Unsettled care and ownership of George's flock

The unsettled care and ownership of George’s flock turn the pasture into a contest over who may speak for, manage, and benefit from the sheep. After George Glenn dies, Kate is unsure what belongs to her, local people treat the flock and its land as potential assets, and Gabriel takes temporary charge while the will remains unread. George’s eventual provision for the sheep gives them a protected future in Europe, but the practical question of who will lead them is still open when Gabriel offers himself for the role.

Death and uncertainty over ownership

George’s death leaves the flock without its shepherd, and the sheep gather near the hay barn while his body lies in the pasture. Miss Maple interprets his killing as a wrong done to their shepherd and argues that the flock owes him an effort to identify the person responsible. Their dependence is immediate as well as emotional: the animals initially worry about who will bring them hay, even though Maple points out that midsummer pasture makes hay unnecessary. The question of care cannot be separated from their loyalty to George or from the violence that has removed him.

The uncertainty becomes explicit when Kate visits the meadow with a long-nosed man. Asked what will happen to the flock, she observes that the sheep appear able to manage without anyone, but the man insists that a flock needs a shepherd and suggests Ham might buy them. Kate rejects that prospect, saying Ham would not care for them. She also says she does not know whether everything belongs to her: George left a will with a lawyer in town, and she hopes it does not leave anything to another woman. Her uncertainty exposes the difference between legal possession and the responsibility of looking after living animals.

The sheep understand the will as the document that will determine who owns George’s things and his flock. Miss Maple urges them to remain where they are until its meaning is known. This decision is set against their fear of being sold to a butcher or otherwise removed from the pasture. The will therefore becomes more than a matter of inheritance: until it is read, the flock’s future depends on decisions made by people whose interests may not match its needs.

The pasture as property and resource

The land itself attracts human claims. In conversation about the prospect of development, Harry argues that George’s refusal to sell had obstructed plans for the area and presents the pasture as a valuable view wasted on sheep. Tom adds that George kept people away, including tourists, while implying that he had made money through concealed nighttime deliveries. These accusations reveal how readily the flock’s home is treated as a commercial opportunity, whether for development or other profit. The sheep, by contrast, experience the meadow as the place where they live and graze.

George’s small vegetable garden offers an intimate measure of what changes when his supervision ends. It stands behind his rickety caravan, fenced off from the sheep, who had been prevented from eating its lettuces, peas, radishes, cress, tomatoes, endives, buttercups, and chives. After his death, Lane opens the gate and several sheep eat the planting. Their raid is brief, and they return to the meadow ashamed. The episode shows the sudden absence of George’s everyday authority, but also how care had been woven into ordinary limits and routines rather than expressed only through formal ownership.

That earlier care included George’s daily presence. He came to the meadow while the sheep were still huddled together, set them to grazing as he worked in the garden or made repairs, and later read aloud to them from the steps of his caravan. The books ranged from fairy tales and a sheep-disease book to love stories. These repeated acts help explain why the flock regards him as more than the former owner of land and animals: his care was practical, habitual, and shared with them.

Gabriel’s interim management

While the will is pending, Gabriel uses the flock’s vulnerable position to establish himself on the property. He tells Josh that the sheep need looking after until the will is read and that the management office welcomed his involvement on animal-welfare and hygiene grounds. He also admits that keeping his own sheep on George’s grazing land saves him the cost of grazing elsewhere, and says he can remain by the caravan. His account combines a stated duty of care with a direct advantage to himself.

Gabriel’s flock is fenced to one side of the meadow, making George’s sheep’s grazing area smaller. The animals notice the boundary and resent the principle of losing ground, even as they are relieved not to mix freely with Gabriel’s unfamiliar sheep. Later, Gabriel says his sheep need fattening and begins cutting grass with George’s scythe. The action gives the flock a troubling view of his priorities: the same pasture is being managed for the feeding of animals intended for slaughter, rather than simply as a shared home. Gabriel’s control is therefore neither an uncontested rescue nor a settled inheritance; it is a temporary arrangement entangled with his own flock and economic interests.

The will and the sheep’s provision

When the lawyer reads the will, he reveals that George leaves the remainder of his fortune to the sheep so they can go to Europe as promised. The money is to be administered by the lawyer, and the animals require an authorized representative to accompany them as their shepherd. The will thus recognizes the flock as the intended beneficiary while placing the practical exercise of that benefit in human hands. The representative’s appointment has not yet been decided at the point the lawyer invites applications.

The conditions make the obligation specific. The representative must arrange at least half an hour of stories read aloud each day; no sheep may be sold or slaughtered; and breeding is to prioritize dense fleece. The lawyer will check compliance as a third party. The representative also receives a salary that decreases whenever a sheep dies, with a final payment if all the sheep die. These provisions join material maintenance to the flock’s established habits and protect them from being treated solely as livestock with market value.

Gabriel steps forward and offers to take the job. His offer follows his interim occupation of the pasture and the evident advantage he has gained from access to its grazing, leaving a tension between the will’s protections and the proposed shepherd’s interests. The evidence records his volunteering, but not a final appointment. The unresolved care of the flock therefore persists even after ownership has been directed toward their future: George’s money and instructions provide a destination and rules, while the person entrusted to carry them out remains a consequential choice.

Significance of the unresolved state

The flock’s predicament contrasts a pastoral landscape with the claims made upon it. The meadow supplies food and shelter, but it is also coveted as development land, used to reduce the cost of feeding another flock, and governed by an inheritance process in which humans select the sheep’s representative. Against those pressures, George’s will makes care measurable through daily reading, a ban on sale and slaughter, and a breeding priority that protects the fleece. The sheep’s future is not secured merely by naming them beneficiaries; it depends on whether a human representative honors the conditions.

The state of uncertainty also clarifies the flock’s own agency. The sheep wait for the will, discuss what it might mean, and recognize that remaining together matters, while their memories of George supply a standard against which new management can be judged. The legal arrangements seek to safeguard them, yet the animals’ lived experience of grazing boundaries, feeding, and human attention makes the consequences of those arrangements visible. Care and ownership remain distinct questions: the will identifies who should benefit, but the search for a trustworthy shepherd is still unfinished.