ASEBL Journal – Volume 11 Issue 1, January 2015
3. “King” is derived from “kin,” derivative of “gen,” which means, “to produce, engender,
beget.” On the relationship between “king” and “kin,” see Oxford English Dictionary.
4. Though we often see the promotion of the state in Shakespeare’s plays, not all are as antinepotistic as Romeo and Juliet. Indeed, Shakespeare often highlights treacherous acts that are
both an offense against both kin and king (e.g., Claudius’s fratricide/regicide in Hamlet; the
conspiracy of Lear’s eldest daughters). Macbeth concisely describes his own uneasiness while
contemplating the murder of his kinsman and king, Duncan, stating: “He’s here in double trust:
/ First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, / Strong both against the deed” (1.7.12-14).
5. Such was the case during the English Reformation, during which Henry VIII’s “Act of Supremacy” was enacted into law. Though repealed by Mary I, it was later reinstated during
Elizabeth I’s reign, when Shakespeare wrote his version of Romeo and Juliet (see Lilly, 1909).
6. Meaning “kin” (Greenblatt et al., 2008, p. 947).
7. Shakespeare’s “direct source” for Romeo and Juliet was Brooke’s 1562 version, itself based
upon Boiastuau’s 1559 adaptation of Bandello’s 1554 version, though the story is traceable at
least as far back as 1476 (Greenblatt et al., 2008, p. 897).
References
Arnhart, Larry. (1990). Aristotle, chimpanzees, and other political animals. Social Science Information, 29, 479-559.
— (1994). The Darwinian biology of Aristotle’s political animals. American Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 464-485.
Boehm, Christopher. (1984). Blood Revenge: The anthropology of feuding in Montenegro and
other tribal societies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Buss, David. (2003). The Evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (4th ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Carroll, Joseph. (1995). Evolution and literary theory. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Chagnon. Napoleon A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239(4843), 985-992.
Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. (2010). Christian anarchism: A political commentary on the
gospel. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
Clark, Glenn. (2011). The civil mutinies of Romeo and Juliet. English Literary Renaissance,
41(2), 280-300.
Coe, Kathryn, Palmer, Amber L. Palmer, Craig T. Palmer, & DeVito, Carl L. (2010). Culture,
altruism, and conflict between ancestors and descendants. Structure and Dynamics, 4(3), 117.
Dawkins, Richard. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: W. H. Freeman.
Daly, Martin, & Wilson, Margo. (1982). Homicide and kinship. American Anthropologist
84(2), 372-378.
Dean, Trevor. 1997. Marriage and mutilation: Vendetta in Late-Medieval Italy. Past and Present, 157(1), 3-36.
Diamond, Arthur. (1951). The evolution of law and order. London: Watts and Co.
Diamond, Jared. (2012). The world until yesterday: What can we learn from traditional societies? New York: Viking.
Fortes, Meyer. (1969). Kinship and the axiom of amity. In Meyer Fortes (ed.), Kinship and the
social order: The legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan, 219-249. Chicago: Aldine.
Fox, Robin. (1967). Kinship and marriage. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Given, James B. (1977). Society and homicide in thirteenth-century England. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenblatt, Stephen, Cohen, Walter, Howard, Jean E., & Maus, Katherine E., eds. (2008). The
Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Halio, Jay L. (1998). Romeo and Juliet: A guide to the play. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
Hefner, Philip. (1991). Myth and morality: The love command. Zygon, 26(1), 115-136.
15