The 1536 Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries: Same Suppression ...

Chapter Three:
QUESTIONING THE CLOSURES
The dissolution act presented reform as the official reason for the closures of the lesser
monasteries, but determining whether or not reform was necessary remains in question. Some
historians, such as Youings, view the theory that the real motive was reform as only an excuse to
take the wealth and resources of the lesser monasteries. 1 Others have argued that lesser
monasteries were indeed in need of reform, especially since monasticism had recently entered
into a period of reform. To determine whether monasticism was in decline, and whether the
question can be answered, the current debate surrounding monasticism will be examined, as well
as the information available on the health of Boxgrove, Folkestone, and Horsham. If the
observance of the orders was indeed lax and reform was needed, then Henry VIII‘s closures may
have been justified. If reform was not necessary, even if monasticism had fallen into a bit of
decline, then Henry‘s closures were unnecessary, going against the Act‘s stated intention of
correcting corruptions that were supposedly rife among the houses.
Obviously, one of the arguments is that monasticism was in decline and so Henry was
right to close the lesser monasteries. There is an assertion by historians like Clark that the
monasteries began to decline over a century prior to Henry‘s closures. 2 Historians largely agree
―that the monasteries of early Tudor England and Wales were no longer playing an indispensable
role in the spiritual life of the country, certainly not to justify their continued enjoyment of so
large a part of the landed wealth of the kingdom.‖ 3 The high ideals of monasticism were simply
fading away. Standards were often low and abuses of various kinds were accepted as inevitable.
1 Youings, 43.
2 James G. Clark, ―Introduction,‖ in The Religious Orders in Pre-Reformation England, ed. James G. Clark
(Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2002), 3.
3 Youings, 14.
32