William Shakespeare and Existentialism It may be considered ridiculous to compare Shakespeare and existentialism in its 20th century form, but we must keep in mind that the existentialism does not appear to be a single philosophical system. . Rather, it is an attitude of life, a general vision - the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre is known for having declared that existentialism was never invented, it always existed as the ultimate foundation. From this perspective, why not look for the foundations of the work of the ancestor of all playwrights? Above all, it is naive to claim that Prospero's epilogue in Shakespeare's The Tempest is merely a conventional call for applause or for the stripping away of the imaginary glamor constructed by the writer. play magic. Even the greatest artist prefers to give his life rather than leave his art to the sole judgment of the public. Art for an artistic genius is practiced for its own sake; art for the purposes of art. Existence for the sake of existence itself – stripped of meaning, value and subjective interpretation. In its meaningless 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. Throughout The Tempest, the character of Prosperos paints the image of an almost Nietzschean superhuman. capable of renouncing authority, killing God. He controls every situation and event as if the chain of cause and effect were a conductive melody awaiting an artist's touch. On the other hand, he is very human: a wronged duke and a father, a symbiosis that Shakespeare demonstrated by using Prospero's clothing as a theatrical tool. An artist is the creator, the maker of realities but he remains human, an animal with feelings and impulses, bonds that just ask to be cut. The point of view implied is not far from the ideologies born from the great suffering of the Second World War: a man is capable of constructing 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 simple passage from survival from necessary birth to necessary death. The situation of Prospero and his daughter on the island was desperate, but Prospero had chosen one purpose for his life: revenge. Prospero gave meaning to his life, constructed a synthetic reality to keep him sane on the path toward the finality of human death. Early existentialism begins to appear. The literary image behind The Epilogue of the Tempest greatly involves the attitude and interpretation of art. Having constructed for the audience a window, or more or less a door, into an imaginary world, Shakespeare succeeded in merging art and reality. From this perspective, it is incomprehensible to assume his need to address the subjective but neutral third party, the public, to break down the synthetic reality. However, The Epilogue is a beautiful and humble ending to a story filled with powerful magical elements - control is given to the audience, they are given Prospero's magical garment. The passive third party has the choice to interact, the possibility of rising beyond the role of spectator. An interesting aspect of The Epilogue to The Tempest 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 about 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 comes across as a farewell – a humble artist handing over his life to the audience to whom he has devoted his entire life.When we examine The Epilogue with the restriction of intertextuality, we are forced to focus on the character of Prospero. Why does he say goodbye, why does he become the ultimate link between the world of the play and the world of the third party, the audience. His importance as the narrator of The Epilogue creates a third dimension to his character traits, he becomes the divine figure who seems limited to living on an island but he can make metaphysical leaps between dimensions. The one who speaks is the author himself, because in his art he has become God. Rhythmically and structurally, the epilogue follows the same style and pattern as the entire piece; rich in rhymes and formulations. The passage can be more or less distinctly separated into three equal parts. However, every detail leaves room for wide interpretation. Now my charms are all overturned, / And what strength I have is mine, Which is weaker: now it is true, / I must be here confined by you, Or sent to Naples. Do not leave me, / Since I have my duchy, the main structure of The Epilogue can be interpreted as the passage of a life. The narrator first enters the game of existence, emerges from the maternal womb: “And what strength I have is mine. » As Jean-Paul Sartre's metaphysics forcefully argues, the birth of a person is a subjectively chosen process, emerging from the "charms" that are now, after birth, "all abandoned." Using the division presented, birth is followed by life itself, a search for meaning and true freedom: “But free me from my bonds.” The narrator realizes his situation on the island of life, in a world that has meaning and purpose. He wants to be freed from his misery - the only way to achieve this is to give value to his life - to renounce life would be a crime against natural law. And forgive the deceiver, remain / In this bear island by your fate; But free me from my bands / With the help of your good hands: The last segment of The Epilogue asks for freedom through final death. The narrator realized that the goal he had set for his life had been fully achieved. He wants to die in peace – he seeks recognition for the successful passage of his life. "As you would be forgiven for your crimes, / May your indulgence free me. " Gently breathe from you my sails / Must fill, otherwise my project fails, Which should please. Now I want / Spirits impose, Art enchants; And my end in despair, / Unless I am relieved by prayer, Which pierces so much that it attacks / Mercy itself and frees all faults. As you would be forgiven your crimes, / Let your indulgence set me free. One point of view on the epilogue can be examined is the fact that the artist, whether it is Shakespeare or Prospero in his creation, declares himself detached from the moral bonds directed towards the third party and, in reference to the Prospero's use of power, the other characters in the play. This is a very important aspect both in the general basis 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 connections - and therefore must be judged with appropriate honesty and freedom of attitude. One may question the necessity of such a statement, but given the importance of theater in Shakespeare's time, it presents a certain logic. Just as a true human, 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 necessities to justify a meaningful existence. But like the. ."