Mr Jones and the farmers

The humans: enemies who become partners

In Animal Farm, George Orwell presents human beings first as the animals’ masters and enemies, then as business partners of the pigs. Mr Jones owns Manor Farm; Mr Pilkington and Mr Frederick own the neighbouring farms, Foxwood and Pinchfield. Mr Whymper is not a farmer but a solicitor who arranges trade between Napoleon and the outside world.

Together, these characters help us judge what the Rebellion achieves. Expelling Jones initially allows the animals to work for themselves. By the final chapter, however, the pigs and human farmers share a table while the other animals remain outside. The central question becomes not simply who owns the farm, but who benefits from its workers’ labour.

The novel is an allegory: its invented characters and events also represent historical people and events. Jones represents Tsar Nicholas II, Frederick represents Hitler, and Pilkington represents the western leaders of Britain and the United States. These parallels help explain their actions, but the humans also expose a broader pattern of selfishness among rulers. Orwell was a democratic socialist: his criticism of Stalin’s regime is not an endorsement of the human masters it replaced.

Jones’s neglect makes rebellion possible

The narrator introduces Jones in Chapter 1 as “too drunk to remember to shut the popholes”. These are the small openings through which hens enter and leave their houses. His failure to secure them immediately establishes that his drinking interferes with basic responsibilities. He takes another beer before going to bed, while the animals gather to discuss their suffering.

Chapter 2 gives a more qualified account. The narrator explains that Jones, “although a hard master, had been a capable farmer, but of late he had fallen on evil days”. Being capable does not mean being kind: he could run a productive farm while still treating his animals harshly. After losing money in a lawsuit, he becomes disheartened and “had taken to drinking more than was good for him”. His decline leaves weeds in the fields, neglected buildings and underfed animals.

The immediate cause of the Rebellion is hunger. Jones’s men fail to feed the animals, and Jones returns from drinking and falls asleep. When the animals break into the store-shed for food, the men attack them with whips. The hungry animals fight back and drive them out. Orwell therefore presents the uprising as an unplanned response to neglect and violence, not simply as the execution of the pigs’ preparations.

Jones’s failure parallels the collapse of Nicholas II’s rule amid war, food shortages and unrest in 1917. Nicholas abdicated during the February Revolution; the Bolsheviks took power later that year in the October Revolution. Orwell compresses this revolutionary history into the animals’ overthrow of their human master.

Jones loses power, but his memory remains useful

In Chapter 4, Jones complains in the pub that losing his property was an injustice. He concentrates on his loss rather than on the suffering that caused the Rebellion. He then leads an armed attempt to retake the farm, supported by men from Foxwood and Pinchfield, but the animals defeat the humans at the Battle of the Cowshed.

This battle recalls the Allied intervention in Soviet Russia beginning in 1918 and the struggle against the anti-Bolshevik White forces during the Russian Civil War. The neighbouring farms’ involvement shows that the revolution faces enemies beyond its former ruler: other owners also have an interest in defeating it. The animals’ successful defence helps explain why Jones’s return remains such a powerful fear.

Although Jones fails to return, the pigs repeatedly use the possibility of his return to discourage opposition. In Chapter 5, Squealer asks, “Surely, comrades, you do not want Jones back?” when defending Napoleon’s abolition of debate. The animals’ genuine fear of their former master helps the pigs present obedience as the only safe choice.

By Chapter 6, Jones has abandoned hope of recovering the farm. In Chapter 10, the narrator reports that “he had died in an inebriates' home in another part of the county”: an institution for people with severe drinking problems. His death completes his personal decline. Structurally, however, removing Jones does not remove the kind of rule he represents. The pigs eventually reproduce the exploitation against which the animals rebelled.

Pilkington and Frederick defend their own interests

The narrator introduces the neighbouring farmers in Chapter 4 through contrasting portraits. Pilkington is “an easy-going gentleman farmer who spent most of his time in fishing or hunting”. His large, neglected farm, Foxwood, reflects his leisurely lifestyle. Frederick owns the smaller, better-kept Pinchfield and is “a tough, shrewd man, perpetually involved in lawsuits and with a name for driving hard bargains”. His efficiency is accompanied by aggression and calculating self-interest.

Neither is a dependable friend to Jones. Both privately wonder whether they can profit from his misfortune. They also dislike each other so much that cooperation is difficult, even when their interests overlap.

What unites them is fear that their own animals might rebel. They initially claim that Animal Farm will fail. When it survives, they spread increasingly shocking stories about cannibalism and cruelty. These accusations are propaganda, not the narrator’s confirmation of what happens on the farm. The farmers are trying to discredit an example that threatens their authority. Their hostility reflects the fear that revolutionary ideas could spread beyond Russia.

Whymper makes contact profitable—and appearances misleading

In Chapter 6, Napoleon announces trade with humans because the farm needs materials it cannot produce. Whymper becomes the intermediary. The narrator calls him “a sly-looking little man with side whiskers” and explains that he recognises the opportunity to earn commissions. His involvement is motivated by profit rather than loyalty to Animalism.

The animals fear contact with humans, yet the narrator describes how “the sight of Napoleon, on all fours, delivering orders to Whymper, who stood on two legs” makes them proud. The physical contrast appears to show an animal commanding a human. This is ironic: the display of independence distracts them from the abandonment of their original opposition to human trade.

In Chapter 7, Napoleon also exploits Whymper’s limited access. Selected animals mention increased rations within his hearing, while almost empty food bins are filled with sand and topped with grain. Whymper is deceived and reports that there is no shortage. The reader knows about both the hunger and the deception, whereas Whymper sees only what Napoleon allows him to see. Orwell shows how carefully managed appearances can make an outsider an unwitting carrier of propaganda.

Whymper also hears nothing about the hens’ resistance to surrendering their eggs or the deaths that follow. His commercial relationship with Napoleon continues while suffering is concealed from him. Through this intermediary, Orwell distinguishes successful dealings with the outside world from the welfare of the animals who produce the goods.

Frederick’s bargain turns into betrayal

In Chapter 8, Napoleon negotiates over timber with both farmers before secretly selling it to Frederick. The pigs celebrate his supposed cleverness, but Frederick pays with forged banknotes. The supposedly brilliant bargain leaves Animal Farm with nothing in exchange for its timber.

Frederick then attacks with armed men and destroys the windmill using explosives. The brief agreement followed by invasion parallels the Nazi–Soviet Pact of 1939 and Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Orwell exposes the danger of treating a temporary bargain as protection against an aggressive enemy.

Pilkington is no reliable alternative. Napoleon has insulted him while making the Frederick deal; when the animals seek help, Pilkington sends the written reply “Serves you right.” in Chapter 8. Its blunt dismissal reveals vindictiveness rather than concern for the animals’ suffering. Their leaders’ shifting alliances leave ordinary workers to bear the consequences.

The final dinner exposes a shared ruling class

In Chapter 10, Pilkington praises the pigs because their workers receive little food and work exceptionally hard. The farmers now admire the very farm they once feared: it no longer offers a threatening example of freedom.

The narrator reports Pilkington’s claim that “Between pigs and human beings there was not, and there need not be, any clash of interests whatever.” This is presented through reported speech, not as an objective truth. It reverses Major’s original insistence that humans and animals cannot share interests. The distinction now runs between rulers and workers, rather than between species.

The dinner recalls the Tehran Conference of 1943 and the wartime cooperation between the Soviet Union and the western Allies. Orwell wrote the novel in 1943–44, when Britain and the Soviet Union were allied against Nazi Germany. His satire questions the apparent harmony between leaders whose political systems differ but whose interests can coincide.

That harmony immediately breaks down. The narrator explains that “Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington had each played an ace of spades simultaneously”. Their apparent friendship gives way to accusations of cheating. This ending reflects Orwell’s expectation that the apparent agreement at Tehran would unravel, rather than establish lasting trust. The card quarrel is therefore more than a comic interruption: it exposes the instability beneath the leaders’ declarations of friendship.

The ending supports two connected readings: the rulers share an interest in exploiting workers, but remain rivals who distrust and try to outwit one another. Agreement about controlling others does not prevent conflict over their own advantage.

The prose narrative frames the story with human mastery: it opens under Jones and ends with pigs indistinguishable from men. Restoring the name Manor Farm reinforces this circular structure. The animals outside the window can see that the rulers resemble one another, but they are still excluded from power.

Turning evidence into an essay paragraph

A strong paragraph connects a judgement about the humans to a precise moment, explains its significance and integrates relevant context. For example:

Orwell presents Pilkington’s friendship with Napoleon as an alliance based on exploitation rather than moral change. In Chapter 10, the narrator reports his claim that “Between pigs and human beings there was not, and there need not be, any clash of interests whatever.” Pilkington’s praise for low rations and long working hours explains this agreement: the pigs now protect the same ruling-class interests as human farmers. The dinner recalls the Tehran Conference of 1943, when the Soviet Union cooperated with the western Allies. However, Orwell makes the alliance unstable through the subsequent dispute over the two aces of spades, reflecting his expectation that this apparent international harmony would unravel. Pilkington and Napoleon can agree about controlling workers while still attempting to cheat each other, exposing both their shared selfishness and their continuing rivalry.

Track the humans across the novel

• Jones: neglect and hunger provoke the Rebellion; defeated at the Battle of the Cowshed; his threatened return becomes a tool of control; dies away from the farm.
• Pilkington — Foxwood: leisurely, self-interested; spreads hostile rumours; refuses help against Frederick; finally admires the pigs’ exploitation of workers.
• Frederick — Pinchfield: calculating and aggressive; pays for timber with forged notes; attacks and destroys the windmill.
• Whymper: profit-seeking solicitor and intermediary; enables trade; sand-filled bins and staged comments deceive him into reporting adequate food supplies.

Essential connections

• Jones → Nicholas II: a failing ruler loses power amid deprivation and unrest in 1917.
• Battle of the Cowshed → Allied intervention from 1918 and the Russian Civil War: outside forces try to defeat the revolution.
• Frederick’s deal and attack → 1939 Nazi–Soviet Pact and 1941 German invasion.