Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana. Supplementum - 01.06.1958, Qupperneq 299

297
Chapter 18. Magnus Petersen (1827-1917), p. 241-250. With Magnus Petersen, who like Zeu-
then and Kornerup was closely connected with the National Museum, the drawing of runes
approaches the peak of its accuracy, both in respect of the reproduction of the stones and of
the runes. Accuracy in the reproduction of the runes is greatest in the drawings made under the
direction of Ludvig Wimmer. Magnus Petersen drew runic monuments for Rafn, Stephens, Thor-
sen and Wimmer as well as for foreign scholars. Moreover he chemityped (cf. chapter on technique)
illustrations for most of the scholarly works in the second half of last century. The illustrated
volume for Thorsen’s work on runes: Danish Runic Monuments 1879, is Magnus Petersen’s
independent contribution, drawn and chemityped as the illustrations were without interference
from Thorsen. Of all the copyists of runes discussed up to now Magnus Petersen is no doubt the
most able, and his readings undertaken without artificial aids in the available light in which he
found the monuments deserve great admiration. Examples are given of outstanding drawings by
Magnus Petersen, and others are mentioned which show liis limitations; these are often seen by
comparing his independent drawings witli those he made under the influence of Wimmer. The
author is not in agreement with the opinion put forward by Lis Jacobsen (Skonvig II, 246, note
1), that the difference between Magnus Petersen’s independent drawings for Thorsen and those
he executed for Wimmer (which Lis Jacobsen also considers to be Magnus Petersen’s independent
work) is “of little importance”. The artistic value of Magnus Petersen’s independent drawings
is emphasised by comparison with those undertaken for Wimmer. In his own drawings Magnus
Petersen followed to its limit the line taken by Kruse, and he too attempts—but with less success
than Heinrich Hansen—to give the observer the impression that the runes are carved in the
stone. Wimmer demanded a drawing with more of a pedagogic character; in ixis references to
the photographing of runes Wimmer’s criticism is that the reproduction of all natural grooves
and crevices has a confusing effect. He could remove or reduce these in a dx’awing; furthermore
he makes Magnus Petersen clarify the runes by thus placing them on the surface of the stone
(as in Kruse’s and Kornerup’s first drawings), and he often forces him to make the runic symbols
a little more regular than the original justifies. One of Magnus Petersen’s independent rune-
drawings (Skonvig II, 245) is compared with the one directed by Wimmer of the same stone,
and both drawings are dealt with in detail in comparison with the author’s photogi’aph of the
retouched stone. Accordingly it is established that if Magnus Petersen or any other draughtsman
should produce 10 drawings of one and the same stone, the result would be 10 different repro-
ductions in respect of both stone and runes. However meticulous Magnus Petersen’s drawings
seem to be, they are not photographically accurate, and as far as the reproductions of the runes
are concerned often far from being so. Variations (when it is not a matter of faulty readings)
are as a rule unimportant, but nevertheless so considerable that the di’awings cannot provide
material for a closer study of the script, e.g. identification of “hands”. In addition to this it is
a fact that a drawing, no matter how good it is, deprives the reader of every possibility of checking
the reproduction of the script, a possibility given even by a mediocre photograph. Subjective
drawing therefore cannot be the ideal epigraphic reproduction, and with the development of the
photograph it has had its day.