104 / 165
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