Review of Periodicals

Accommodation in King Lear

Jeffrey Griswold’s interesting article examines the famous storm scene in King Lear in the context of classical and Renaissance arguments about human self-sufficiency, or the lack thereof, in physical nature. Griswold interprets Lear’s praise of naked Edgar, “unaccommodated man . . . a poor, bare, forked animal,” as an argument that men can survive like animals, without the artificial supports of palaces and clothing, and even without human companionship. Citing thinkers from Aristotle to Montaigne to Hobbes, Griswold finds in Lear a poetic participant in early-modern discussions regarding the naturalness or unnaturalness of political structures.“ On one side lies Aristotle’s view that man is first and foremost a social animal, and that, in Griswold’s words, “If humans are insufficient in themselves” – that is, lacking the fur and claws and soullessness to function as animals – “then political bodies are the natural state of humanity.” On the other side lies Montaigne’s claim that human beings are indeed well fitted to live in a state of nature, outside civilization. Griswold shows that the play as a whole leads one to side with Aristotle, since it demonstrates Lear’s need for caring friends. He’s right as far as that goes, but he has misinterpreted Lear’s famous observation. Griswold writes, “on the heath, King Lear rails against the thesis for insufficiency.” Really? Lear is debating with Aristotle? Perhaps, but isn’t it equally likely that Lear recognizes, in naked Tom O’Bedlam, the “poor . . . animal” that he…