 1972, p. 4, and report of a broadcast from Hangchow on 16 July 1970 in SWB, 31 July 1970, FE 3444.

107. Jen-min, 28 May 1972, p. 4.

108. On one commune I visited outside Lü-ta on 5 June 1973, they follow a custom whereby each brigade learns one model opera and travels round all the other brigades performing it during the slack season from New Year to the Spring Festival.

109. This is the principle called li-tsu pen-ti (establish one's foot in one's own place). It is forcefully advocated in, among other places, Jen-min, 11 June 1972, p. 4.

110. See the tuan-p'ing in Jen-min, 15 July 1970, p. 1.

111. Cf. Kuang-ming, 18 May 1972, p. 4.

112. See my Amateur Theatre, pp. 29–34.

113. See, e.g., Kuang-ming, 11 April 1972, p. 2.

114. Ibid. 28 November 1972, p. 2.

115. See, e.g., Kuang-ming, 18 May 1972, p. 4, where a company in Hsi-lin County, Kwangsi, is reported to have performed selected scenes from the model operas. Cf. especially Jen-min, 15 July 1970, p. 1.

116. See Ku-lu, Wang (ed.), Ming-tai Hui-tiao hsi-ch'ü san-ch'u chi-i (Shanghai: Ku-tien wen-hsüeh ch'u-pan she, 1957)Google Scholar.

117. See my The Rise of the Peking Opera 1770–1870, Social Aspects of the Theatre in Manchu China (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 164Google Scholar.

118. E.g., Jen-min, 19 November 1972, p. 4.

119. E.g., Kuang-ming, 17 November 1972, p. 3.

120. Ibid.

121. ibid.

122. Ibid. 28 November 1972, p. 2.

123. Ibid. 17 November 1972, p. 3.

124. Ibid. 28 November 1972, p. 2.