"Hamilton", Cultural References and Biblical Allusion
When is a quotation more than just a quotation?
This is part two in a three-part series comparing the musical “Hamilton” with the narratives of the Old Testament. If you don’t like it, the next one will be about something else, so subscribe anyway!
I.
What connects this with this? In some ways the answer is simple: the second one copies the first. Both pieces of music start with a count to nine, followed by the pause of a beat, then the words “it’s the ten _ commandments.” Both songs consist of an explanation of the ten rules, cleverly worked into the telling of a deadly narrative. Clearly the overlap is too big to be accidental and indeed a quick online search reveals both Lin-Manuel Miranda and “Hamilton” musical director Alex Lacamoire discussing the B.I.G track as a starting point for the “Hamilton” song. This is far from the only example, with plenty of bloggers and journalists compiling screeds of real and surely imagined connections, and the borrowing extends even into the musical realm, not only with melodies but also styles and genres employed very specifically to convey meaning. The entire musical is a tapestry of connections, allusions, references, puns and re-imaginings, not only internally but also externally, to the music Lin-Manuel loves. As listeners we instinctively accept and understand this: once we are introduced to the concept of “Hamilton” as a retelling of American history through the trappings of modern America it feels natural for the story to be flooded with words and music that feels familiar.
So is it all simply an homage? Does Lin-Manuel just want us to know he loves hip-hop? He certainly doesn’t want any less than that, but I’m tempted to believe he wants a little bit more. Miranda uses DMX, Mobb Deep, Gilbert & Sullivan, JLo and more, each time not simply setting up a connection to satisfy listeners with a broad album collection but actually helping his audience navigate the strange and far-off world of 18th century colonial North America. Is it a coincidence that the laughable Farmer presents his ideas on behalf of the British government while accompanied by exaggerated baroque strings and a harpsichord? Or is it in fact a reference, even a ‘quotation’, calling the listener to connect the immediate scene with something else which transforms it?
Consider for a moment what Farmer’s contribution represents: The wisdom of the establishment, government control throttling individual aspirations, the unquestionable value of traditions, fear of rebellion and chaos leading to unwillingness to move with the times. By contrast, Hamilton and his peers represent youth, creativity and ambition, rule-breaking and hustle, individual gain over societal stability and the unstoppable rise of hungry talent. These two outlooks are destined to clash, and clearly that clash of outlook is one way of describing the American Revolution. How could all of this information be conveyed implicitly to modern listeners unfamiliar with the period except for a few very vague specifics? Miranda’s solution is admirable for its simplicity and elegance: The old ways are evoked by music that– in our contemporary context– unavoidably conjure particular ideas and behaviours. Does anyone hear a string quartet plus harpsichord and not think “Old, stuffy, boring, posh and privileged?” Perhaps a few, but I suspect those few do not listen to “Hamilton”. Simultaneously, does anyone hear Alexander Hamilton’s response to Farmer and not immediately recognise that Hamilton represents modernity, speed, intricacy and toughness, running linguistic rings around Farmer in a musical portrayal of the very political tangle that their words describe?
II
Anyway, what about Biggie? And what about Biggie and the bible?
This idea has two layers: First, how the Notorious B.I.G takes the conceptual framework of Israelite law and uses it in his lyrics. Second, how Lin-Manuel Miranda takes Biggie’s taking of the Israelite law framework and then adds an additional layer to the puzzle.
The Ten Commandments are the series of ten laws or, in some traditions, ‘Ten Words’, that make up the opening of the legal code given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai in Exodus 20. The chapter goes on for a bit after these ten commands, and the commands go on long after the end of the chapter, but these ten prohibitions have taken on extreme significance in not only the churches but also many of the governments of the Western world. Whatever our modern world has come to believe about these laws specifically, the shared cultural idea of ‘the ten commandments’ basically equates to: Unbreakable, always correct, unquestionable and utterly foundational rules for living. By taking this shared idea and mutating it into ‘The Ten Crack Commandments’, Biggie tells us (before even beginning to speak) that he is describing a world in which the original ten commandments are shoved aside and a far more pressing reality– Crack– decides what is and is not acceptable. It is an inversion of the original idea that is effective in part precisely because it is so far from the original: Hebrews receiving divine revelation at Sinai in preparation for holy living and temple worship is about as far as you can get from a shady hustler doling out advice on how to succeed in peddling class-A drugs around New York city. Except, they share the fundamental theme of being unbreakable, essential, unquestionable rules for which the penalty is probably death (physical, social or otherwise). This is probably the key, that the switch from Exodus to Biggie is extreme but is still revolving around a core that doesn’t change: Good rules for good people to live good lives, bad rules for bad people living bad lives.
Lin-Manuel Miranda takes advantage of Biggie’s lyrical brilliance to achieve a very particular purpose: How do you tell your listeners (21st century Westerners) everything they need to know about the status and mechanics of gentlemanly duels in 18thC Revolutionary America? Miranda gets his audience over halfway there simply through the opening words: Duels, duellists and their social status are implicitly compared to crack, hustlers and the contemporary status of these things in the USA. In other words, when you hear about this duel you are being unconsciously pressured to think of it as if it were a drug-deal. All by simply quoting a few words…
III
My hunch is that the Bible achieves a lot of the same things by a lot of the same tactics. Rather than referring to external things, however, a huge amount of reference and allusion is produced from within the Bible itself.
“What is this you have done?” (Gen 3:13, in Hebrew three words, מַה־זֹּ֣את עָשִׂית) Thus says God to Eve when he discovers that she has eaten the fruit of the tree. A cry of horrified disbelief, an opportunity to explain, perhaps other things too. “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10, this time two of the initial three words, מֶ֣ה עָשִׂיתָ) says God to Cain, confronting him over the murder of Abel, the allusion to chapter 3 effectively signposting to the reader that Cain’s new sin is simply a continuation or reiteration of his parents’ fruit-picking. “What is this you have done to me?” (Gen 12:18, the initial 3 words plus one pronoun, מַה־זֹּ֖את עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֑י) cries Pharaoh to Abram, having realised that Sarai is more closely related to the Patriarch than had been reported. This third appearance of the phrase tells the reader that Abram’s sin is indeed serious, suggesting a forbidden-fruit quality to Eve, the one who was taken inappropriately, and preventing any blame from falling on Pharaoh since he– instead of being in the role of Adam, the taker in Genesis 3– is in the divine role, deciding Abram’s punishment.
The Gospel of Matthew opens with a despotic ruler, the birth of a child who will rescue an oppressed nation, the child’s adoption by a parent not his own, an escape to Egypt and the state’s murder of all male babies under two years of age. The story of Moses begins with a despotic ruler, the birth of a child who will rescue an oppressed nation, the child’s acceptance by a biological father not his own, an escape from Egypt and the state’s murder of all male babies under two years of age.
One two three four five six seven eight niiiiiine…