Gilles 1

Emily Gilles
Dr. Jerz
EL 311
9 Dec 2015
The Supremacy in Analysis of Humanism over Post-colonialism through
The Tempest
The play The Tempest by William Shakespeare has been
susceptible to all types of literary criticism. Most prevalently, postcolonialism is the methodology of choice. However, humanist criticism
is prevalent throughout the play, and is the best method of
interpretation in order to critically understand the characters and
actions of the play. Humanism is contrasted positively and negatively
throughout the play with different values through different characters,
which draws out deeper meanings from the plays. Humanism
ultimately prevails as the most beneficial criticism in order to
understand three of the main characters throughout the play: Prospero,
Caliban, and Miranda. The play ultimately shows these characters in a
positive humanistic light. This is done through Prosperos instruction of
the two pupils, Caliban and Miranda and their relationship, and through
the various humanist values expressed throughout the play. The
audience is introduced to postcolonial criticism because that is the
major discourse that the play has historically been looked at, however
when humanism is implemented then the audience has to be

Gilles 2
introduced to humanist values and ideals as well. This causes the
audience to make the decision of whether those humanist ideals are a
positive or negative driving force for the play. Humanism, in its
entirety, is the best form of literary criticism in order to get a more
accurate and deeper meaning from Prospero, Caliban, Miranda, and
various themes throughout the play.
For the purpose of this essay, we will look at the classic
definitions for humanism and postcolonialism, as well as the definition
given by experts in the Shakespearean field. The definition of
humanism used as defined by the oxford dictionary is an outlook or
system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than
divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential
value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human
needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems
(Oxford Online), and post-colonialism as a theoretical approach in
various disciplines that is concerned with the lasting impact of
colonization in former colonies: postcolonialism continues to unite
historians and literary scholars (Oxford Online). The definitions for
humanism and postcolonialism through the experts are that humanism
in The Tempest can be defined as seen through the prism of the Tudor
and early Stuart pedagogic precepts and ideologies, this play is indeed
deeply committed to the meaning of humanist learning and is filled
with scenes of teachers and students (Kumamoto 64) and

Gilles 3
postcolonialism can be defined as postcolonial criticism means that
postcolonial Shakespeare implies the inclusion of histories of peoples
and cultures outside the traditional Anglo-American scholarly world
(Singh 127). These dual definitions will help the audience to better
understand how the two critical theories will be analyzed within the
world of Shakespeare, specifically The Tempest.
Prospero is the most prominent figure throughout the play that
exemplifies humanist values because of the pedagogical strategies
that he uses with both Caliban and Miranda. Prosperos teaching can
be viewed in two ways: as oppressing and as a colonizing factor or as a
set of pedagogical strategies in an attempt to better both Caliban and
Miranda. It is overly ambitious to claim that The Tempest should only
be looked at in a postcolonial light because The Tempests value for
African and Caribbean intellectuals faded once the plot ran out. The
play lacks a sixth act which might have been enlisted for representing
relations among Caliban, Ariel, and Prospero once they entered a
postcolonial era (Nixon 576), so the audience can never know whether
this is an accurate reading without putting their own meaning into the
text. However, with a humanist reading of the text the plot is resolved
within the play. If read as a humanist text, the entirety of the play
shows the humanist values in both a negative and positive light, yet
Prosperos dedication ultimately shows that the positive characteristics
outweigh the negative. This is important because it gives meaning to

Gilles 4
the characters, and makes the audience make a decision. According to
Goran Stanivukovic, the play is allegorizing humanisms positive and
negative characteristics (99), primarily through Prospero. Prospero
translates his love of knowledge, which equates to humanist values, as
the reason for his banishment because his love for academia did not
coincide with the government that failed him. It is only when
postcolonial ideas are applied that this becomes idea becomes
appalling, and Prospero is seen as a villainous European who only
wishes to colonize Caliban to make him become assimilated with white
culture. On the contrary, the best reading through a humanist lens
shows Prospero as the man who believes that the reason for his failure
was because he searched for knowledge and because the government
itself had failed to effectively use humanist learning to its full potential.
Prospero first shows his relationship with the liberal arts when he
talks with Miranda in Act I, Scene II. The liberal arts are a main ideal of
humanist learning and philosophy, which Prospero greatly appreciates.
There is value in looking at Prosperos relationship with the liberal arts
because it adds an additional dimension to the play that the audience
would not receive if Prospero is labeled simply as a tyrant. Duke Pesta
suggests that if the audience keeps a closed mind, and has
postcolonial assumptions about the play [that] are so reflexive as to
deracinate The Tempest, causing it to vanish into thin air, leaving not a
rack behind. Once the initial argument evolved that The Tempest was

Gilles 5
primarily and consciously a play about colonialism, the premise was
accepted with little or no reservation. And so all this begs the
question, is The Tempest about colonialism or not? (274). If Prospero
is seen as that tyrant, then the audience misses out on the educational
advances that Prospero is able to bring about, and even his seemingly
failed advances with Caliban. Prospero claims that society does not
coincide with humanist values when he states:
And Prospero the prime duke, being so reputed
In dignity, and for the liberal arts
Without a parallel; those being all my study,
The government I cast upon my brother
And to my state grew stranger, being transported
And rapt in secret studies(I. III. 84-96).
Shakespeare has placed this direct clash between the government and
Prosperos intense studying in order to let the audience see a critique
on total knowledge as an acceptable virtue. He claims that once he
was Being once perfected how to grant suits, /How to deny them, who
to advance and who To trash for over-topping (I.III. 145-147), yet that
study meant that he would ultimately be banished to the island. While
this is a negative portrayal, the audience ultimately sees this as
positive because Prospero comes out successful due to his reliance on
the values. The duality of these attributes adds an additional dynamic
to the play that could not be sought from a postcolonial stance.

Gilles 6
Shakespeare is not condemning Prospero, but is issuing a warning for
blind following of humanist ideals.
The positivity of Prosperos humanist ideals is exemplified when
his teaching strategies are able to successfully critique the ambition of
other characters in the play. According to humanist values, ambition is
one of the most destructive traits possible. We first see Prosperos
intent to rid Alonso and Antonio of ambition when he talks with
Miranda in Act I, Scene II when he tells her of the tretchery that they
brought to the two of them:
He being thus lorded,
Not only with what my revenue yielded,
But what my power might else exact, like one
Who having into truth, by telling of it,
Made such a sinner of his memory,
To credit his own lie, he did believe
He was indeed the duke; out o' the substitution
And executing the outward face of royalty,
With all prerogative: hence his ambition growing (89-97).
By the end of Prosperos plan, we see that he has exacted his humanist
goals, because Prospero believes that he has diminished those ideals in
Alonso and Antonio after Ariel speaks to them, Prospero saying You,
brother mine, that entertained ambition, / Expelled remorse and
nature, whom, with Sebastian, / Whose inward pinches therefore are

Gilles 7
most strong, / Would here have killed your kind, I do forgive thee, /
Unnatural though thou art (5.1.85-89). Prospero believes that he was
able to change the ambitious into merciful and graceful subjects, which
had been one of the ultimate goals of Prosperos endeavors and his
teachings. This element would be completely missed if the text had
been only looked at in a postcolonial light, however it is one of the
main elements of the play when the plot is resolved. In the postcolonial
light, Prospero would continue to have been looked at as an oppressive
character who simply wants to exact revenge on any character
throughout the play that had crossed him. However, the humanist
viewing of these passages give the play deeper meaning.
Prosperos pedagogical strategies with Caliban and Miranda are
the most prevalent points on the positivity of humanism, and can go
unnoticed through a postcolonial lens. Prospero has preoccupations
with instructive authority. . .appears to express Shakespeares most
radical doubt about humanist education as magical art (Kumamoto
63-64), which is when the audience can see that Prospero has finally
achieved the enlightenment needed in his humanist values as he rids
himself of his magic at the end of the play, thus getting rid of his
instructive authority. Prospero claims that this rough magic / I here
abjure, and, when I have required / Some heavenly music, which even
now I do, / To work mine end upon their senses that / This airy charm is
for, Ill break my staff, / Bury it certain fathoms in the earth, / And

Gilles 8
deeper than did ever plummet sound / Ill drown my book (5.1. 56-63),
which shows the moment when Prospero realizes that his humanist
goals were concluding with success, so he would not need his tools any
longer. From a postcolonial standpoint, there is no redemption or
positivity from Prospero getting rid of his instructional tools other than
that he no longer is an abuser and suppressor of Caliban. Its the
humanist lens that gives the play a redeeming tone, and allows for
hope of both the inhabitants that they leave on the island and also
those leaving. Prospero, by ridding himself of the magic, accepts
completely the liberal arts rather than a magical art. He has accepted
that the liberal arts have not failed him completely as he is accepted
back into the political world through the atonement of Antonio and
Alonzo, and because his teaching has been successful on the island. It
is in his final actions when the audience sees Prospero sacrifices both
his dominion over the island and his love of magic, choosing to return
to Milan. In doing so, he restores a measure of justice to human
society, for he had been unjustly deposed from authority before the
play began (Boyce 521). Without the humanist values being
implemented, these pivotal moments would be glossed over. Prospero
is a defining character throughout the play who has struggled with
upholding humanist values, and ultimately exemplifies humanism as a
great vehicle for interpretation.

Gilles 9
Caliban is another main character where the audience can see
humanist values brought to fruition, yet is the most controversial in
regards of the implementation of post-colonial criticism. According to
humanist ideals, the audience is able to see the darker side of
Prosperos school-mastering based on humanistic learning, and it
inevitably finds ironies centered on the misfit between Prosperos claim
to the humanist mastery of the liberal arts (1.2.91) and his practice of
it on Caliban, Prosperos disaffected grammar school student
(Kumamoto 69). Despite Caliban being ultimately failed as a student,
the fact remains that nothing required Prospero to take Caliban in and
teach him, to virtually adopt him (Shin, 375). While Prosperos
pedagogical strategies were seemingly ineffective, humanism can still
be viewed in an ultimately positive light because of Calibans multiple
changes and improvements throughout the play. It is the postcolonial
theorists that see Caliban not as a student of Prospero but as a product
of an evil colonization attempt from a suppressive ruler. They do not
see Caliban as the perpetrator of an attempted rape, but as a victim of
oppression. Rob Nixon claims that as long as Caliban is still bound to
his former masters language, he is still partly condemned to live the
life of a servant (568), however this can be deconstructed because
Caliban himself is not a native to the island, and does not have a
language of his own to begin with. Pesta argues this point, saying that
there is no Calibanic culture here: no history or civilization or

Gilles 10
language. In order for there to be language in any meaningful sense,
someone would have had to teach it to Caliban and be there to speak it
with him, passing it on as a cultural legacy binding him to his culture
and people (276). Caliban cannot be a victim of colonization in this
sense because he was not the first inhabitant of the island, and did not
have his own culture and language to be replaced by Prosperos. The
humanist ideals allow the audience to get a more clear picture and
deeper understanding in viewing Caliban as a failed student of
Prosperos humanist teaching strategies rather than the narrow view of
a victim through the postcolonial lens.
Through a postcolonial lens, Caliban can also be looked at as a
religiously oppressed character. In Act I, Scene II, Caliban says to
Prospero:
And teach me how
To name the bigger light, and how the less,
That burn by day and night: and then I loved thee
And show'd thee all the qualities o' the isle,
The fresh springs, brine-pits, barren place and fertile:
Cursed be I that did so! All the charms
Of Sycorax, toads, beetles, bats, light on you!
For I am all the subjects that you have,
Which first was mine own king: and here you sty me
In this hard rock, whiles you do keep from me

Gilles 11
The rest o' the island (140-150).
If its viewed in a postcolonial light, we see Caliban as a human that
was converted to Christianity and who is oppressed by Prospero in
multiple ways. He curses Prosperos oppression, and damns his actions.
However, this allows an oversimplified reason for the complex
relationship between Prospero as Calibans educator, then his
persecutor for Calibans attempted rape of Miranda. If we look at these
same lines in a humanist light, we see the deeper meaning of the
relationships between the characters. We see Prospero as Calibans
father figure and educator, then the broken trust after Calibans
malicious betrayal of Prosperos trust, and finally the mutual distrust
and hard feelings between the two characters. By interpreting this
quote as humanist rather than postcolonial, the audience is able to see
the characters with more depth, and with more emotion rather than
the characters fitting into strict molds.
Caliban as a creature is also an idea that is analyzed highly
through a postcolonial lens, but diminishes some of his intricacies that
could be provided in viewing Caliban literally as a creature in the
humanist lens. Pesta claims that in the anachronistic postcolonial
readings then, Caliban can only be viewed in the context of human
history and material identity, despite a lineage and physical reality that
reveals him ontologically part human and part something else (279).
In the postcolonial criticism viewpoint, Caliban must be analyzed as a

Gilles 12
human in order for that interpretation to fit, and must play the role of a
victim. Yet, in the actual text of the 1623 First Folio, Caliban is
portrayed as an inhuman creature and a savage and deformed slave.
A postcolonial look at the play portrays Caliban to be strictly human, in
order for the suppression to be warranted. However, the text itself
does not support that Caliban is a human. None of the characters mention Caliban to be
a human creature, and Prospero calls him a variety of names for beasts, saying in Act I,
Scene II:
Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness wilt not take,
Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other: when thou didst not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish, I endow'd thy purposes
With words that made them known. But thy vile race,
Though thou didst learn (331-339).
If the only thing from that quote that is examined is that Caliban is a slave, then you miss
the context that this was after the attempted rape of Miranda when Caliban wished to
populate the island with more of his species. Even Stephano, upon observing Caliban,
sees that hes simply a creature so absurd that they could receive profit from him if they
took them back with them. Stepheno questions how he leaned human language, when
This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who / Hath got, as I take it, an ague (II.

Gilles 13
II. 78-79). Even an outside observer, not affected by Calibans attempted rape and fall
from love, can see Calibans true monstrous identity. Observing Caliban as an inhuman
creature allows for the humanist ideals to come in, and for them to give him a deeper
meaning other than that imposed on him by a close reading of the text with presupposed
ideas. Caliban as the inhuman creature he is allows for his character to be analyzed in a
deeper quality.
Calibans vocabulary is best analyzed as Prosperos educational product, while
often Calibans speeches are often analyzed in a postcolonial light. If the audience views
him as a student and a learner, they get a completely different viewpoint on his use of
language. Be not afeard. The isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometimes voices
That, if I then had walked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I walked
I cried to dream again (3.2. 148-155).
If the audience can digest Calibans character simply as Prosperos
experiment on humanist education, then the opportunity to view how
purely humanist ambition of cultural transmission is fulfilled. Through
those lines, Caliban is able to claim his native island, and because of
Prospero, poetry becomes the medium in which the power of claiming

Gilles 14
his land is most effectively expressed. Through this acceptance of
humanist learning, the audience is able to view Caliban in a positive
light as civilized rather than savage, and is not being oppressed
because of the use of the beautiful language. From these lines, the
audience may also infer that Prosperos teaching is a form of
enslavement if looked at through the postcolonial mindset. This is
because of the adoption of someone elses language forces them into
using that language as their primary medium for communication, yet
we do not see Calibans mastery of Prosperos language as negative.
Prospero uplifts Caliban in both interpretations, by giving him mastery
of language when he had none to begin with. At the end of the play,
there is the final vision of schoolmaster and student in their final
reconciliation between Prospero and Caliban in the aforenoted scene
enacts the consummation of the hard-won lesson that true humanist
learning or any significant learning arrives by trial and error on the part
of both students and schoolmaster (Kumamoto 77). In Act V, Scene I
we see Caliban accept Prosperos pardon, stating Ay, that I will; and Ill
be wise hereafter / And seek for grace (256-257), which is the final
acceptance and resolution between the two characters. Scholars argue
that Prospero can be seen as a bad humanist and attributing his
failure with Calibans education to unsuccessful teaching methods. But
on the whole, critics have not done justice to Prosperos intricate role
as homeschooling single parent to both Caliban and Miranda. Prospero

Gilles 15
acts as schoolmaster to both; his unorthodox educational methods,
although they fail with Caliban, work well with Miranda (Shin, 373).
Even though the educational methods ultimately fail, we see that for
all his villainy, Caliban contributes to the general sense of regeneration
with which the play closes. He recognizes his folly and expresses his
intention to improve himself in a religious metaphor- he will seek for
grade (5.1.295). His earlier behavior certainly makes us wonder if
reform is really possible, but Shakespeare pointedly elevates this
beastlike characters moral stature before he exits forever. However
appalling Calibans fallen state, he offers the hope for restoration to
grace that is part of Shakespeares sense of human possibility (Boyce
89). This is vital because it allows the audience to analyze Calibans
character to an extent and depth that the oppressed label that post
colonialism would not be able to offer the text. Ultimately, a humanist
viewpoint allows for the viewpoint that Caliban is not completely failed
by Prospero and has even felt a few postitive effects from those ideals.
The ownership of the island is also disputed to be best analyzed
with postcolonial properties, because Caliban had claimed ownership
to the island before Prospero and Miranda became stranded and in
control of the island. Caliban claims in Act I, Scene II that This island's
mine, by Sycorax my mother, / Which thou takest from me. When thou
camest first,/ Thou strokedst me and madest much of me (112-115).
In that argument Prosperos assimilation of Caliban led to the idea that

Gilles 16
in such circumstances, the insinuation that Caliban was incapable of
surviving on his own and did not even aspire to such independence in
the first place caused considerable affront and helped spur Third
Worlders to mount adversarial interpretations of the play which
rehabilitated Caliban into a heroic figure, inspired by noble rage to oust
the interloping Prospero form his island (Nixon, 564). However, this
idea is not directly stated in the Shakespearean play, but rather is in
adaptations inspired by a postcolonial way of thinking and ideology. .
Post-colonial adaptations are just that of the text, adaptations. There is
value in looking at adaptations that were inspired by the original text,
but that does not mean they are the values Shakespeare intended. In
The Tempest, Caliban himself is not indigenous of the island, so in all
technicalities he cannot be colonized if he himself came to the island
to make it his home as well. Postcolonial defense for Calibans
character was brought by the time Caribbeans and Africans took up
The Tempest, that is, from 1959 onward, widespread national liberation
seemed not only feasible but imminent, and the play was mobilized in
defense of Calibans right to the land and to cultural autonomy (566),
but if we look at Caliban as a non-indigenous member of the island,
which he was, we see that Prospero has as much claim to the land as
Caliban. This argument for a postcolonial reading is still valuable, but it
does not let the text speak for itself, and does not allow for each of the
characters to be analyzed to their full potential.

Gilles 17
While Prosperos pedagogical strategies did not ultimately work
well with Calibans education, Miranda has been only positively
affected by growing and learning in the humanist environment.
Miranda is not directly involved in many postcolonial critics arguments
because they simply considered her to be another driving force for
their idea of assimilation under Prospero. However, if Miranda is looked
at as another product of humanist teaching techniques, the audience is
able to grasp the play with a deeper meaning, and engage with
Mirandas character on different levels. In Act I, Scene II Prospero tells
Miranda of how they got to the island, saying Here in this island we
arrived; and here / have I, thy schoolmaster, made thee more profit /
than other princesses can that have more time / for vainer hours and
tutors not so careful (171-174). Prospero has raised her instilled with
humanist values, the same values that he expresses throughout the
play. During Shakespeares time period, Prospero is acting as a liberal
humanist by squashing gender roles in order to teach his daughter in a
genuine humanist environment. The audience sees that the
contemporary dichotomy between womens and mens education
dissolves, through Prosperos andryogynous role as a schoolmaster and
single parent (383), which is a great portrayal of humanism truly
being for all of humanity. Miranda is portrayed throughout the play as a
likeable character, and a product of a loving and education oriented
father. Her actions throughout the play are gentle, and lovably

Gilles 18
innocent, even when she falls in love with Ferdinand:
Hence, bashful cunning!
And prompt me, plain and holy innocence!
I am your wife, if you will marry me;
If not, I'll die your maid: to be your fellow
You may deny me; but I'll be your servant,
Whether you will or no (III. I. 199-204).
In examining how deep her innocence runs, the audience is able to see
the true representation of Prosperos achieved pedagogical strategies
and a deeper character than simply an oppressor. Because Miranda is
seen as this gentle, positive, and intelligent woman throughout the
play because of her upbringing in a humanist environment, we see that
humanism is portrayed positively. If the audience simply analyzes this
as a postcolonial text, then they miss on the genuine character that
Miranda is portrayed at and instead she is blanketed with the title of a
negative oppressor.
It is conveniently sidestepped often in postcolonial critiques of
The Tempest that Caliban originally was seen as an equal with Miranda
until his attempted rape. Prospero treated Caliban, up until that point,
as he treated Miranda; as an equal student who was open to learning.
However, that all changes and Mirandas angry disdain for Caliban,
who once attempted to rape her, displays the moral sensibility she has
learned from her father, but her innocence of society gives her a

Gilles 19
simplicity that in a less overtly fantastic context would be
disconcerting (Boyce 438). While the treatment of Caliban after that
can be seen as oppressive and unjust, Caliban did violate Prospero and
Mirandas values and disrupt the delicate balance between these
characters. A narrow-minded viewpoint of Prospero and Miranda being
unjust and oppressive to Caliban by trying to change him does not
allow for the humanist intricacies to be seen by the characters and
does not allow for their intentions to be expressed. If Prospero did not
wish for the betterment of those he was trapped on with the island in
hopes to some day leave, then the plays plot would have resolved
much differently. If the play is interpreted through a humanist lens
rather than postcolonial lens, the audience can see intricacies of the
characters. It was not until the rape attempt that Prospero condemns
Caliban with such force:
A devil, a born devil, on whose nature
Nurture can never stick; on whom my pains,
Humanely taken, all, all lost, quite lost;
And as with age his body uglier grows,
So his mind cankers. I will plague them all,
Even to roaring (IV. I. 245-250)
It was not until that time that Prospero cursed Caliban, and Miranda
followed her fathers instructions on how to treat Caliban. With this, the
audience can see that Miranda is the only human character in the

Gilles 20
play who does not undergo some sort of purging transformation, for
she does not need to. Innocent of lifes difficulties and compromises,
she repudiates evil and responds to nobility and beauty. She is most
pointedly contrasted with the evil Caliban. Both were raised together
by Prospero, but she has become a person of moral sensibility, while
he is a would-be rapist who declares that his only use for language is
to curse. Their responses to the arrival of strangers on the island are
also contrasting: she is filled with demure awe, he with crass fear
(438). The variety of the reaction of both of the characters to different
events shows not the suppressed Caliban, but of the failure that
Prospero had in teaching both of them together. Its through the
humanist viewpoint that the characters are able to be more dynamic,
and not restricted to roles imposed on them.
Another area of the play where the audience is shown a
disconnect of ideals is between politics and educations through
Ferdinand and Miranda. Without viewing the play as a humanist text,
you completely bypass this topic. Postcolonial criticism does not allow
for this deeper meaning to be found in the text, although its apparent
that Shakespeare put it in for a reason. This disconnect is found when
Ferdinand and Miranda are playing chess, which is considered to be a
game associated with political dishonesty. Humanism can be applied to
this scene in order to draw out the ideals which make the plot richer,
while the postcolonial criticism simply skips over the idea or bypasses

Gilles 21
that it is simply another driving force for assimilation on the island. Not
only is political dishonest shown if looked at in a humanist lens, but
Mirandas public display of her knowledge of chess also contradicts
conservative humanists idea of womens proper education (387),
and yet the audience sees that Miranda is an outstanding young
woman time and time again. The stage directions Here, Prospero
discovers Ferdinand and Miranda, / playing at chess (198-199), are
significant because Shakespeare could have simply written playing a
game, since he often does not give many stage directions. However,
chess was chosen to suggest that even love, represented in the union
of Ferdinand and Miranda, symbolizing restored harmony, is eclipsed
by politics (Stanivukovik 112). By making the specification of the
game being chess, Shakespeare parallels having just rulers being in
direct conflict with humanist ideals with the use of Ferdinand and
Miranda just as he had earlier in the play when Prospero was exiled
because of his humanist values. Even Miranda is seen positively again
as a strong female humanist thinker. If the audience accepts the
typical postcolonial interpretation of The Tempest, then they miss out
on the deeper meaning behind the stage directions and make Miranda
a more shallow character. Having this disconnect between just rulers
and humanist ideals is finally resolved, however, because Prospero is
able to use the humanist property of pedagogical education in order to

Gilles 22
unite Miranda and Ferdinand, and create atonement for Alonso and
Antonio.
Interpretation of The Tempest is so unique because the main
discourse of thought is postcolonial criticism, although humanist
criticism allows for a deeper understanding of the characters and
different themes throughout the play. The audience is able to see
humanist values intricately woven into the play, mainly through
Prospero, but also through other characters such as Caliban and
Miranda. Postcolonial adaptations of The Tempest are the most
accurate way to analyze things from the text that are exaggerated and
simplified into roles such as the colonized and the colonizers, yet
humanism is the best for of criticism to analyze the actual text that
Shakespeare gives in order to understand the characters at deeper
levels. While there are both positive and negative connotations
associated with humanist values, it is ultimately only when a total
reliance of those ideals clash with government values that it can be
seen as negative; even then, the audience sees that this is the best
way to analyze what the text conveys to the audience. The humanist
values allow the characters to grow through their pedagogical
instruction and become more enlightened and positive characters
overall, rather than oppressed and colonized individuals. The humanist
values portrayed throughout the play allow for the characters to grow,
and to express their humanity and humanities flaws in a positive way.

Gilles 23
Its the intricacy that the characters can be seen in that makes
humanism unparalleled in how the text should be analyzed as.
Shakespeare shows humanism in a positive light, guiding his audience
to accept Prospero as the guiding force of the play in order to reach
final acceptance, which leaves the audience with an uplifting and light
hearted play rather than an oppressing criticism on colonization.

Gilles 24
Works Cited
Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York: Facts on File, 1990.
Print.
Kahn, Copplia. "Caliban At The Stadium: Shakespeare And The Making
Of
Americans." Massachusetts Review 41.2 (2000): 256-284. Art Full
Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Kumamoto, Chikako D. "Magic And The Early Schoolroom Of Humanist
Learning In
The Tempest." Journal Of The Wooden O Symposium 13.(2013):
63-80.
International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text.
Web. 24 Oct. 2015.
Nixon, Rob. Caribbean and African Appropriations of "the Tempest".
Critical Inquiry
13.3 (1987): 557578. Web.
Pesta, Duke. "Acknowledging Things Of Darkness: Postcolonial Criticism
Of The
Tempest." Academic Questions 27.3 (2014): 273-285. Academic
Search Elite. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
Singh, Jyotsna G., and Gitanjali G. Shahani. "Postcolonial Shakespeare
Revisited."

Gilles 25
Shakespeare (1745-0918) 6.1 (2010): 127-138. International
Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text. Web. 6 Nov.
2015.
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Ed. Horace Howard Furness. New
York, Dover,
1964. Print.
Shin, Hiewon. Single Parenting, Homeschooling: Prospero, Caliban,
Miranda.
Studies inEnglishLiterature,1500190048.2(2008):373393.Web.
Stanivukovic, Goran. "The Tempest And The Discontents Of
Humanism." Philological
Quarterly 85.1/2 (2006): 91-119. Academic Search Elite. Web. 24
Oct. 2015