In Memory and the Dissolution of the Monasteries in Early Modern England, Harriet Lyon makes the point that the dissolution of the monasteries is usually associated with Henry VIII, even though Henry only began the program and it continued into the reign of Elizabeth I (54). Why is this? And why do we think of it as a single event? How did people of differing religious and political commitments remember it? Harriet Lyon tackles these and other questions in her new book, but chief among them is: Why do some scholars treat the dissolution as a single event which had no particular significance for the remaining years of the Reformation? Lyon wants to explore the “dissolution after the dissolution” (1) and how the memory of the dissolution was used to talk about other reforms.
Lyon argues that the dissolution of the monasteries, in which monasteries and abbeys were shut down across England as a measure of religious reform, has traditionally been seen as an inevitable and non-disruptive event in the larger landscape of the Reformation when, in fact, it had long-reaching consequences for people of all confessions, especially economically. To understand its impact, Lyon critically studies a variety of source material, from the official records of the dissolution to letters, manuscripts, and popular polemics. The strength of this volume lies not just in the well-supported conclusion—that the dissolution was a series of acts that ranged over centuries and deeply affected England—but in the author’s ability to read traditional sources in nontraditional ways and to creatively incorporate new sources, such as material culture and local memory.
For example, Lyon points out that the official records for the dissolution, numerous and rich in material, have tended to eclipse other source material that might shed a more critical light on the official narrative. She demonstrates how these records were created partially to take command of the narrative of the dissolution and show that this has subsequently shaped our own view of an uncomplicated dissolution, which stands in contrast to the view of “contemporaries, for whom . . . the dissolution posed serious questions about the future of religion and society” (66). This deliberate crafting of memory continued on into the 17th century with the Cotton Archive, another archive important to dissolution scholars. However, the Cotton Archive and the official records of the commissioners lack the voices of those who were critical of the dissolution, regardless of their theological position.
Nevertheless, Lyon writes, one can read these sources in new ways.The matter-of-fact recital of fallen houses reflects the desire to keep the fuss to a minimum in accordance with the Henrician narrative that the dissolution was a nonevent. One can even read some unconscious religious nostalgia in some of the sources that appear to share the bias of the official record. A minister who scornfully recorded the discontent of the locals over the closing of an abbey nonetheless memorialized these grievances (202). Similarly, Lyon uses local memory to attempt to understand how everyday people may have viewed the dissolution. The memories of those present for the closing of the abbeys were passed down orally and sometimes written or spoken of in sermons. What Lyon shows us is that local people of various confessions saw the loss of the abbeys as an economic tragedy. Court records often refer to better times when the local abbot was the landlord and people could make a living selling produce and other goods to the abbey (200-201). Even Protestant ministers claimed that the charity of monastic houses was an example to their congregants (108).
A major contribution Lyon makes to the study of the dissolution is her suggestion that monastic ruins and repurposed buildings are themselves source material for local memory. Ruins could be sites of “covert pilgrimage” (133), or simply serve as everyday reminders of a major rupture. The ruins could be emblematic of an attempt to destroy history, but they also promoted historical study and preservation in later generations, showing the paradox of the ruins as both indictment and inducement. Those houses that were turned to other uses, such as those that became parish churches, manor houses, etc., provided some degree of continuity and allowed people to see new beginnings rather than violence and rupture. Where ruins might suggest a sudden and time-bound disruption—a single event—the continuity provided by reused buildings allowed for different interpretations and a longer history of dissolution.
Lyon’s astute use of sources, traditional and material, has resulted in a fascinating and valuable contribution to Reformation history. This is only Lyon’s first book, but we should keep our eyes open for more from this talented scholar.
Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson is a PhD candidate in religious studies at the University of Alberta.
Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson
Date Of Review:
March 30, 2023
