King Lear's "Poor, Bare, Forked Animal" and the Cross

Authors

Paul J. Stapleton, North Carolina Central University

Publication Date

11-2024

Keywords

William Shakespeare, King Lear, human nature, crucifixion, metaphors of the cross

Abstract

In William Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear describes the “unaccommodated man” as a “poor, bare, forked animal.” Lear’s comments are ostensibly about Edgar disguised as Poor Tom, but critics have detected in the passage a more general expression about human nature. The term “forked” is regularly glossed as “two-legged,” but there are philological problems with this reading. This paper, therefore, takes into consideration an alternate meaning for “forked” based on sixteenth-century usages that relate the noun “fork” to instruments of torture. The paper discusses the depiction of the cross as a “fork” (Latin – furca) in the antiquarian Justus Lipsius’s landmark study of the cross, De Cruce, and makes the argument that in King Lear a theological claim is made about human nature: that to be human is to be crucified. The paper addresses sixteenth-century religious controversy about the cross and demonstrates Shakespeare’s own awareness of such polemics via the popular character Oldcastle/Falstaff. The paper also looks closely at the theology of the cross as developed by Martin Luther, Hugh Latimer, and the Jesuit Robert Parsons. A theology of the cross in King Lear is proposed. The paper ends with contemporary considerations of the divine kenosis, or emptying, in relation to Lear.

Recommended Citation

Stapleton, Paul J. (2024) "King Lear's "Poor, Bare, Forked Animal" and the Cross," Quidditas: Vol. 45, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra/vol45/iss1/6