Built of local red sandstone, the church consists of an ashlar chancel, nave, 12thc. rubble-work W tower, and N and S aisles. The tower has one round-headed window with a plain, restored lintel. The S arcade to the nave and the font are 12thc. The S aisle itself is said to be 13thc. The S wall of the nave was raised to allow the clerestory windows to be inserted (church guide).

Three bays, round-headed, with responds against the tower and nave E walls. The arches are of two plain, unchamfered orders. Each end arch has a deep semi-circular groove above the second order on the N face. There are signs of white paint on capitals and columns, and a darker colour on the imposts and partially on the capital scallops. The arcade tilts about 5° to the S. The infill between the arches is stone rubble-work which at the arch-top level settles into rough coursed work. Pitch of bays: 3.70 m approx.

East respond: similar to W respond except the capital has angled cones with tapered ridges in between. The SW angle has a line of small nail heads between the cones. The condition of the capital is poor; the scallops are very uneven and mutilated in places and the four centre scallop faces on the W and E sides have been built up locally with a layer of reddish-brown material up to 3mm thick. They have a partially darkened surface on the S side. The plinth has also been heavily cut away on the S side.

Pier 1: As W pier except the two-part capital has sheathed cones, and the W side has nine very unevenly spaced scallops. The NE and NW angles have shared scallops, the SE a line of small nail heads and the SW has an oval cavity with surface carving, the whole resembling an inverted shoe. There is a generous build-up of the surface treatment on the scallop faces and on some of the cones. Impost as pier 2 but the top surface of the impost, unlike others, has large, shallow craters.

Pier 2: double-chamfered plinth, the lower part being deeper than that of the adjacent respond. Simple roll base with multilith column above. Square monolithic capital with necking: 8 scallops each side with tapered rolls between the cones. Those on the E and N sides are uneven and there are again thick local layers of the applied reddish-brown material on the scallop faces and also some on the cones. Impost as respond, comprising two blocks.

West respond: stepped two stage plinth, with upper chamfers roughly cut away on the N side and, unlike the other plinths, very worn. A simple, small roll base with multilith column, partly oval in plan profile on the S side, returning into wall; the N side is stepped, running normally to the W wall. The engaged capital has four scallops and necking on the N and S sides, which become uncut faces at about halfway towards the W wall; the E face has nine scallops, all with horizontal cones. The capital is cut from two blocks of sandstone. The impost face is heavily incised with a horizontal line, with a hollow chamfer below. It appears to have been painted or treated with a reddish-brown material. This is common to all the imposts.

Dimensions

The arcade has two unusual features: the variable heights of the plinths and columns, ending up with more or less the same height above the floor at the arch springs, the irregularity of the scallops, and the application of the reddish-brown material. The question arises as to whether this is reused and recut material. The S aisle itself is said to be 13thc. (VCH), and Pevsner considers the arcading to be later than the tower. Unfortunately, due to restoration and repointing, much evidence has been lost, but it does appear from minimal evidence that the W end of the arcade is set into the W tower wall. In default of other evidence, it must be assumed that, as suggested (VCH), the S aisle was rebuilt in the 13thc. The alternative, of course, is that the arcade and aisle are 13thc., the arcade elements being re-used from elsewhere. It has not yet been possible to determine the nature of the applied material. A small loose fragment has been immersed for 24 hours in methyl alcohol without dissolving (shellac dissolves in alcohol). The other question is why and when it was applied - perhaps to cover up major local imperfections?

There are a number of Warwickshire fonts of similar general shape and size to the font at St Mary's; some plain, some with Romanesque carving (Stoneleigh and Oxhill). St Mary's font is ignored by Pevsner, Bond and Green, but is included as Norman by Houghton.

F. Bond, Fonts and Font Covers, 1908.
E.T. Green, Baptismal Fonts, 1928.
F.T.S. Houghton, 'Warwickshire Fonts', Birmingham Archaeology Society Transactions. Vol. 43, p.41.
N. Pevsner, The Buildings of England: Warwickshire. 1966, 284.
Victoria County History of Warwickshire, Vol VI: 74ff
Saint Mary's Cubbington in the Diocese of Coventry. Undated church guide (post 1980).