The 1536 Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries: Same Suppression ...
The 1536 Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries: Same Suppression ...
The 1536 Dissolution of the Lesser Monasteries: Same Suppression ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
to be maintained. Horsham was a similar case. Folkestone, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, was so small and<br />
poor that it actually surrendered before <strong>the</strong> <strong>1536</strong> Act. <strong>The</strong> examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three priories<br />
revealed that monasticism had declined, although <strong>the</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> decline may be questioned. And<br />
thus, it can be argued that closing <strong>the</strong>se monasteries and transferring <strong>the</strong> inmates to religious<br />
houses that maintained <strong>the</strong> strictness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir orders and continued to function well was not a bad<br />
idea for Henry. Additionally, through <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> closures, it was made evident that several<br />
inmates did not even wish to remain in <strong>the</strong>ir orders.<br />
<strong>The</strong> problems with religious houses stipulated in <strong>the</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>1536</strong> <strong>Dissolution</strong> Act,<br />
such as corruption, were explicit with <strong>the</strong> closures <strong>of</strong> priories as shown through <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong><br />
Boxgrove, Folkestone, and Horsham, with repeated injunctions and imposed reforms. Boxgrove,<br />
for example, had injunctions imposed on it numerous times, all <strong>of</strong> which pointed to similar<br />
problems. Attempts were also made to reform <strong>the</strong> Benedictine order as a whole. Over <strong>the</strong> years,<br />
its original zeal and strictness had been relaxed. Henry V tried to reassert <strong>the</strong> original strictness<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> order, but his attempts amounted to little. Wolsey, too, attempted to address <strong>the</strong> laxity <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> religious orders, but his attempts similarly failed. He mainly addressed <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong><br />
supervision and visitation. However, as past events had shown, visitations followed by<br />
injunctions on houses in need <strong>of</strong> reform had a tendency to fail. <strong>The</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> closing smaller, non-<br />
functioning priories and transferring inmates to larger well-maintained ones was a better means<br />
<strong>of</strong> reform. Thus, Henry‘s closures were directly in-line with previous directives for closures. <strong>The</strong><br />
key difference, however, was that <strong>the</strong> first dissolutions were immediately followed by a general<br />
closure <strong>of</strong> all monasteries.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>1536</strong> <strong>Dissolution</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Lesser</strong> <strong>Monasteries</strong> should not be viewed as a first step to <strong>the</strong><br />
closures <strong>of</strong> all monasteries in England. Instead, <strong>the</strong> hindsight should be put aside and <strong>the</strong> first set<br />
47