KøbenhanskeMotiver_1587-1807

tions of authenticity. The views of Johan Jacob Bruun, normally highly respected, illustrate this very appropriately. A gouache depicting the Sophie Amalienborg which was burnt down in 1689 (cat. no. 19) is said to be a picture of the palace as it looked in 1681. Bruun was born in 1715 and thus he must have used older pictures as models; compared to a painting contemporary with the palace it can be seen that Bruun left out half of the facade pilasters, and furthermore that he made the building yellow and not red. Two other gouaches show the Castle of Copenhagen in 1698 (cat. nos. 23 and 23 A) and must likewise have been done after older, now unknown models, perhaps by Bruun's teacher from 1732, J. H. Coning, who was himself a painter of views. These two gouaches are far from identical, since the Castle and the Exchequer in one of them have been provided with ashlars which they never had. There are also differences in the representation of Blåtårn (the blue tower). Both these pictures are, naturally, only second-hand in comparison with the object itself, but that does not mean that they cannot have a primary importance for us to-day. The exhibition also has two panoramas of the city from the sea (cat. nos. 80 and 81); the first is a rough pencil drawing, loosely drawn and not weighed down by details. The second, however, is a finished and meticulous wash drawing, accurate and abounding with correct observation. The views are seen from exactly the same position and are also identical in a number of details. In the first we have a spontaneously drawn sketch, done "on location" (the Royal guardship on the roadstead outside Copenhagen), while the second is an example of a wash drawing completed in the studio and here trans­ ferred to a larger format and provided with explanatory text and date (1759)- What is the difference in time between these leafs? We do not know, but then we can include two more views from the outer harbour (cat. no. 66); they are iden­ tical as regards the point of view, but differ slightly from the ones mentioned above as far as the representation of the city is concerned. However, they are both inscribed by Bruun, dated 1754 and 1756 and executed in water colour and pen and ink respectively. The technique alone marks a difference, but the question is whether all these views are not connected in some way and based on the above- mentioned pencil drawing done onboard the Royal guardship at the latest some time in 1754. O f course this cannot be stated with absolute certainty, and it is quite probable that Bruun had several opportunities to draw the silhouette of the city from the roadstead, but one must regard the inscribed date with a certain amount of reservation and likewise be aware that the final treatment in the studio made possible various additions, for example, of planned buildings. In the above we have discussed one single artist, but it is to be noted that a