This essay examines how Niccolò Machiavelli's political theories, as outlined in The Prince, are dramatized through two major literary works: Shakespeare's Richard III and George Orwell's Animal Farm. The paper argues that despite their different historical settings — fifteenth-century England and early twentieth-century revolutionary Russia — both Richard III and the pig Napoleon employ strikingly similar Machiavellian strategies to seize and consolidate power. Through analysis of deception, fear, manipulation, and the strategic use of language, the essay demonstrates how both characters exemplify Machiavelli's prescriptions for successful rulership, while also illustrating the inevitable costs of governing without ethical restraint.
The question of leadership and government has always been a subject of concern for political theorists. One of the first political thinkers to break with the Medieval tradition regarding rulers and the ethics of government, Niccolò Machiavelli presented his theories on the rules a prince should follow in order to govern a state and remain in power as long as possible. Machiavelli set aside questions of ethics entirely, treating his subject from a rational point of view and prescribing the best course of action for a political ruler to follow in order to succeed.
Shakespeare's Richard III and George Orwell's Animal Farm present two different political regimes: the former focuses on dynastic battles in fifteenth-century England, and the latter features fictional animal characters who closely resemble figures from early twentieth-century revolutionary Russia. Although the Shakespearean play — and the 1955 film adaptation based on it — and Animal Farm depict events and characters from very different times and opposing forms of government, this difference is ultimately beside the point. The aspiring leaders who eventually seize power in both works follow most of the guidelines Machiavelli prescribed for the ideal ruler.
Human nature, and most importantly human weakness, is the great enabler of those who observe and know how to exploit it. Machiavelli simply pointed out ways to manipulate one's entourage — friends and enemies alike — and ultimately an entire country, into supporting one's acquisition and retention of power. Both works examined here illustrate how the Duke of Gloucester, future king Richard III, and the pig Napoleon use every available resource — including lies, treachery, deception, and manipulation — in order to ascend to power.
Critics have pointed out that the Duke of Gloucester, future king Richard III, is a character who portrays the essence of evil and is therefore more suitable to be considered an archetype — a theatrical illustration of human vice — than a real historical person. He is vilified to his very core, which is precisely what makes contemporary audiences regard him as the product of biased historical analysis. At the same time, the film closely following the Shakespearean play, along with Laurence Olivier's magnificent performance, uses the power of words and the magic of the image to recreate one of the most despicable characters in literary history. Richard III spares no one in his pursuit of power, and nothing is too despicable for him if it serves his personal interests.
Although Richard III reigned for only two years before being defeated by Richmond — the future King Henry VII and founder of the Tudor dynasty — his use of Machiavellian methods helped him acquire the highest position of leadership in England. They did not help him retain it for long, however. The dynastic rivalries and frequent conflicts among those who claimed the throne created conditions ideal for the kind of ruler Machiavellian theory describes. The Tudor dynasty would eventually produce several notable monarchs, among them Henry VIII — famous for dividing the Church and for sparing nothing and no one in the service of what Machiavelli called "necessities."
Richard III was also a master at setting people against each other. The scene of his first encounter with Lady Anne — his future wife — over the body of her murdered husband, reveals the aspiring king's true nature. He opens the door to the mortuary procession, showing no respect for the living or the dead. He declares his attraction to the grieving widow whose husband he may well have killed himself, bends over the coffin, lies to the widow, and whispers in her ear that her late husband was "unfit for her bedchamber." His behavior indicates that he has studied human nature very carefully, and that those who might stand in his way — or serve his purpose, as Lady Anne does — he treats in full accordance with Machiavellian principles.
Machiavelli argues that the most successful princes are those who "had little regard for good faith, and have been able by astuteness to confuse men's brains, and… have ultimately overcome those who have made loyalty their foundation." No one is safe in Richard III's presence. He marries Anne only to arrange her death once she no longer serves his purposes. He does not even spare the innocent children of his late brother, King Edward, in his drive to become king.
Contrary to the way Richard III comes to the throne, the pig Napoleon ascends to power through the masses, riding the waves of revolution. Nevertheless, soon after becoming a leader, Napoleon begins employing Machiavellian methods to secure his power and remove potential opponents, becoming a tyrant who governs by terror. Both Richard III and Napoleon knew how "not to be good" (The Prince, p. 13) in order to rule by fear.
The pig Napoleon allows the people to believe that the best way to be governed is for him to gather power into his own hands, thereby creating a centralized government. Allies, friends, and political supporters are mercilessly pushed aside the moment they begin to threaten his authority. Napoleon betrays Snowball's friendship and drives him away in order to secure sole leadership; he trains small puppies to become ruthless killers; and he sells the most dedicated servant of the revolutionary cause — the horse Boxer — to the glue factory. As Orwell's allegory makes clear, Napoleon's model was Stalin, and both men had the blood of the massacres they ordered as the very foundation of their rule.
Pigs ultimately form alliances with human beings toward the end of Orwell's fable, and the differences between the two species fade entirely. Self-interest prevails, and Machiavelli's prince appears to describe the reality of many states more accurately than any theorist before him.
"Fear as the preferred instrument of both rulers"
"How both leaders weaponize words and rhetoric"
Both Richard III and Napoleon are able to put on the skin of a fox or that of a lion, according to their conveniences. They act as true pupils of Machiavelli. Both are despicable characters who repulse readers and audiences alike, and their creators earned critical acclaim for having fashioned such perfect embodiments of humanity's worst nightmares. Richard III and the pig Napoleon are, at their core, timeless illustrations of what Machiavellian theory looks like in practice — ruthless, calculating, and ultimately self-defeating.
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.