Ward 1

History Has Its Eyes on You:

Henry V to Hamilton and the Success of the History Play

At the turn of the 17th century, William Shakespeare wrote the following lines at the end

of his famous Sonnet 18:

Nor shall Death brag thou wanderst in his shade

When in eternal lines to time thou growest:

So long as men shall breathe or eyes can see,

So long lives this, and this gives life to thee (11-14).

What did those words mean to Shakespeare? Why would he care about preserving the idea or the

memory of someone through words? Based on lines like these ones and various works by the

great playwright, historybe it national or personalis something that ought to be preserved,

and ought to be preserved well.

Shakespeare truly mastered the art of immortalizing stories through his history plays. By

creating works that were engaging, timely, and cast with well-developed and well-spoken

characters, Shakespeare created plays that were not only popular in their debut, but have

continued to be studied, analyzed, acted, and loved by scholars and spectators for centuries.

Indeed, his development of the history play has powerfully influenced consequent artistsone of

these being Lin Manuel Miranda, a modern playwright who has recently achieved great fame by

using the framework laid down by Shakespeare. Though written hundreds of years apart, a

comparison of Shakespeares Henry V and Lin Manuel Mirandas Hamilton reveals that Miranda

owes much of his achievement to Shakespeare, who introduced the timeless, essential elements

of a history play that guarantee its success, no matter the era.

 Ward 2

Miranda, whose Broadway hit, Hamilton, has skyrocketed him to fame within the span of

a few years, seems to understand the importance of presenting history in a way that engages

audiences. He, too, writes lines that persuade listeners to study the lives of those who changed

the world, such as History has its eyes on you (Miranda), and retells the story of the creation of

a nation in a way that has renewed a fascination with the founding fathers among even younger

generations. The current artistic director of the Public Theatre compares the two great works like

this:

What Lin is doing is taking the vernacular of the streets and elevating it to verse. That is

what hip-hop is, and that is what iambic pentameter was. Lin is telling the story of the

founding of his country in such a way as to make everyone present feel they have a stake

in their country. In heightened verse form, Shakespeare told Englands national story to

the audience at the Globe, and helped make England Englandhelped give it its self-

consciousness. That is exactly what Lin is doing with Hamilton. By telling the story of

the founding of the country through the eyes of a bastard, immigrant orphan, told entirely

by people of color, he is saying, This is our country. We get to lay claim to it. (Mead).

Using one of Shakespeares best loved and most studied works, Henry V, as an example,

it is clear to see that the Bard used key ingredients in writing a successful history playand that

Miranda knows how to use them as well. As The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeares

History Plays asserts, A playwright is a kind of architect, called upon to furnish narrative,

language, and directions for the theatrical imagery that adorned his play. Out of these materials a

maker of history plays builds ethical and political structures (Hattaway 26).

Obviously, a history plays content is one of its most important attributes. In 1930, Edgar

Elmer Stoll wrote, A better name would be a political play, for they are plays in which the
 Ward 3

prevailing dramatic interest is in the fate of a nation. Since that is their nature, there will be in

them much of what Shakespeares insight had apprehended of the forces which shape a nations

destiny (Stoll 225). In both the Elizabethan era and today, theatre consumers are intrigued by

the history of their own nationsthey want to learn more about decisions made by unknown

men to whom a countrys inhabitants owe their lifestyle. For Shakespeare, the title of

playwright carried with it not only the responsibility to entertain and amuse, but to pass on the

legacy of his people. During the Elizabethan era, plays were a valuable way of teaching a

nations history. In reference to the influence of Shakespeares historical plays on society,

Shakespeare scholar Clifford Leech states, Whatever a major poets intellectual starting-point

may behe will be characterized ultimately by his power to enter into an experience that he has

directly known or deeply imagined, and by his ability to relate that experience to the sum total of

the human story (Leech 2) This means that playwrights of both the past and present are judged

based on their ability to present important events within the human narrative.

Miranda, unlike Shakespeare, hails from an age where knowledge is abundant and a

general understanding of history is expected from the population. He takes on the story of one of

the founding fathers, a group of men whose legacy has been recounted and analyzed numerous

times since the birth of the United States. His objective, then, differs slightly from that of

Shakespeare; instead of simply faithfully conveying a sequence of events, he must present his

audience with a new perspective on a familiar story while remaining basically true to the facts.

An issue for both Shakespeare and Miranda soon becomes apparent: poetic license.

Clifford Leech goes on to say, What, in fact, impresses us most in Shakespeares history plays,

and what makes them much more than merely approximately accurate records of past events, is

the presentation within them of struggling and suffering humanity (Leech 2). Instead of merely
 Ward 4

repeating back dry facts, Shakespeare learned to make stories relevant and touching to

listenerssometimes at the cost of true accuracy. Playwrights are imperfect humans, and as such

are subject to flaw and falsehood, but thats not necessarily a setback. While history plays keep

the general story of what occurred in the past fairly accurate, their authors are still free to alter

characters and other details in ways that will best suit the narrative. The Cambridge Companion

to Shakespeares History Plays says the following in relation to his stories and what actually

occurred:

Shakespeares histories therefore are neither generically similar one to another nor bound

to historical fact. They are related to history mainly by offering representations of

historical figures and the creation of theatre out of historical events. Yet in another sense,

they are profoundly historical, addressing themselves to historical process, ways in which

change comes about (18).

Based off of this assertion, it is fair to say that a history plays main objective is to help its

audiences understand how and why events happened, not to ensure that they know every last fact

about those events. The Companion then goes on to make another interesting claim related to this

idea. It states, Shakespeare could probably count on a minimal knowledge of historical events in

his audience and he represented these in various ways, inevitably concentrating as much on form

and genre as on story (Hattaway 11). This means that his viewers basic familiarity with the tale

actually left him free to play with other details and form characters in a way that made a

statement, since he didnt have to focus as much on telling the message of the actual story.

For example, a blog post focused on the historical accuracy of Shakespeares Henry V

said this about Shakespeares depiction of the battle against France: He shows his [Henrys]

engagement with the common soldiers by dressing him up in a cloak and having him wander
 Ward 5

around camp the night before battle to get a feel for how the soldiers are thinking (Sass). There

is no way to know whether this actually took place before the battle with the French. There is no

evidence that shows it to be either true or false. However, inclusion of such a scene clues

audiences in on what is perhaps Shakespeares own opinion on what makes a good king. Henry,

here an idealized leader, is shown interacting with and caring for soldiers who are clearly

beneath his rank. This hints that Shakespeare believed that those with power ought to reach out

to and understand the people they represented.

Miranda uses poetic license as well in his depiction of the formation of the United States.

Instead of remaining true to history and casting the founding fathers as white men, he includes

actors of an array of ethnicities. Saren Bennet, an English major at Brigham Young University

describes the appeal that this has to her: Lin does something thats different, and that makes it

interesting. A mixed cast kind of gets your attention and makes you think about the story in a

different way. An African-American that plays Lafayette and a Puerto Rican that portrays

Alexander Hamilton are blatant historical inaccuracies, but they enhance Mirandas point that the

nation was built by immigrants and owes them just as great a debt as the other men who signed

the Constitution. In the words of the The Cambridge Companion, Historical narratives are

shaped by the politics of the writers of those narratives (8). A basically true storyline with

carefully selected alterations enhances the authors purpose of conveying his own opinions to an

audience. Instead of causing outrage over falsehoods though, audiences generally appreciate the

new perspective, and the play gains notoriety.

Another reason that works like Henry V and Hamilton are so successful is because their

authors know how to masterfully resurrect well-developed characters who are both exciting and

relatable. Since Henry V is part of a series, (the Henriad, as referred to by Oskar Eustis)
 Ward 6

audiences can watch Henry grow and develop into a powerful leader. His wisdom and courage

mark him as a somewhat idealized man, yet he still has enough flaws to give him appropriate

humanity. As a king, Henry is made to suit the Globe; as a man, to suit the English people

(Stoll 225). His speeches and mistakes make him fascinating to watch on the stage, and viewers

who remember him as Hal realize that the he did not let his past follies define him.

In Act 1, Scene 1, after a description of the misdeeds in Henrys past, Shakespeare writes,

The strawberry grows underneath the nettle, / And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best /

Neighbored by fruit of baser quality (1.1.63-65). The conceit of a strawberry surrounded by

baser fruit is a reference to Henrys lawless days with his friends Falstaff, Pistol, etc., where

they committed acts unsuitable for a future ruler. However, instead of sinking to the level of his

friends, Henry chooses to rise up, grow up, and earn his crown by fulfilling royal responsibilities.

Thus, the strawberry grows ripened because of the experience with the nettles. Later on,

Henry is able to use his past to relate to his soldiers, common men who dont even recognize the

king sitting by the fire with them because of his familiarity with them. (Shakespeare 4.1) Henry

uses his past to understand his men, instead of being ashamed of it. Isnt that something that

would ring true in the heart of every spectator who has a youthful regret? Each hopes that he can

one day make something of himself, despite prior mistakes, just like the great king. Because

Shakespeare allows his characters to develop noble characteristics, because he doesnt paint

them as perfect humans who are defined only by their great deeds, they become not only real to

audiences, but beloved.

Alexander Hamilton, an equally influential figure in American history, is brought to life

in a similar manner by Miranda. Like Henry, he comes from a rough background. Unlike

Shakespeares portrayal of Henry, however, Miranda chooses to emphasize Alexanders

 Ward 7

ambition as a way to rise above his class and inspire others to act. He uses Alexanders humble

circumstances and desire to influence history to relate with any listener who has ever felt like the

underdog. The play begins with the question that represents the theme of the whole play: How

does the bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a /Scotsman dropped in the middle of a forgotten

/Spot in the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor, /Grow up to be a hero and a

scholar? (Miranda).

Graduate student Bridgett Vanderhoof asserts that Lin-Manuel Miranda has created a

certain history of Alexander Hamilton and his contemporaries that upholds the Great Man

history of America (1). The Great Man theory, as explained by Villanova University states that

Great leaders are born possessing certain traits that enable them to rise and lead, and Great

leaders can arise when the need for them is great (The Great Man Theory). Just as

Shakespeares portrayal shows Henry rising up to the mantle of authority as his country battles

France, Miranda creates a character, one whose society and circumstances are against him, and

paints him as a nations hero. Audience members cheer Alexander on as he climbs social and

political rank. He relates to lower-class people because he was one; he relates to societys elite

because he fought his way into their ranks. In Alexander, spectators find hope for redemption

from their birth status. In Henry, they find hope for redemption from their past. Shakespeare

created fascinating and realistic characters by allowing viewers to watch them overcome their

circumstances, and Miranda follows his pattern closely in the persona of Alexander Hamilton.

The final element that truly sets both Shakespeare and Miranda apart as historical

playwrights is the rhetoric they use in their work and the medium they use to convey it. Yay

Hamlet!, an article that compares the rhetorical aspects of the two men, references Ross
 Ward 8

Williams (the Producing Artistic Director at the NY Shakespeare Exchange) and says the

following:

Shakespeare and Miranda both challenged and put their audiences at ease with the use of

language in their works. Shakespeare invented new words, but also wrote in the

common tongue to make his plays accessible. Lin has done much the same thing with

cultural intersections, Williams said. Hearing the intricate yet driving words in

Hamilton can feel like an adventure, but the show never gets too far away from a form

that audiences can hold onto (Major).

Shakespeare is famous for his iambic pentameterindeed, it is something studied faithfully by

English scholars even today. Writing in iambic pentameter made his lines easier for characters to

memories and recite with emotion. It also mimics the da-dum, da-dum, da-dum sound of a

beating heart, which makes it feel more natural to listeners, even though historical characters like

Henry did not actually speak that way. Miranda, on the other hand, uses rap and hip-hop to

appeal to his audience. While the speed and wordplay that characterize his lines create an

anachronism with the content of his play, they also engage listeners because the style is so

popular and familiar within their current culture.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that the success of both men is merely due to medium

alone. Upon analyzing the Once more unto the breach speech in Act 3, Scene 1 of Henry V, it

is clear to see that Shakespeares rhetorical devices are expertly interwoven throughout the

rousing battle cry to produce the desired reaction among Henrys men. A close reading of the

speech reveals it to contain an extended metaphor, or a conceit, that compares the soldiers

preparing for battle against the French to a human birth and the potential of a new baby. Henry

begins the speech by encouraging his men to attack the breach that separates them and the
 Ward 9

French armies. The word breach (1) refers to a gap in a wall or barrier, but it could also refer to

the opening in a mothers body through which the new baby is born. Henry continues to

reference different parts of the body; using some choice alliteration, he describes how a mother

steels herself for childbirth as he calls for his men to Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood

(8), and pry through the portage of the head (11), which is the first part of the body to leave the

mother during birth.

He later reminds the men of their lineagefathers who had fought before them and

mothers who would be dishonored if their offspring shirked a call to arms. He continues with the

idea of conception and what the soldiers owe not only their parents, but their motherland. And

you, good yeomen, /Whose limbs were made in England, show us here/ The mettle of your

pasture. Let us swear /That you are worth your breeding, which I doubt not (Shakespeare

3.1.26-31). The conceit serves the purpose of reminding the men that they had been created by

both their nation and their ancestors to fight nobly, and, like with birth, this was the moment to

gather in one body, leave the safety of the motherland, and assume their destiny as protectors and

conquerors.

A critic of language and politics in the sixteenth-century history play says that the

plays epic tenor has often been interpreted and performed as a monarchist and patriotic

spectacle: propaganda play on National Unity: heavily orchestrated for the brass (Cavanagh

130). One of the themes of the this and most history plays is nationalism. Monologues are full of

language that rallies the masses around a central ruler, and this is no exception. Henrys speech

identifies him as a ruler, as one who is in control and can garner the support of his people. In

other scenes in the play, he trades his refined speech for that of the common man in order to be

the man his people needone who relates to them and understands them. While not as boldly
 Ward 10

rousing, tactics like this also effectively solidify his peoples loyalty to him. According to

C.W.R.D. Mosely, He speaks with all the admired arts of rhetoric, and has married the theoric

and practic sides of life as a good Renaissance prince should (178). The rhetorical devices

found within Henrys speech easily identify him as a leader to both his people and Shakespeares

audience.

Miranda, who tells not only Alexanders story, but also those of other founding fathers,

uses repetition and parallel structureother rhetorical devicesto identify General George

Washington as a leader in his play. In a blog post by the American Shakespeare Centers

Education Department, author Cass Morris analyzes the rhetoric used by Washington as he

assumes command of the American forces in the war against Britain.

He [Washington]s also prone to isocolon, parallel structure, in short, simple patterns like

the imperatives we see above, and nearly every line in History Has Its Eyes on You

begins with an I + [verb] statement. These rhetorical patterns underscore Washington

as someone straightforward, focused, and solid (Morris)

Washington addresses his troops by emphatically yelling, We are outgunned,/ Outmanned,

/Outnumbered, /Outplanned (Miranda). The repetition of the prefix out is used to convey the

desperation of the American situationthey are literally surpassed by the British in every

category of war. However, the direness of their situation only highlights Washingtons skill as a

leader when they pull through with a victory. In the number, Yorktown, the chorus repeats the

phrase The world turned upside down (Miranda). This is a reference to Washingtons

repetition of their near-insurmountable circumstances, and puts him in the role of military genius

who pulled it off.

 Ward 11

This rhetoric is intriguing to audiences and allows them to learn more about the identity

of each character. A user on a popular web forum that debates the comparison of the two

playwrights believes rhetoric to be the greatest contributor to the success of both Shakespeare

and Miranda.

What will cement Hamilton's legacy is the same thing that preserved Shakespeare's. In

many ways, they are actually very similar. Miranda's ability to find the perfect word, both

in meaning and in sound, to fit any phrase, is remarkable to me. I can't think of another

author who more clearly mirrors Shakespeare's capacity to create phrases that just

sound right. It is this linguistic power, which both Miranda and Shakespeare have,

although separated by centuries and writing in very different vernaculars, that set them

apart (Josephs).

Readers might wonder, then, if all that is required for a history plays success is the close

imitation of Shakespeares own plays. The answer is a resounding No! William Shakespeare

understood and applied what previous historical playwrights did not: that plays should be

accurate yet interesting, they should make a statement, their characters should be exciting and

relatable to audiences, and that they should employ appropriate rhetorical devices to help

develop those characters. Wise men like Lin-Manuel Miranda also study, understand, and apply

those elements in their own ways and to their own histories.

Readers might also wonder if Miranda is the Shakespeare of the modern generation.

The user on the aforementioned forum responds to that query this way:

There are things Hamilton has now that Shakespeare has lost over time: direct political

relevance, the possibility to see it onstage or sung as it was originally intended to be by

its creator, new and different experimentations with musical and lyrical form. But keep in
 Ward 12

mind that many of these innovations are only possible because of what Shakespeare did

(Josephs).

Shakespeares words, penned so artfully in Sonnet 18, apply to his own reputation as a

historical playwright: So long as men shall breathe or eyes can see /So long lives this, and this

gives life to thee (Shakespeare, 13-14). William Shakespeare has left a legacy that other artists,

such as Lin-Manuel Miranda, honor by using as a foundation for their own work. The essentials

of a riveting history play have withstood the test of time through works like Henry V, and though

they can be built upon and reworked to suit a modern audience, they can never be replaced.

Shakespeares sheer number of literary and theatrical contributions immortalize him, especially

in the category of the history play, and his influence continues when others find success in the

patterns that he created.

 Ward 13

Works Cited

Bennet, Saren. Personal interview. 16 November 2016.

Cavanagh, Dermot. Early Modern Literature in History: Language and Politics in the Sixteenth-

Century History Play. Gordonsville, GB: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. ProQuest ebrary.

Web. 18 November 2016.

Hattaway, Michael. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeares History Plays. Cambridge

University Press, 2002.

Josephs, Anya. Re: Will Lin-Manuel Miranda surpass William Shakespeare in legacy? Quora.

10 May 2016. Web. 12 November 2016. https://www.quora.com/Will-Lin-Manuel-

Miranda-surpass-William-Shakespeare-in-legacy.

Leech, Clifford. History for the Elizabethans. Shakespearean Criticism, Vol. 56, edited by

Michelle Lee, Gale Research Company, 2001, pp. 2-3.

Major, Melissa. ""Yay, Hamlet!": Shakespeares Influence on Lin-Manuel Miranda." Great

Performances. PBS, 4 Oct. 2016. Web. 05 Dec. 2016. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/lin-

manuel-miranda-bard-era/5437/.

Mead, Rebecca. "All About the Hamiltons." The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 31 Mar. 2016. Web.

05 Dec. 2016. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/hamiltons.

Miranda, Lin Manuel. Hamilton. Atlantic Records, 2016. Web. 5 December 2016.

http://atlanticrecords.com/HamiltonMusic/.

Morris, Cass. #YayHamlet: What Shakespeare and Broadways Biggest Hit Have to Do with

Each Other. ASC Education, American Shakespeare Center. 12 November 2016.

https://asc-blogs.com/2016/02/16/yayhamlet-what-shakespeare-and-broadways-biggest-

hit-have-to-do-with-each-other/.
 Ward 14

Moseley, C.W.R.D. Shakespeare's History Plays: Richard II to Henry V, the Making of a King.

Penrith, GB: Humanities-Ebooks, LLP, 2008. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 18 November 2016.

Sass, Mark W. Shakespeare, Branagh, and the Historical Accuracy of Henry V. Mwsasse, 12

February 2012, Web. Accessed 30 November 2016.

https://mwsasse.com/2012/02/26/shakespeare-branagh-the-historical-accuracy-of-henry-

v/.

Shakespeare, William. The Life of Henry V. Folger Shakespeare Library Edition. Edited by

Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. London, Washington Square Press. Kindle

Edition. 5 December 2016.

Shakespeare, William. Sonnet 18. Shakespeares Sonnets, 2014. Web. Accessed 5 December

2016. http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/18.

Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Henry V. Shakespearean Criticism, Vol. 5, edited by Mark W. Scott, Gale

Research Company, 1987, p. 225.

The Great Man Theory. Villanova University, 2016, Bisk. 30 November 2016.

https://www.villanovau.com/resources/leadership/great-man-theory/#.WEX_W_krI2x.

Vanderhoof, Bridgett. Lin Manuel Mirandas Hamilton and Shakespeare. 8 October 2016.