• Home
• News
• About
• Searching and Browsing
  • Find a Location
  • Find a Feature
  • Find a Word
  • Browse
  • Progress Status
• Resources
• Contact Us

I Location

II General Description

St Mary's has a clerestoreyed nave of three bays with 19thc. arcades. In fact, although both arcades appear the same, the N aisle dates from Buckeridge's 1873 restoration, while the S arcade was only restored at that date. The S aisle extends W halfway along the tower, while the N aisle stops at the tower junction. A vestry has recently been added alongside the tower on the N. At the E end of the nave, the aisles extend to form chapels alongside the chancel, the N deeper than the S. Both have arches from the chancel; the N arch 19thc., the S late medieval.

The chancel arch and W tower arch are both Perpendicular; the latter badly distorted. In its three lower storeys the tower is 13thc., with attractive blind arcading on the 3rd storey. A 4th storey with bell-openings and battlements was added in the 15thc. Construction is of orange-brown ashlar blocks with courses of varying thicknesses. Romanesque work is found in the S doorway and the font.

III Exterior Features

1. Doorways

(i) S nave doorway

Round headed, two orders in jambs, three in arch, under a later porch

First order: plain chamfered jambs with simple stops. Imposts with a slender hollow chamfer below a triple reeded face, plain chamfered arch.

Second order: on en-delit nook-shafts with replacement attic bases. Capitals have ridged flat leaves at the angles with crockets at their tips, and the tips of leaves visible between and behind them in the centre of each face. They are tall and slender with roll neckings. The W capital is better preserved, but has lost all its crockets; the E has lost a good deal more, and might not have had crockets at all, but certainly has ridged upright leaves. Imposts and neckings as first order. The arch is plain, unchamfered.

Third order, arch only: the second order imposts continue along the walls to W and E, and a third plain arch springs from them. It has a roll label with a flattened face.

Dimensions

V Furnishings

1. Fonts

(i)

In W bay of S nave arcade. The bowl is almost cylindrical, tapering outwards slightly to the top. It stands on a central rectangular shaft with chamfered angles with moulded chamfer stops, and four surrounding octagonal shafts with moulded capitals and bases. These all rest on a circular plinth with a chamfered rim carved to accept the shaft bases. This in turn stands on a modern plinth, not included in the measurements given below.

The bowl is decorated with eight fictive half-shafts in low relief, with pseudo-cushion capitals and bases with roll neckings. The roll marking the capital neckings continues as a horizontal roll around the entire bowl. The capitals support a flat rim band, chamfered on its lower edge. There is no lower rim. The shafts are more-or-less regularly spaced around the bowl, but not all are vertically carved. The bowl is of an oolitic Northamptonshire limestone, and is considerably damaged.

A section of the SE rim has been replaced with an insert, and on the opposite side of the rim, damage has been repaired with plaster and acrylic filler. These areas of damage must relate to the removal of locks. A major horizontal crack runs down from the insert at the SE rim, then N around the bowl. The bowl was lead lined until 2003, when concerns over its stability led to an examination by Matthew Beesley of Fairhaven of Anglesey Abbey Ltd. Following this the lining was removed, and the interior was found to have been built up with filling material to make it more bowl-shaped. Part of this has been removed, revealing that the stone walls of the bowl descend almost vertically inside it.

Dimensions

VII History

Little Houghton was held by Countess Judith in 1086.

Benefice of Cogenhoe and Great Houghton and Little Houghton with Brafield-on-the-Green.

VIII Comments/Opinions

Pevsner dates the doorway to c.1200; it is more probably 13thc. with intrusive 19thc. remodelling. The use of three arch orders on two jamb orders is unusual and awkward. The font is more problematic, but for different reasons. It seems likely that the insert at the rim has exacerbated the cracking of the bowl, and that its own weight falling away to the S is opening the main crack further. The other repairs carried out over the years have made matters worse by increasing the weight of the bowl, and by imposing strains which can only be accommodated by cracking of the stone. This state of affairs is analysed in Beesley (2003). The suggested solution is to remove the filling material within, and to fix a lead lining onto a lightweight collar centrally place, which will transmit its weight straight down onto the central shaft. This lining would be sealed at the rim with a flexible material (acid-free plastazote foam), which will allow expansion and contraction. Pevsner wondered whether the font was Norman, or an imitation. The present author supposes that it is a 12thc. piece that has had a good deal of work done on it, including the removal of a lower rim and drastic surface cleaning. This might well have contributed to the present instability by reducing the thickness of the walls.

IX Bibliography