Sir Thomas More and Family

While the original painting was destroyed in a fire in 1752, at Schloss Kremsier (Kroměříž Castle), the Moravian residence of Carl von Liechtenstein, Archbishop of Olmutz, its composition is known through a number of surviving copies and studies.

[2] On Holbein's first visit to England, he carried a letter of introduction from the Dutch humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam introducing him to scholar and stateman Sir Thomas More.

The portrait was commissioned at a time when More was serving as Lord Chancellor to Henry VIII and is thought to represent the family’s piety, learning, and civic responsibility—core values of Renaissance humanism.

The figures are arranged in what art historian Roy Strong described as a "conversation piece," with each family member shown engaging in intellectual or scholarly activities.

The clock hanging in a central position, already present in the drawing, provides a symmetry that in the lost painting increased the effect of magnificence, as is evident through the Lockey copies.

[5] In particular, the artist may have interpreted an epistle entitled "portrait" and sent by Erasmus to Ulrich von Hutten eight years earlier, in which More's characteristics and the curiosities of his family entourage are described, such as his love for animals and the movements of the monkey.

The connection with Erasmus' letter is parallel to a new conception of portraiture, understood as a pictorial equivalent of biography, different from the conventions that had until then characterised the Renaissance ceremonial of this type of paintings.

[5] The portrait would therefore constitute the first scene of English conversation ante litteram, due to the informal atmosphere and domestic setting that will be found only later, for example in the works of William Hogarth or Johann Zoffany.

[6] The hypothesis, advanced by some critics, that Holbein drew inspiration from Andrea Mantegna's Camera degli Sposi is not supported by documents that certify the artist's presence in Mantua.

The books scattered on the floor could be understood in a similar way: perhaps a reference to the tendency towards disorder that Erasmus attributed to More, but more probably a tribute to the culture and passion for reading that unites the characters depicted.

As in Lockey's reproduction, in Holbein's lost painting it is likely that the books on the floor had already been replaced by the little dogs, which, together with the more disciplined monkey, help to provide a sense of order and better suit the solemnity of the portrait.

In any case, the painting is not intended to provide a simple fragment of the daily life of the More family, but rather presents a construction specifically designed to bring out hidden characteristics of the protagonists, in which even the objects convey refined symbolic allusions, now only partially understandable.

This is demonstrated first of all by the absence of some of the relatives, who shared the same roof: an omission not due to incompatibility of character, but rather to dynastic needs, which exclude direct descendants, and which justify the decentralized position of More's wife.

[5] In 1752, the original painting was destroyed in a fire at Schloss Kremsier (Kroměříž Castle), the Moravian residence of Carl von Liechtenstein, archbishop of Olomouc.

The loss of Holbein’s original is considered a major cultural tragedy, as it was regarded as one of the finest examples of early English Renaissance portraiture.Guy, John (2009).

[7] Roy Strong, a prominent British art historian, called Sir Thomas More and His Family “arguably the greatest and most innovative work of [Holbein’s] English period.” Strong also described it as “the earliest portrait conversation piece in English painting, at least a century ahead of its time,” and noted that “its destruction means we lost the greatest single visual artefact to epitomize the aims and ideals of the early Renaissance in England.”[7] Despite the loss, the painting has left a lasting impact on the development of portraiture, particularly in England.

The painting is described in Wolf Hall, a historical novel by Hilary Mantel about the rise to power of Thomas Cromwell that won the 2009 Man Booker Prize:[8] The favorite, Meg, sits at her father's feet with a book on her knee.

Master Holbein has grouped them under his gaze, filed them forever: as long as no moth consumes, no flame or mould or blight.Although the original painting was destroyed, several sixteenth-century copies and Holbien's annotated preparatory sketches have survived.

The scene contrasts the sombre, berobed More and his father, with the messy and lively surrounding family in various demure but relatively informal poses: women, pets, books, and instruments even the silly ones.

It was subsequently owned by Walter Strickland, CW Dormer, Sir Hugh Lane, Viscount Lee, and EJ Horniman whose widow bequeathed it to the National Portrait Gallery where it remains.

[31] In the miniature kept at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the jester reappears, depicted as he peeps out from the curtain in the background, after having been excluded from the painting in the National Portrait Gallery.

His presence could be justified as a double homage: on the one hand to Thomas More, whose way of treating employees Lockey would demonstrate that he appreciated, not inherited from his nephew, that is, from his own client.

On the other hand, the tribute could allude to Holbein's pictorial choices, and to his friendship with Erasmus: by portraying Henry in this attitude, Lockey would give him back one of the archetypal roles of the jesters, that of the critic of society, which is also found in In Praise of Folly .