Question

Did greed, fear or tribal bonding cause the feud between the Montague's and Capulets?

Answer 1

@e.mccormick @douglaswinslowcooper @wwhitlock

Answer 2

@adrynicoleb is it possible you could help her

Answer 3

Thanks @ctfxcfan1

Answer 4

you're welcome

Answer 5

What do you think caused the feud between the two families?

Answer 6

I'd go with tribal bonding but I've got no evidence one way or the other.

Answer 7

What is tribal bonding @wwhitlock

Answer 8

@adrynicoleb I don't think it says why they are feuding

Answer 9

Yes, I know. That's why context clues were provided: to help the reader figure out what the author didn't come out and say directly.

Answer 10

I think greed because one family was poor, however, I don't know what tribal bonding is

Answer 11

@adrynicoleb

Answer 12

One family was poor?

Answer 13

The first line:
Two households, both alike in dignity,

Answer 14

Hi,

The Capulet's were a rich family, who often had feuds with the Montague's. Their history goes back years. Neither family wants to forgive and forget about what happened in their past. They cannot get past one-another. They often have battles in the streets, and at one point Prince Escalus had to break it up and fined both the families.

Toward the end, both the families forgive each other over the death of Romeo and Juliet. As @e.mccormick stated, they're both alike in dignity.

Answer 15

I didn't say it. Shakespeare did.

Answer 16

Okay.... Can anyone answer what is tribal.bonding?

Answer 17

Well, what is a tribe, in general?

Answer 18

Even the dictionary definition of a tribe will do.

As for bonding, well, to stick together is to bond. The ing is the process. So making the tribe or the people in it stick together.

Answer 19

A group of people that are typically family that make up a society?

Answer 20

You could say that, the beliefs of the Montague's and Capulet's ancestors were passed down respectively, and this influenced their dislike toward each other.

Answer 21

That works. It can be more than a family, but with the Capulets they happen to be a single family and the Montagues are another. So bonding would be within one family or one tribe.

Answer 22

What could I use from the story as proof for that?

Answer 23

@ompassionate Actually, there is an argument against that in the party scene. Lord Capulet does not care about party crashers from the Montagues. If I recall, there are a few others examples. In short, the older they are, the less the family members care about the old grudges, and they tell their kids not to keep it going.

Answer 24

I'm sorry ..
Is there a scene I should.reread??

Answer 25

You are correct, E, it seems to be the young that are fierce.

In Act I, Scene V, Page II, Romeo makes this comment at the party toward Juliet

"Oh, she shows the torches how to burn bright! She stands out against the darkness like a jeweled earring hanging against the cheek of an African. Her beauty is too good for this world; she’s too beautiful to die and be buried"

It can be argued that not all Capulet's and Montague's hate each other. If I call correctly, Romeo fell in love with a Capulet girl before he met Juliet, too. The feud seems to be between men, mainly. The whole "posturing," genre.

The main battles are among men, too. (e.g.., Tybalt, Romeo, Paris and Marcuitio)

In the very next page, we see Tybalt make an aggressive comment.

"I can tell by his voice that this man is a Montague. (to his PAGE) Get me my sword, boy.—What, does this peasant dare to come here with his face covered by a mask to sneer at and scorn our celebration? Now, by the honor of our family, I do not consider it a crime to kill him."

▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁

When Tybalt confronts Lord Capulet about Romeo, Lord Capulet responds with.

"Calm down, gentle cousin. Leave him alone. He carries himself like a dignified gentleman, and, to tell you the truth, he has a reputation throughout Verona as a virtuous and well-behaved young man. I wouldn’t insult him in my own house for all the wealth in this town. So calm down. Just ignore him. That’s what I want, and if you respect my wishes, you’ll look nice and stop frowning because that’s not the way you should behave at a feast."

This further proves @e.mccormick 's statement about it being a feud among the young generation.

Answer 26

There have been many theories about what started the feud. Nobody really knows what it was. I don't think it even exists in any of the stories about the families that Shakespeare adapted into his play.

Answer 27

It can be both greed and fear, but that would require me to get metaphysical.

Answer 28

I found something thought provoking that can be applied to their history.

"A character’s greed for money, hate for another character, and urge to seek revenge because of death causes characters in Romeo and Juliet to be disobedient and disloyal. This behaviour is what allows the plot to move along. Without this, there would be no conflicts or problems for characters to overcome and solve. All the characters in the play had motive to act disobediently and disloyally. Disobedience and disloyalty occurs in everyday life from politics to friendships, it’s needed for life to proceed and for people to grow throughout the world."

Source:
: http://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-literature/disloyalty-and-disobedience-in-romeo-and-juliet-english-literature-essay.php#ixzz2y4CanxPk

Answer 29

@Compassionate That seems to be going away from the question. It is "Did greed, fear or tribal bonding cause the feud between the Montague's and Capulets?" and not why did it continue.

Answer 30

I felt I did address tribal bonding - I also linked a source about greed. I don't understand what you disagree with.

Answer 31

All of it talks about how it is continuing to exist.

The original cause could be anything. A failed contract between them. A fight between them. Competition over their business dealing. Accidental death caused by one side and the other is afraid to admit it was an accident. Greed over their business. Competitions to prove their tribal status that escalated out of hand. All of those are possible.

At this point, it is ancient grudge. The elders want it to die out and the youth want to continue it. They disobey and keep it going for their assorted reasons, none of which expose the origin.

Answer 32

Oddly, the best source I know for exposing just how idiotic parts of the play are is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhUY9li_roA

Just show how foolish the youths are.

Still, all of that is the continuation and not the origin.

Answer 33

"But I love him!"

"Thou art fourteen."

Ha.

Answer 34

Also, drawing back on what you said before - their reason for conflict involves a form of disobedience. This is by logical deduction. Family A and B live in harmony. However, person C breaks apart from family A, or B, or both, and started some form of conflict that drew lines in the sand. This is the only possible for, not only for Romeo and Juliet, but for any type of segregation. A central point of egocentric behavior (Greed) will always be the ignition. However, the reason for this is not known.

Shakespeare was a poor writer - even the late drunken and dreary Edgar Allan Poe made more sense at times.

Answer 35

The present conflict has disobedience. That says nothing about the early conflict. It could all go back to an invasion of one family into the established area of the other, which would be greed on one side and fear on the other. In this example, there never is harmony between them from the moment they come into contact. Still, the present disobedience does nothing to explain the start. There is no absolute regressive argument. Only guesses.

And actually, Shakespeare was great. Before him, English was not seen in the international community as a language of artistry. Sure, it might be used for a play, but it was not seen as having the depth needed. His crafty and poetic use of English caused the entire language to expand both in use and recognition. There are only a handful of individuals that have had the same level of effect on the language. Webster, for example, broke American English off from British English, which caused many huge shifts after. The priest that wrote what would be reworked into the King James Bible was another.

The only reason Shakespeare does not make sense is because of how much change has happened since then. He used slang and poetry and in hand, sort of like early rap artists. This brought English to the front, just like those early rap artists brought a new musical styling to the front of the world. Since that time, there has been a ton of change. What was seen as good rap at the start of that is nothing like what they play today. That is just a couple decades of shift. Add that out to centuries and people might not even have a clue what people of today were singing about.

Answer 36

@Lena772 Glad you found some folk who have thought about R&J a lot more than I have. :)

Answer 37

.... I'm more confused now

Answer 38

It really is simple. There is no concrete thing in the play that says how it all started, just how it is continuing. Of those choices, you can argue all three as possible starts. And even if you go outside the play to the source materials, there is still no clear start.

Answer 39

Thanks everyone.