PLOUGH-OXEN 13 



to keep up the supply, were sold. Plough-teams were seldom made 

 up of horses only ; if horses were used at all, they were mixed with 

 oxen. But, as a rule, oxen were preferred to horses. Though 

 horses worked more quickly, when the ploughman allowed them to 

 do so, they pulled less steadily, and sudden strains severely 

 tested the primitive plough-gear. On hard ground they did less 

 work, and only when the land was stony had they any advantage, 

 Economical reasons further explain the preference for oxen. From 

 St. Luke's Day (October 18) to April, both horses and oxen were 

 kept in the stalls. During these twenty-five weeks neither could 

 graze, and Walter of Henley calculates that the winter-keep of a 

 horse cost four tunes that of an ox. Horses needed more attend- 

 ance ; they required to be rubbed, curried, and dressed. Oxen 

 were less liable to sickness than horses. The harness of the ox, 

 mainly home-made from materials supplied on the estate, was 

 cheaper to provide and repair. Shod only on the forefeet, the 

 shoeing of the ox cost less than that of the horse. When either 

 horse or ox was past work, the profit of the one lay in his hide ; of 

 the other, not only in his hide, but the larder : the ox was " mannes 

 meat when dead, while the horse is carrion." Great care was 

 taken both of horses and of oxen. In Seneschaucie 1 (thirteenth 

 century) the duties both of the waggoner and oxherd are care- 

 fully defined ; each was expected to sleep every night with his 

 charges. 



Cattle were seldom fatted even for the tables of the rich ; oxen 

 were valued for their power of draught : cows for their milk. It 

 may, indeed, be said that fresh butcher's meat was rarely eaten, 

 and that, if it was, it was almost universally grass-fed. No winter- 

 keep or feeding stuff was available ; not even carrots or parsnips 

 were known. The commons, generally unstinted, carried as much 

 stock as could keep skin and bone together in the winter, and the 

 lord could not only turn out on them his own sheep and cattle, 

 but license strangers for money payments to do the same. Even 

 if the commons were stinted, the margin was too bare to mean 

 abundance. The best pastures were either in the lord's own hands, 

 and were saved by him at the expense of the commons, or were 

 let out to individuals in separate occupations. Even among these 

 superior feeding-grounds, there were few enclosures which would 

 fatten a bullock. At the wane of the summer, the cattle had the 

 1 In Walter of Henley' a Husbandry, ed. 1900. 



