William Shakespeare and Existentialism It may seem ridiculous to contrast Shakespeare with existentialism in its 20th century form, however it must be kept in mind that existentialism does not appear as a single philosophical system . It is more of a life attitude, a general vision: the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre is known to have stated that existentialism was never invented, it has always existed as the ultimate foundation. In light of this, why not look for foundations in the work of the progenitor of all playwrights? It is above all naive to maintain that Prosperos' Epilogue in Shakespeare's tragedy The Tempest is a mere conventional appeal for applause or the stripping away of the imaginary charm constructed by the playwright. play magic. Even the greatest of artists would rather give their lives than let their art be judged solely by the public. For an artistic genius, art is practiced as an end in itself; art for the purposes of art. Existence for existence itself, stripped of meaning, value and subjective interpretation. In its now insignificant form, something still remains: the necessary Natural Law, a philosophical concept considered the basis of human well-being, a system of values ​​that determine human existence. In The Tempest Prosperos the character portrays the image of an almost Nietzchean superhuman. capable of denying authority, of killing God. He is in control of every situation and event as if the chain of causes and effects were a playable melody awaiting the touch of an artist. On the other hand he is very human: an offended duke and a father, a symbiosis that Shakespeare showed with the use of Prospero's dress as a theatrical tool. An artist is the creator, the creator of reality, yet he remains human, an animal with feelings and drives, bonds just waiting to be severed. The implicit vision is not far from the ideologies that emerged from the great suffering of the Second World War: man is capable of building a framework of personal and social meaning, but his true animal nature remains unchanged. At the heart of existence, life has no predefined meaning, it is a mere passage of survival from necessary birth to necessary death. The situation of Prospero and his daughter on the island was desperate, yet Prospero had chosen a purpose for his life: revenge. Prospero created meaning for his life, constructed a synthetic reality to keep him sane on the path to the finality of human death. The first existentialism begins to appear. The literary image behind The Epilogue of the Tempest strongly involves the attitude and interpretation of art. Having built for the audience a window or more or less a door into an imaginary world, Shakespeare managed to merge art and reality. In light of this, it is incomprehensible to suppose his need to address the subjective and yet neutral third party, the public, to shatter synthetic reality. However, the epilogue is a beautiful and humble ending to a story full of strong magical elements: control is given to the audience, who are given Prospero's magical robe. The passive third is given the possibility to choose the interaction, the possibility of rising beyond the role of spectator. An interesting aspect of The Tempest's Epilogue is the fact that it was Shakespeare's last play, the last words of a great artist. Due to the lack of historically reliable biographical information on Shakespeare's character, it is difficult if not impossible to determine the effect of his life situation on the message itself. Whether justified or not, The Epilogue feels like a farewell: a humble artist surrendering his life to the audience to which he has dedicated his entire life. When examining The Epilogue with therestriction of intertextuality, one is forced to focus on Prospero's character. Because it leaves a farewell, because it becomes the last link from the world of opera to the world of the public third party. His importance as the narrator of the Epilogue creates a third dimension in his character traits, he becomes the figure of God who seems limited to living on an island but can make metaphysical leaps between dimensions. The person who speaks is the author himself, because in his art he has become God. Rhythmically and structurally the Epilogue follows the same style and scheme as the entire work; rich in rhyme and words. The piece can be more or less distinctly separated into three equal parts. However, every detail leaves room for broad interpretation. Now my charm is quite destroyed, / And the strength I have is mine, the desire is very weak: now, it is true, / I must be here confined by you, or sent to Naples. Let me not, / Since I have obtained my dukedom, The main structure of the Epilogue can be interpreted as the passage of a lifetime. First the narrator enters the game of existence, appears from the mother's womb: "And that strength that I have, is mine." As Jean-Paul Sartre's metaphysics forcefully argues, the birth of a person is a subjectively chosen process, emerging from "charms" that are now, after birth, "all reversed." Using the division presented, birth is followed by life itself, the search for meaning and true freedom: "But free me from my chains." The narrator realizes his situation on the island of life, in the world with meaning and purpose. He wants to be freed from his misery - the only way to achieve this is to make his life worthwhile - giving up life would be a crime against Natural Law. And pardoned the deceiver, dwell / In this bear island by your spell; But free me from my chains / With the help of your good hands: the last segment of the Epilogue calls for freedom through final death. The narrator realized that the purpose he had built for his life had been fully achieved. He wants to die in peace: he seeks recognition for the positive passage of his life. “How would you be pardoned from crimes, / Let your indulgence set me free.” Breathe softly my sails / They must fill, else my design fails, Which was to please. Now I want / for Spirits to impose on me, for Art to enchant; and my end in despair, / unless I be relieved by prayer, which pierces so much, as to attack / Mercy itself, and free all guilt. As you would be forgiven from crimes, / Let your indulgence set me free. One point of view on which the epilogue can be examined is the fact that the artist, be it Shakespeare or Prospero as his creation, declares himself detached from moral ties directed towards the third and, with reference to Prospero's use of power , the other characters in the work. This is a very important aspect both as a general foundation of human nature and as a driving force of the artist, in this case Shakespeare. The Epilogue clearly states that the cause-and-effect chain of events created by the artist was constructed without ties - therefore to be judged with due honesty and freedom of attitude. One might question the need for such a statement, but considering the importance of theater during Shakespeare's era it has a certain logic. Just as a true human being, the human of Natural Laws, is justified in assuming a superhuman position, an artist, the creator, is justified in practicing unconditional freedom. Freedom is an element of Natural Law - the system of necessity to justify a meaningful existence. However, as the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre stated, freedom necessarily implies the ownership of responsibility. The man ."