In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, the Fourth Commandment — "No animal shall drink alcohol" — is changed to "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess," enabling the pigs to hide their drunkenness while preserving the illusion of moral rule. This shift marks a broader pattern in which the commandments are quietly rewritten to shield the pigs from accountability, turning revolutionary law into a tool of control. This evergreen explainer unpacks how the altered commandment functions as propaganda, how it relates to the other commandments, and why it remains a concise emblem of corruption in the novel.
Original Commandment and Its Purpose
The original Fourth Commandment appears in Chapter 2 after the Rebellion, when the animals solidify their shared ethics. It states plainly, "No animal shall drink alcohol," reflecting the early commitment to temperance as part of self-rule. The commandments are designed to be simple, memorable rules that safeguard equality and prevent a return to human-style abuses. Alcohol is especially threatening because, in human society, it clouds judgment and enables recklessness, so banning it outright aligns with the animals’ goal of self-mastery. The commandment is written in stark, unambiguous language so that even the least educated animals can grasp its importance.
First Change: "To Excess" Is Added
How the Revision Appears
After the pigs consolidate power, the changes to the commandments begin. The Fourth Commandment is the first to be subtly altered: the words "to excess" are appended, transforming "No animal shall drink alcohol" into "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess." On the surface, the rule still discourages drinking, but the addition creates a loophole. Squealer and the pigs exploit this nuance to justify their private liquor stash, claiming that moderate drinking is permissible while "excess" is merely imprudent rather than forbidden. The revision is introduced quietly, often under the cover of urgent crises or emotional speeches that distract the other animals from scrutinizing the text.
Strategic Motivations
- It provides a thin justification for the pigs’ access to alcohol while maintaining the appearance of compliance.
- It mirrors real-world doublespeak, where small wording changes mask privilege and evade accountability.
- It sets a precedent for further commandment revisions, normalizing the idea that rules are interpretable rather than fixed.
Broader Pattern in the Commandments
The Fourth Commandment does not change in isolation. As the pigs increasingly resemble the humans they overthrew, each revision tightens the gap between rhetoric and reality. For example, the originally absolute "No animal shall sleep in a bed" becomes "No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets," and "No animal shall kill any other animal" is altered to "No animal shall kill any other animal without cause." These incremental edits erode the clarity and authority of the law, making it easier for the pigs to violate the spirit of the rules while quoting their letter. The animals, lacking the leisure or literacy to regularly review the commandments, gradually accept these distortions as necessary adaptations.
Consequences for the Farm Society
The softened Fourth Commandment contributes to a landscape where the pigs comfortably indulge in behaviors they once condemned. They store and trade alcohol, host drunken parties, and yet position themselves as responsible stewards of the farm. By avoiding the label of "excess," they shift blame onto any animal who questions their habits, framing criticism as naiveté or disloyalty. The other animals, unable to openly condemn the pigs’ drinking without violating a technically intact commandment, experience cognitive dissonance that weakens their solidarity. This dynamic helps consolidate the pigs’ authority, as dissent is framed not as a legitimate challenge but as a failure to understand the new complexities of leadership.
Literary and Rhetorical Impact
Orwell’s Technique
Orwell uses the tweak to the Fourth Commandment as a microcosm of propaganda. By changing only a few words, he shows how language can be weaponized to obscure exploitation. The modification is small enough to seem reasonable yet significant enough to enable abuses. The commandment’s transformation also underscores themes of corruption and historical revision, as the pigs continually edit the past to suit the present. Readers are invited to notice how euphemisms and qualifications can hollow out principles that appear, on the surface, intact.
Connections to Real-World Propaganda
History and political science offer countless parallels to the pigs’ tactic: leaders reframe self-serving acts as responsible moderation, reframe indulgence as prudence, and reframe control as necessary flexibility. Orwell’s concise revision illustrates how technicalities and fine print can displace clear moral lines, a pattern visible in legal loopholes, corporate policies, and institutional rhetoric. The farm’s experience suggests that guarding rules against incremental erosion requires constant vigilance, accessible language, and mechanisms for transparency.
Why the Fourth Commandment Still Matters
The altered Fourth Commandment remains a potent symbol because its manipulation is easy to grasp yet hard to contest. Unlike overt violence or lies, the commandment appears to uphold its original intent while quietly accommodating the pigs’ desires. This makes it an enduring lesson about how those in power can use language to license excess while preaching restraint. For modern readers, the commandment highlights the importance of reading rules literally, questioning incremental changes, and insisting on clarity rather than accepting polished explanations that gloss over shifting standards.