Lost. J. F. Dimock described how, prior to 1869 and despite his own efforts to have them preserved, 'there were persons, whose doings I could not prevent, who, not recognizing the valuable sermons which these stones gave us, sent them off to some heap of rubbish' (Dimock 1869–70, 44). Livett, writing some time after, but from local knowledge, adds the detail that the stones 'were placed for safe keeping (sic) in the cloister, not one of which now remains to tell the tale. How or when they were removed no one at present seems to know' (Livett 1883, 52).

These are the 'moulded and carved stones of late Saxon design' found before 1853 during the repairs of the piers of the central tower and the south wall of the nave, reused in the Norman rubble of the early twelfth-century Minster (Dixon 2001, 256, citing Summers 1988, 30). Professor Philip Dixon has suggested that, though its provenance is unclear, Southwell 2 was probably one of this group of finds; but we have disagreed (p. 187 above) and have argued a different history for that item.

J. F. Dimock, who was one of the resident clergy at the time, gives a consolidated account of the discovery of these decorated stones during the early stages of the major campaign of repairs to Southwell Minster which were entrusted to the architect Ewan Christian, when the urgent focus was on the crossing piers and adjacent areas damaged by a major fire in 1790 (Dimock 1853, 269; Brooke 1997, 11–12). They were found 'during recent repairs, some in the foundation of the south wall of the nave, others worked up in the piers of the central tower', where the intensity of the fire had cracked and de-natured the magnesian limestone ashlar of the pillars and threatened their stability. He amended this description slightly in an account sixteen years later: they 'came to light, during repairs of the present Norman portion of the fabric, in the foundations of the nave and in the rubble-work core of one of the piers of the central tower' (Dimock 1869–70, 43). An aside by J. L. Petit in his account of Southwell Minster for the Archaeological Institute's seminal 1848 meeting at Lincoln gives an earlier report of some of these stones: 'The foundations [sc. of the nave aisle] ... on the south side, have been proved to be so shallow and insecure, that it has been necessary to underbuild them: and, what is a curious and somewhat puzzling circumstance, fragments of Norman work, with billet and other mouldings, have been taken out of the old foundations' (Petit 1850, 202).

Blessed Virgin Mary

Lost. When discovered, by Dimock's account, the condition of these stones was quite varied. 'Some were fresh and clean-looking, with remains of paint still on them; others showed that the weathering and wearing of many years must have been acting on them'; the capitals specifically had 'very evident remains of colouring' (Dimock 1853, 270; 1869–70, 43). He was clear that they were not unfinished discards or wasters.

Ten items can be described on the basis of what Dimock published (see Ill. 201):

5. Small capital, simple volute type (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.1).

6. Small capital, scallop type (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.2).

7. Small capital, damaged scallop type (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.3).

8. Large engaged capital, decorated scallop type (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.4).

9. Large engaged capital (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.5).

10. Impost block with hollow mouldings, decorated with double billet (Petit 1850; Dimock 1853, pl. 32.6; Livett 1883, pl. III, 6).

11. Double chamfered string, with decorative raised lozenges (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.7; Livett 1883, pl. III, 4).

12. ?String with prominent zig-zag (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.8).

13. ?String with shallow zig-zag (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.9; Livett 1883, pl. III, 5).

14. Voussoir with pendant roll and overlapping triangular 'beak', ribbed and beaded (Dimock 1853, pl. 32.10; Livett 1883, pl. III, 7).

Appendix C item (lost stones for which no illustration has survived).

Dimock robustly promoted the view that these stones must be relics of the pre-Conquest collegiate church at Southwell because they were found reused in the fabric of the twelfth-century Minster. He even argued, on the basis of their varied condition, that they represented several separate pre-Conquest architectural phases (Dimock 1869–70, 43–4). Modern scholarship has taken up this simple stratigraphic argument, at least in its main conclusion, with the result that Norman Summers described the stones boldly as 'moulded and carved stones of late Saxon design' (Summers 1974, 30), and has been followed by others interested in citing evidence for the early church here (Pevsner and Williamson 1979, 319; Hadley 2000a, 232 n.76). Embracing Summers' view, Philip Dixon has pointed out that the position of these stones' reuse probably coincides with the location of the much smaller pre-Conquest minster, which may add weight to the assessment that they are architectural detailing from that late pre-Conquest building (Dixon 2001; Dixon and Coates n.d., 4–5).

Every detail of these stones, however, is Romanesque in style-critical terms, and many find ready comparison with the range of early Romanesque architectural sculpture that features in the large group of Lincolnshire west towers, dating to the period approximately c.1080 to c.1120 (Stocker and Everson 2006). More importantly, precisely these details actually occur in the extant eastern parts of the nave and crossing of the Minster of c.1110–20 at Southwell itself (Pevsner and Williamson 1979, 319–23; Coffman 1998; Kelly, F. 1998). In the face of this weight of evidence, it seems perverse to insist on the superior value of a stratigraphic relationship that was not closely observed and recorded, and is reported only in general terms. It is not inconceivable that these stones were deployed in secondary patching or consolidation or underpinning. There must certainly have been plenty of architectural material of this type available when the eastern limb of the Minster of c.1110–1120 was replaced by the present chancel in the later 1230s. Petit (1850, 203, 210) presumed this to have been the case in the south aisle foundation, and cites other instances of reuse of displaced early fabric around the building. As even Dimock himself acknowledged — though he rejected the thought — the variations in the condition of the stones that he reported might plausibly have resulted from contrasting original locations in the building, some inside and some outside, rather than from a difference in date.

Second and third decade of the twelfth century

Petit 1850, 202, 203, 210, illus.; Dimock 1853, 269–71, pl. 32; Dimock 1869–70, 43–4; Livett 1883, 52, pl. III; Summers 1974, 30; Pevsner and Williamson 1979, 319; Hadley 2000a, 232 n.76; Dixon 2001, 256; Ottey 2005, 18