ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 1, January 2015
himself, which, unless for the benefit of kin (in which case it is altruistic), is improper
(selfish) kinship behavior. Although Romeo exhibits improper kinship behavior, as is
often the case in this play, in doing so he simultaneously exhibits proper citizenship,
by revealing to his father that he (Romeo) had married the daughter of his (Montague’s) foe, Capulet, the revelation of which Friar Laurence hoped would end the feud.
Nor did Juliet need kill herself. With Paris dead, she no longer needed to fear a forced
marriage to him, though there is no reason to look even this deeply into Juliet’s behavior. Moments after waking, upon hearing Friar Laurence’s briefing, she immediately
resolves to end her life so to join her beloved, and upon hearing the Chief Watchman
enter the tomb, does not hesitate to do so.
The destructiveness of the feud is evident from the very first scene; judging from Romeo’s reaction to the blood spilled in 1.1, its negative consequences have been known
for some time. Even insulated Juliet knows the consequences of the discovery of a
Montague at the Capulet feast. Steadman and Palmer (2008) write: “When individuals
do choose to modify or even abandon traditions, their decision to do so is often influenced by their remembered experiences of that traditional behavior, including its effect on others” (41). Whatever the benefits of thinking each other enemies (they are
never mentioned), the feud is seemingly more costly to participate in than to ignore.
That the Prince declares its continuation punishable by death makes it all the riskier
for Montagues and Capulets to obey their ancestors. So when Romeo and Juliet fall in
love, they have every reason to abandon the tradition of the feud – witness to its negative consequences and dissuaded by the state, they ignore ancestral instructions.
Conclusion
A full understanding of Romeo and Juliet must situate it within the context of a shift
in traditions concerning blood feuds facilitating a transition from kinship-based behavior and social organization to the civility required by state-level political organizations. As forms of communication (“the manipulation of signal-receiver by signalsender”), Shakespeare’s play, as well as the older stories upon which it is based,7 more
than describe or reflect this shift, may have influenced audiences in such a way as to
promote this transformation (Dawkins, 1982, p. 57; Krebs & Dawkins, 1984). We
suggest that future scholarship investigate the possible role of the play in facilitating
this transition through its demonstration of the tragic consequences of blood feuds to
an audience with recent experience of such feuds (e.g., the War of the Roses) and its
communication in England at a time in which “kinsmen on occasion still exacted revenge for the death of one of their relatives” (Given, 1977, p. 73).
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Chet Savage for his correspondence with
Craig T. Palmer regarding the historical suppression of blood feuds in Europe, as well
as the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.
Notes
1. Edition: The Arden Shakespeare (third series); based on the secon ]X\