Hamilton, History and Mythology
We haven’t yet touched on the fantastical world of Broadway here on this channel, and what better way to get into it than Hamilton. Hamilton just recently celebrated its 10 years anniversary, and has also been a pretty consistent place for memes - or maybe that’s just my very specific algorithm. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton is in some way a revisionist history - though the extent to this is something we’ll chat about as we go on.
Hamilton is based on the biography of Alexander Hamilton, the immigrant from the Caribbean who founded the national bank and financial foundations still in use today in the United States. However, there’s a lot of shifting in the presentation of the narrative, most notably in relation to race and racial culture. The music is largely (though not entirely) based on rap and hip hop, with many of the characters being portrayed by people of colour. In the movie available on streaming, most of the primary characters on stage were not white, a stark contrast to the reality of the history.
So, today, I want to dig into Hamilton, but from one big important question: what is the relationship between mythology and history? I think Hamilton is a pretty good case study to bring us into this conversation, not the least of which is due to it’s heavy presence in contemporary popular culture, as well as how it’s probably one of the primary forms of knowledge people have of one of the founding fathers of the United States. But I want to talk specifically about how history is used to reflect and be mythology, how history is not necessarily very clean, and how storytelling is at the heart of everything we’re talking about today.
So let’s start with probably the primary thing you’re thinking right now: but mythology is different from history. To which I would say: is it? There’s a lot of different ways people have come to understand these two words, and specifically what sets them apart. The way mythology is typically used colloquially is in the idea that something is false - if it’s not true, its a “myth”. History, on the other hand, is inherent truth. It’s what we can back up with some kind of fact, some kind of document somewhere in history we can point at and say “see?”
But these are just one view of both of these far more complicated ideas. I’ve already spent a lot of time on this channel talking about definitions of myth, so I don’t think I’m going to linger too much on it here. But I will say that asking what a myth actually is isn’t really all that simple. There are some definitions which set it alongside topics like history, specifically definitions like E.B Tylor who thought of mythology as a form of explanation. If we have history and science, then there’s no need for mythology, he argued. He also said the same for religion, and clearly we’re not exactly finished with that yet. And there are so many myths which aren’t explanations that it makes it hard to really fit everything in.
Besides, history isn’t really all that set in stone either. History isn’t always what’s inherently true. There is a really important difference between what is widely considered to be true, and what is inherently and actually true. There’s a very common saying: history is written by the victors - and that’s a saying for a reason.
The primary theme of “who tells a story” is an important theme in Hamilton. The characters, and many facets of the narrative, is obsessed with the idea of legacy. Hamilton, in particular, is always pushing for being remembered, wanting his legacy to be written in history books, and for his narrative to be preserved. In order for this to be the case, he - essentially - has to be a winner. In order to create the history they want shared and preserved and carried forward, they have to create a story around themselves.
Different views and different understandings of history exist. This was one of the reasons many people really struggled in the racial tensions of 2020 and beyond - many had to suddenly be confronted by the fact that a large portion of the world had a different history, a different story, than the one that was commonly shared and told.
The definition of myth I typically like to use is that a myth is a narrative, or something akin to a narrative, that someone or an individual uses to understand themselves and/or the world around them. This definition can easily fit history into it. We often use history to understand ourselves, consider aspects of the places we find ourselves in or grow up in. History forms the backbone of nationalist sentiment, and constructs ideas of what is or isn’t us. Our cultural identities are on display in museums, or featured in sculptures on city squares. For better or worse, history is an important factor in the story of us - our personal histories as well as our communal histories. A different definition of myth was one by Bruce Lincoln, who defined myth as ideological expression - another way we can see the interlinking of myth and history.
Hamilton really thrives as a narrative in this strange grey connective spaces between history and mythology. Hamilton spins history as myth, and mythology as history. It highlights the changing aspects of history and history re-telling. Lin-Manuel Miranda was inspired by the biography of a lesser known founding father who was intimately connected to so many important parts, figures, and aspects of the establishing of the United States. Alexander Hamilton, who lived as either a footnote or a one-line in many children’s history books, is brought to far more focus on a stage, highlighting his accomplishments and failures, and bringing his story to far more people and with far more details.
Most notably, Miranda saw multiple connections between American history, Hamilton, and the experiences of immigrants and minority groups. Despite Hamilton being historically white, his experiences echoed a lot of the same sentiments.
Essentially, Miranda saw the flexibility of history in relation to storytelling. Sometimes, changing aspects of the historical record to reflect the story is what’s necessary to express the true meaning of it all. People’s stories are what are used to back up history - their diaries and letters, the items they have left behind, the perspective of people who were there, but also those who visited from far field, either in time or place. Its through other people’s words that we come to know what actually happened.
This particular idea is actually articulated in the song “The Room Where it Happens”. With each depiction of what transpired between Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, it begins with the note “Thomas claims” - allowing the audience to know that the truth of the matter may not be what is noted and recorded because no one else was in that room. We don’t have the words of Hamilton and his side of things, or a layout of what was discussed. We only have one person’s word for it, and are left to speculate on the rest.
Miranda really penning this out shows us how he views the relationship between storytelling and history, a knowledge that history is what is told to us, what is described, and may not actually be representative of the truth of what occurred.
There is a type of history writing called “synchronistic history”, which is when a history is being written for the purpose of establishing a chronological history between different peoples. In some senses, this is what Miranda is doing in Hamilton, even if the people on either side are almost the same. Both may be Americans, and yet also very different - the history of early white American history and the history of marginalised people of colour in the same country.
The connection to people of colour is in more than just the casting. The writing plays up the position of Hamilton as an immigrant. Many lyrics specifically call him this, and often put in contrast to the others. In The Room Where it Happens, for example, Burr watches Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison walk away as he says “Two Virginians and an immigrant walk into a room”. In the opening number, when Hamilton arrives to New York, they sing “The ship is in the harbor now / See if you can spot him / Another immigrant / Comin' up from the bottom”.
Perhaps the moment of the show which gets the most applause is when Lafayette and Hamilton are together, sharing what they have done for the revolution, and say “Immigrants, we get the job done”.
Miranda also seems to understand that his take on history is only one version and one story for it. During one number, when the company says that Martha Washington named her tomcat Alex after Hamilton, Hamilton steps up to the stage to address the audience to say “that’s true”. In other words, the moment is broken to address when things are considered more historically accurate, only done in this moment to bring attention to the fact of Alex’s fuck boy behaviour, which is also relevant to the story which will unfold on stage.
Lin-Manuel Miranda is very consciously aware of his shifting of history. It’s an important facet of storytelling he embraces. He plays with the presentation of narrative and history purposefully, and does so with the construction of music as much as story. The music is a mixture of rap and singing, where some characters do both, some only one of those, and some flip between the two dynamics. When each of these dynamics are chosen is incredibly thought out and narratively relevant, as it echoes how contemporary culture is reflected back on history. More progressive characters and thoughts are rapped, while the indivdiuals and societies most tied to the traditional mindset sing. We see the thoughts, considerations and experiences of the past being seen through a contemporary lens, and given a beat, to express where they sit. One of the only possible exceptions to this is Elisa, who always sings partly due to a less active mind compared to both Alex and her sister Angelica, but also because, as the finale demonstrates to us, she is the character given the most time. Rappers in the story fought to fit their words in shorter periods of time to reflect their often short-lived life. Elisa, in comparison, is given the most time historically, and therefore the time to sing.
These can also change. When Jefferson first arrives, he sings because he’s out of step with the flow of the more contemporary culture. Hamilton primarily raps, and when he does sing - at least Lin-Manuel Miranda’s version of him - he’s not very good at it. Because he doesn’t fit that form of thinking, doesn’t fit that mindset, and so is uncomfortable with expressing himself in these more formal ways.
But this idea of progressive vs not is something understood from afar, and often re-framed for the purposes of this new take on history. Elements are altered, aspects changed, in order to tell a story but also to tell the story that matters - those of a different kind of America.
And, I think it’s important to note, Miranda’s version of history is going to become a very typical considered on. Regardless of how things actually and truly unfolded, the stage production will become the understanding and the historical narrative of Hamilton. If history is told by the victors, this also counts for the victors in terms of most compelling and connected narrative - the one which speaks to us the most. Miranda’s Hamilton is, for right now, the victor - the winning story which will continue now for us. History is what we make of it, the story we tell, and Hamilton is no exception.
In essence, what I’m saying, is that Hamilton shows us how history is mythology, and mythology also history. There are probably quite a few other examples we could use, but this is one of the best one in our contemporary pop culture. Lin Manuel Miranda and Alexander Hamilton, together, prove to us that stories are all about connections, and meaning. Really, whether its historical or fictional, it all comes down to one simple question: who tells your story?