A DECORATED MEDIEVAL FLOOR TILE FROM BIDDLESDEN ABBEY

BY MICHAEL FARLEY

Offprinted from RECORDS OF BUCKS Vol. 56 2016 A DECORATED MEDIEVAL FLOOR TILE FROM BIDDLESDEN ABBEY

MICHAEL FARLEY

A unique decorated medieval floor tile found at the site of Biddlesden Abbey is described. Probably dating to the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, it is suggested that it may have been made locally. The layout of the abbey buildings is briefly discussed and the removal of settlement, probably of medieval date, close to the abbey in the course of post-dissolution emparkment is noted.

onto the surface of the tile, causing the images to I n t roduct ion lack clarity here. In part of the depressed areas the A slip-decorated tile was found by Mr George white infill has a segmented appearance which Bardrick some years ago at Biddlesden House might have been caused by shrinkage of the inlay, whilst making a new landscaped area known as or alternatively from pressure on a white clay fillet ‘the secret garden’ adjacent to the stable yard of when being pushed into the recess. The method the house at SP 6328 3988 (Fig. 1, A). Mr Bardrick of making such ‘two-colour’ tiles has been much recently showed the find to Ros Tyrrell, Finds discussed, and there are several suggestions for the Liaison Officer for the Portable Antiquities Scheme process, the most laborious of which would have at the County Museum (Ref: BUC-OC2C37), and been by inlaying individual fillets of clay into the it was subsequently donated to the museum. recesses, and the simplest through slipping the entire surface and then scraping the unwanted surplus off the top (see e.g. Eames 1980, 45–48, Th e Ti le a n d i ts Design (Fig. 2) Stopford 2005, 77, 86). Whichever process was The tile is incomplete and as only two partial edges used, the occasional white-clay overlap onto the survive, its original size is not known. Presuming image on this tile does beg the question as to that it was square, each side would have been greater whether the tile could have been rejected during than 5 ⅛" (130mm): its thickness varies between manufacture, although there are no other indica- 26.7mm and 28.3mm. Both surviving edges have tions that it was a waster as such. There is no bevels, probably cut with a knife. One edge has a obvious trace of glaze on its surface, although it trace of slip or possibly mortar on it. There are no would certainly have formerly been glazed, or stab marks on the underside, but there are several intended to be glazed. The shape of an incomplete small impressions and a large thumb print with inscription set in a band shows that it would have clear ridges visible on it. Its outer surfaces are been one of a set of four. brick red but the interior is mid-grey; laminations There are four principal elements to its design: in the clay are visible. There are sparse white, granular, inclusions (calcareous?) in the fabric and a) Around the perimeter of the tile is a simple, clear angular quartz less than 1mm; also there are slightly-recessed band. numerous regularly-distributed fine cavities less b) In the top right-hand corner is a four-petalled than 0.5mm. The underside, which may have been flower with a stem. Below is a left-facing sanded, has a few flakes of white flint up to 2mm running deer with open mouth and cloven and occasional clear angular quartz grains. hooves. The deer has a sharp, clear, wavy-edge The design has been formed using a stamp or body-outline, the result of using a v-gouge stamps. The central impression is up to 2mm deep when cutting the wooden stamp that was used and a bright, white clay fills the recesses. In two to make the impression. The deer probably has areas the slip extends beyond the impressed figure two antlers, but if so the adjoining flower stem

71 72 M. Farley

Figure 1 Biddlesden Abbey. A: Findspot of the tile. B: Old Chapel Yard (and existing cemetery). C: Approximate location of extinguished north-south road, ‘The street of the old town’. Based on OS 25” sheet, 1925 edit. A Decorated Medieval Floor Tile from Biddlesden Abbey 73

Figure 2 Upper: tile from site of Biddlesden Abbey. Lower: detail of stag and its outline, showing v-gouge marks present on the wooden tile stamp. 74 M. Farley would join onto the end of the lower antler: a pearing into the upper band. A badly formed R less likely option is that there is no lower antler is also possible. The final complete letter is A. but the flower has a long stem.  A very tentative interpretation of the whole c) Beneath the deer is an inscription set within a inscription would be: double-arc band which, making the reasonable assumption that the tile was one of a set of four, ---]u(m) q(uod) ego Tha[--- suggesting a name (it would have formed one segment of a quatrefoil. would be a very unusual one, such as Thaddeus The individual letters of the inscription are not or Chad), or: at all clear. The writer is most grateful to David ---]u(m) q(uod) ego tra[--- suggesting a verb, Noy who has looked at a photograph of the tile perhaps tradidi, or another trans- compound. and comments as follows: … quod ego tradidi … (“which I have handed over”) is a clause sometimes found in charters. ‘There are seven fully preserved letters, with … quod ego transeam … (“that I may cross parts of another at each end of the inscription. over”) might be a prayer.’ They are in a form of Lombardic capitals, but few are definitely identifiable. Inscriptions d) Below the inscription are parts of a complicated on medieval floor tiles are often difficult to design, the only clear elements of which are (on decipher (Wright 1975, 13). They can consist of the left) a spread, left human hand with four names, including maker’s inscriptions; prayers, fingers and a thumb and unclear elements to most commonly ave, Maria; or form part of a the left above this. Below and to the right there dedicatory inscription running across several appears to be either a piece of upright vegetation tiles, such as one from Halesowen Abbey or perhaps a figure. Below and to the right of which also includes a prayer (Eames 1980, 159) this is a second four-fingered hand (on the tile’s istud opus Nicholas matri Christi dedit abbas broken edge). + vigeat absque chao mater dona Nicholao. The language is usually Latin, but English and The writer is grateful to Richard Gem who French are also found. suggested checking illustrations of the abbey’s  The first complete letter on the Biddlesden tile seals to see if there might be comparable images. is in a form for which I have found no parallels, The abbey’s twelve known seals are listed and and is most plausibly explained as a reversed four are illustrated in VCH I (1905, 367–8 & and inverted Q. Reversed letters are common pl. II). Many show the abbot holding a crozier: in tile inscriptions, presumably because the others feature Minerva, a bust, or the virgin and tile-makers could not read them. If it is a Q it child (the abbey’s dedication was to St Mary must be an abbreviation, perhaps for quod (or and St Nicholas). Examples of Cistercian seals quem, quam, etc.). The letter before it, which is nationally (including Biddlesden) are shown in partly lost where the tile is broken, may be V. If Heslop (1986, pls. 135–177). Images of abbots so, it probably represents a word ending –um, with croziers are again common and sometimes as final –m is often omitted in manuscripts. Or a crozier and hand alone; either were approved could the reversion of Q (if that is the correct images in the early history of the Cistercian order. interpretation) have led the tile-maker to put Interestingly, one abbot on a seal from Stratford before the Q the V which should have come Langthorn is accompanied by a ‘budding rod’ after it? (Heslop 1986, pl. 136). It is possible that this  The next three letters appear to read EGO. might be what is shown to the right of the E and O are clear, and G seems to be the only (presumed) standing figure noted above on the possible reading of the letter between them, Biddlesden tile, although it has to be admitted forming the pronoun ego. A name or first person that this is stretching the evidence. verb can be expected afterwards. The next letter seems to be T (C is also possible on the analogy Wh er e was t h e Ti le M a de? of the form found in manuscripts). The following letter has a form which suggests N, but in the Unfortunately there are no comprehensive publica- context H is more likely, with the upright disap- tions on the floor tiles from the adjacent counties A Decorated Medieval Floor Tile from Biddlesden Abbey 75 of and Oxfordshire, which tunately although he notes the tile types, he does are the natural search areas for material compa- not provide any detailed evidence that they were rable to Biddlesden as the parish is adjacent to wasters. Presuming the site is acceptable, it the former, not far from the latter, and the abbey may have been making tiles for a specific abbey held properties in both counties. Oxfordshire has project. one known production area near Bagley Wood f) Finally, a case has been made for the existence which produced tiles unlike those from Biddlesden of a pottery production area in the forest of (Haberly 1937, 173), and two production sites are Whittlewood, within which Biddlesden is sited known in Northamptonshire, one at Lyveden where (Farley & Hurman 2015, 220–1) and since the undecorated glazed-floor tiles were made (Steane two products were sometimes made at the same & Bryant 1975) and the other at Pipewell Abbey location the local position may change in the which produced line-impressed tiles (Eames 1980, future. 743). Neither of their products are comparable to the Biddlesden tile, nor has a match been identified It has to be said at the outset that the Biddlesden tile in a fairly rapid search of individual publications of does not match any of the tiles known to have been tiles from the two counties. produced at these sites, nor any other tile published The study of decorated floor tiles in Bucking- by Hohler from churches. This hamshire has been well served by a comprehensive is not entirely surprising, since it is the first tile survey carried out in the 1930s by Hohler (1941 & known to have been recorded from the abbey, and 1942) which included all of the tiles in Bucking- as such is but a random survivor from a single floor hamshire’s churches. Hohler also considered which would originally have contained very many. known production sites in the county. Knowledge For example, a floor at Warden Abbey, Bedford- of these has advanced a little since Hohler’s day, shire (Baker 1993) contained 800 tiles, albeit of a and a brief summary follows. very different character to the tile from Biddlesden. Decorated floor-tiles in Buckinghamshire were no a) Penn is Buckinghamshire’s best known tilery. doubt once a common feature of both churches and Its fourteenth-century products were purchased high-status buildings, but today they only survive for a number of ecclesiastical and royal struc- in situ in a few churches, and although others may tures in Windsor and London, no doubt utilising yet remain undetected beneath raised floors, many the Thames for transport, and supplied to many will have been completely replaced during subse- other areas beyond the county’s borders (Keen quent re-flooring. Of those which do survive, some 2000, Green 2005). are now so foot-worn that no decoration remains b) Little Brickhill tiles have been studied by upon them. Mynard (1975) who records their distribution in It is worth considering the individual design a number of churches. A late fifteenth-century elements on the tile further. Eames (1980) date has been confirmed for some at Great catalogued the substantial collection held by Linford, although production may have the British Museum, an important reference continued a little later than this (Mynard & source which includes over 300 designs, some of Zeepvat 1991, 114–5). which will be referred to below. Hohler notes an c) Cadmore End. There is information at present important division between ‘Wessex’ tiles and about one particularly distinctive design their derivatives (such as those made for New only from this tilery, where pottery was also College, Oxford), and later tiles made at such produced (Hurman 2004). locations as Penn and Little Brickhill. Wessex tiles d) . Evidence for a tilery here was commonly had deeply-stamped designs, multiple identified some years ago (Farley 1982), but stabs on the underside and a fairly consistent size since that date further information about its of between 5½" and 6½". The Biddlesden tile products has come to light that will be published does have some affinity with Hohler’s Wessex in a forthcoming issue of Records. group in depth of stamp and (probably) size, but e) (?). Hohler (1941, 4, 17, 100, 102–3) lacks stab marks on its underside, usual amongst refers to wasters found at Chetwode Priory Wessex tiles. Its combination of design elements about nine miles south of Biddlesden, but unfor- is also unusual. Comparisons between the tile’s 76 M. Farley principal elements and tiles from elsewhere are e.g. incised or geometric tiles) were introduced in noted below. the second quarter of the thirteenth century, the earliest fairly closely-dated examples being those a) The plain border. It is certain that this would of c.1240–1244 from Clarendon Palace. Another only have been along only two edges of the tile, reasonably dated series occurs at Hailes Abbey, or it would have interfered with the four-tile Gloucester, where a floor has been dated c.1277 quatrefoil design. The border is the principal (ibid, 285), but these tiles are better quality than element that the tile shares with Hohler’s the Biddlesden tile. As noted above, the probable ‘Wessex’ tiles. Eames (1980) records a simple figural image on the tile might be loosely compared slip line border on about thirty tiles in the British with images on Cistercian seals. The images of Museum collection, ranging from borders figures on seals increase in complexity from the which encompass a multiple tile design to those early fourteenth century, when they often begin outlining a tile containing a simple image. to feature multiple figures, such as appear to be b) The stag. Stags feature on three of Hohler’s present on the Biddlesden tile. Presuming that that fourteenth-century Penn series, which are the tile was commissioned by the abbey, the design so-called ‘printed tiles’, made in quite a may have reflected this trend towards elaboration. different tradition to the impressed Biddlesden At the other end of the time-scale it certainly tile. They are not common among the very large pre-dates the Penn series, which commenced number of designs that Eames illustrates, being somewhere in the early to mid-fourteenth century. clearly depicted on only sixteen tiles, of which On balance a provisional later thirteenth to early only four stags look left as does the Biddlesden fourteenth century date seems likely. stag. None of them are otherwise similar to the At a number of locations there is good evidence Biddlesden stag, nor are they associated with that in the thirteenth century decorated tiles were lettering (see below). often produced by craftsmen, probably itinerant, c) Lettering. The only inscribed Buckinghamshire who worked at the site where the tiles were going tiles illustrated by Hohler are a few from the to be laid, for example at Clarendon Palace ( Eames later Penn and Little Brickhill series. None of 1988) and possibly locally at Chetwode (see above). these inscriptions are set within a double-arc This could also have been the case at Biddlesden. band, as at Biddlesden, or form part of a four-tile Cherry (1991, 197) suggests that following their design. Almost all of the lettering that Eames establishment such tileries might have gone on to illustrates occurs within a circular setting. Of supply other religious houses, etc. in the vicinity. the four double-arc bands she illustrates, none Apart from the unusual character of the Biddlesden contains lettering. tile itself, there is slight evidence supporting the d) Figures. A few simple human figures occur on idea of local production. Romano-British pottery the later Penn tile series, but otherwise are not kilns have been found only 700m from the abbey recorded in Hohler’s designs. Human figures site (HER 4426 and Swan 1984, 112), indicating are not very common amongst Eames’ designs, the presence of suitable clay nearby. There is also but occur most frequently on the more sophis- a hint of undated but presumably post-Roman ticated tile series, such as those from Chertsey tile-making activity at Biddlesden parish in a Abbey of later thirteenth-century date (Gardner document of 1742 which records a lease to one & Eames 1954), which bear no relation to the Charles Adkins of Biddlesden, yeoman, of land relatively crude Biddlesden images. which included ‘Little Tylers Field containing 13a 3r 18p’ (Verney Archive 2/1046), although the In summary, it can be seen that although there are a name could of course refer to a clay source rather few general design elements which occur on other than a kiln, or indeed to much later tile-making tiles, none are a close match for the Biddlesden tile, activity in the area. nor is the overall association of elements the same. Dating a single incomplete tile is not straight- Th e A bbey forward, and no information is available about building works at the abbey (see below). Eames Biddlesden Abbey lay close to the banks of the Great (1992) suggests that two-colour tiles (as against Ouse which, as previously noted, marks the county A Decorated Medieval Floor Tile from Biddlesden Abbey 77 boundary between and Northamp- south of the present house, adjacent to the current tonshire. It was a Cistercian house founded in 1147 lake, and the cloister on the north of the church, within Whittlewood Forest, and was dissolved in which would place its furthest walk close to and 1539. There was one other Cistercian house in the beneath the present house. This arrangement is county at Medmenham on the banks of the Thames, the reverse of the conventional Cistercian layout, both being part of the eighty-six strong permanent and in terms of the present topography of the foundations in Britain (Robinson 1998). The abbey land provides some problems, since the level area had lands or houses in twenty-one parishes. Its occupied by the current house is several metres holdings are described by Roundell (1858, 1863, higher than the lakeside, and there is also at present and 1864; VCH I, 363–9 and IV, 153–7). The a considerable slope from house to lake. Although names of thirty-one abbots are known (VCH I, of course it is possible that a very substantial area 367–8). Its possessions were surrendered to the could have been landscaped after demolition of king’s commissioners in September 1540, at which the abbey buildings, thus removing all trace of the time it had an abbot, a sub-prior, eight monks and abbey church and most of the cloister buildings, a number of staff (Roundell 1858, 75–79). ‘Some Green provides no evidence that this was the case. 16th and 17th century accounts of the manor-house, He does thank ‘…the late Lt-Col T.R. Badger of which must have incorporated at least part of the Biddlesden House … for his kind assistance in the old abbey, state that it contained sixteen bays, a search for the plan of the abbey within its grounds.’ brew-house, stable, ‘colehouse’, dovecots, orchard, but again provides no information about the nature hop-yard, and three fisheries.’(VCH IV, 154). of the search he carried out – whether for instance The abbey church was destroyed by Sir Robert he dug any exploratory trenches. A simpler Peckham about the middle of the sixteenth century. solution might be that the abbey church was not in Browne Willis, who visited Biddlesden in 1712, the position he suggested, but lay roughly where found various elements of the abbey remaining the house now stands, with the cloister etc. on the including parts of the cloister, the tower, a small (traditional) north side, roughly in the area where chapel and the chapter house ‘with a handsome there is now a terraced lawn. As construction of arched room about 40ft square’, but most of these the lawn would have certainly required consid- structures including the separate chapel (which erable levelling, unfortunately neither Green’s was in existence in the thirteenth century, see proposed layout nor this alternative leave much on) had been demolished by Henry Sayer, lord of potential for the survival of footings etc. although the manor or his predecessor, as Browne Willis geophysical survey might be of value in the future. subsequently noted in 1737 (VCH IV, 154; two of The Cistercians originally eschewed decorative Browne Willis’ drawings are included in Green features in their buildings, but over time embel- 1966). Sayer was to provide a replacement chapel lishments became more common and chapter which still stands within the precinct of the house houses were often ‘more flamboyantly decorated he had built c.1731. Willis recorded several tombs than the church’ (Coldstream in Robinson 1998), but makes no mention of tiles. Subsequently the so it is possible that the Biddlesden tile originated Royal Commission noted that; ‘… some of the from such a location. However, its findspot (Fig. foundations of the abbey are said to exist N. of the 1, A) would not relate to a chapter house on either house, on a site partly covered by outbuildings.’ proposed plan, although of course this may bear no (RCHM 1913, 63). relation to its original position. The layout of Cistercian houses generally Apart from the abbey’s own church there was followed that of the Benedictine order, with also a parish church of St Margaret, which in 1209 the church on the north side of the cloister, the was assigned to the abbey. At the dissolution no chapter house east of the cloister, etc. A regular distinction was made between the holdings of this variation from the Benedictine plan was that the church and those of the abbey, when the whole was axis of the refectory was aligned north-south to assigned to Sir Thomas Wryothesley, the first of the cloister, with the warming house on one side a number of subsequent owners (Roundell 1863, and the kitchen on the other. A local historian 78–9). In the Verney archive at Claydon House (Green 1966), has provided a hypothetical plan is an interesting sequence of maps, all dateable of the abbey. He places the abbey church to the around 1755. They depict the current house and 78 M. Farley its outbuildings in some detail, and include a plan Bi bliogr a ph y showing a landholding that existed prior to the construction of the house in c.1731. Among the Baker E 1993 The Warden Abbey pavements; features of interest is an ‘Old Chapel Yard’ (Fig. fine art on a floor, in Lillich ME (ed.), Studies 1, B). This lies in approximately the same site as in Cistercian Art and Architecture 4, 59–77. the existing cemetery just north-east of the house Cistercian Publications (Kalamazoo, Michigan) that has served the present church, and which is Cherry J 1991 Pottery and tile, in Blair J & Ramsay now on higher ground than the terraced lawn. N, (eds), English Medieval Industries. The According to Browne Willis, part of the cemetery Hambledon Press was levelled around the time the house was Coldstream N 1998 The Mark of Eternity; the constructed (VCH IV, 154–5). The ‘Old Chapel Cistercians as builders, in Robinson, D (ed.), Yard’ is shown at the south end of an extinguished The Cistercian Abbeys of Britain. Far from the north-south route, named as ‘the street of the old Concourse of Men, 35–61. Batsford, English town’ (Fig. 1, C), which terminated not far short Heritage, CADW and Historic Scotland of the present house. Its north end begins at the Gardner JS & Eames E 1954 A tile kiln at Chertsey modern road through Biddlesden, which is also Abbey, J Brit Archaeol Assoc (3rd Series) 17, the park boundary. Closes are shown fronting the 24–42 and pls. ix–xvi street together with a few houses – suspiciously Eames E 1980 Catalogue of Medieval lead-glazed rectangular in shape so possibly schematic. earthenware tiles in the Department of Medieval It seems likely that the former parish church and Later Antiquities, British Museum. British will have been close to the ‘Old Chapel Yard’, Museum Press. presumably its cemetery, and this is also the Eames E 1988 The tile kiln and floor tiles,in James position in which Green has positioned it on his TB & Robinson AM, Clarendon Palace. The figure. VCH IV (154, 156) notes ‘a gravestone of History and Archaeology of a Medieval Palace 14th-century date, from Biddlesden Abbey’ in the and Hunting Lodge near Salisbury, Wiltshire. existing cemetery, and cites a Harleian manuscript Soc. Antiq. Res. Rep. XLV recording that the old chapel of St Margaret Farley ME 1982 A Medieval pottery industry at ‘stood at the gate of the Abbey’. The combination Boarstall, Buckinghamshire’, Recs Bucks 24, of all these elements suggests that the ‘street of 107–117 the old town’ was once the approach road to an Farley M & Hurman B 2015 Buckinghamshire pots, abbey gate. Finally, it may be noted that in 1325 potters and potteries, Recs Bucks 55, 161–234 a Monday market and annual fair was granted Green CW 1966 Biddlesden and its Abbey. EN to the abbey (Roundell 1863), so presumably the Hillier & Sons Ltd (Buckingham) abbey was keen to encourage commercial activity Green M 2005 Medieval tile industry at Penn, Recs in the local community. Bucks 45, 115–169 Haberly L 1937 Medieval English paving tiles. Shakespeare Head Press (Oxford) Ack now ledgem en ts Heslop TA 1986 Cistercian seals in and The writer is grateful to Ros Tyrell and Brett Thorn Wales, in Norton C & Park D (eds), Cistercian for bringing the tile to the writer’s notice and to art and architecture in the British Isles. Mr Bardrick for information about the find and Cambridge University Press, 266–283 for showing the writer the location. Sue Baxter, Hohler C 1941 Medieval paving tiles in Bucking- archivist at the Claydon House Trust has been hamshire [Part 1], Recs Bucks 14, 1–49 most helpful, David Noy has kindly offered his Hohler C 1942 Medieval paving tiles in Bucking- thoughts on the text and Richard Gem suggested hamshire’ [Part 2, concluded], Recs Bucks 14, images which might be relevant. Staff at the Centre 99–132 for Buckinghamshire Studies were as usual most Hurman B 2004 A late-medieval decorated floor helpful. Thanks also to Jackie Farley for her assis- tile with other ceramic products from kiln areas tance with the text. at Cadmore End Common, Fingest, Bucking- hamshire: a preliminary note, Recs Bucks 44, 21–29 A Decorated Medieval Floor Tile from Biddlesden Abbey 79 Keen L 2000 Windsor Castle and the Penn tile Stopford J 2005 Medieval Floor Tiles of Northern industry, in Keen L & Scarff E (eds), Windsor: England. English Heritage. Oxbow Books Medieval archaeology, art and architecture of Swan V 1984 A Gazetteer of Pottery Kilns of the Thames Valley (reprinted in Brit Arch Assoc Roman Britain. Royal Commission on Historical Conference Trans 25, 219–37) Monuments (England). HMSO Mynard DC 1975 The Little Brickhill tile kilns and VCH I 1905 The Victoria History of the Counties of their products, J Brit Archaeol Assoc 38, 55–80 England: A History of Buckinghamshire, vol. 1 Roundell H 1858 Biddlesden Abbey and its lands VCH IV 1927 The Victoria History of the Counties [Part 1], Recs Bucks 1, 277–287 of England: A History of Buckinghamshire Roundell H 1863a Biddlesden Abbey and its lands vol. 4 [Part 2], Recs Bucks 2, 33–40 Wright JA 1975 Mediaeval Floor Tiles: their Roundell H 1863b Biddlesden Abbey and its lands Design and Distribution in Britain. John Baker [Part 3], Recs Bucks 2, 75–78 (London) RCHM 1913 Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. Buckinghamshire vol. II The writer can be contacted through Buckingham- Steane JM & Bryant GF 1975 Excavations at the shire Archaeological Society, County Museum, deserted medieval settlement at Lyveden, J Church Street, HP20 2QP, or via Northampton Mus and Art Gallery 12 [email protected]