ABSTRACT
Having arrived at the stage where historical evidence and aesthetic theory begin to confirm each other, I must stop. I began with the postulate that our response to tragedy is not a single one, but rather a series of responses. This chain of responses may be looked on as the gradual unfolding of successive layers of experience, at least six in number: first, the impact of experience which produces the archetypes of belief; second, the formation of the archetype of rebirth; third, the crystallization of the archetype of rebirth in the myth and ritual of the ancient Near East; fourth, the infusion and transformation of myth and ritual into and in the religions of the ancient world, including Christianity; fifth, the concretization and formalization of the archetype of rebirth into the concept of felix culpa, the paradox of the fortunate fall; and finally, the secular utilization of the paradox of the fortunate fall as the substance out of which tragedy, and particularly Shakespearean tragedy, is made. Of these, our concern here has been with the third, fourth, and fifth links, the first two lying outside the present state of our knowledge of man’s deepest past, both historical and psychological, and the sixth being reserved for separate treatment.
