Cardinal Richelieu redux

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2013 at 00:30:59 (UTC)

Reason

The last nomination was withdrawn due to a scanning error being discovered. Luckily, the error was of a type that I know how to fix invisibly with no loss of data: the flaw is a repeated section, so, presuming the original crop is good, you can just delete the repeat and have a perfect image.

Some JPEG artefacting is noticeable at 400% zoom, but that's normal. It's a good scan overall.

Articles in which this image appears

Cardinal Richelieu, Cardinal (Catholicism), Crown-cardinal, Luxembourg Palace, Protestant Reformation, Philippe de Champaigne, Académie française, Collection of the National Gallery, London, Portal:Biography/Selected anniversaries/September 9

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/People/Religious figures

Creator

Philippe de Champaigne

• Support as nominator --Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Again As the previous nominator, I renew my support for this very illustrative, very handsome painting, in this (now) excellent scan. Good show, Adam Cuerden. Indefatigable2 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad I could help! Sometimes, you just need the knowledge of how to fix it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks gorgeous (and fine) to me. One of my favorite paintings of this man is Richelieu au Siège de La Rochelle (Siege of La Rochelle) but nothing that would hold up to FP standards, I don't think (can't see his face). I only know the man through Dumas, but he scares me anyway. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was mentioned in the previous nomination that he has a pinhead/voluminous robes. I could be wrong but I believe he would have been standing on a stool or ottoman or something to enhance his height and therefore intimidation factor, am I right? The portrait does its job well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it seems, alas; you can see His Eminence's shoe peeping out from under his robes... Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wild, it's like an optical illusion. I can picture him as a tiny man on a stool or a normal sized man; all thanks to the robes. I couldn't find any height information in the article. That's a dark(ly positioned) shoe, I never saw it :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dumas' treatment of Richelieu does not really fall in line with the real man (in several ways). He is portrayed as extremely powerful in fiction, whereas in real life (where he was only highly powerful), he indeed depended on the king for his position, as this: Day of the Dupes, may illustrate. I admittedly know relatively little of the Cardinal myself, but Richelieu could be quite ruthless, and was, as a matter of practice. To be referred to as the "father of the modern nation-state, modern centralised power [and] the modern secret service," as Canadian historian and philosopher John Ralston Saul did, he had to be quite ruthless... Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Actually is there another glitch at the very bottom? What's the dark line going across the floor? The transition doesn't seem smooth... – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that dark band is present in the painting itself. The line isn't completely horizontal; if you follow it to the left, you will see it is a border design in the carpet. Indefatigable2 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah ok, thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Very good painting, although one wonders the symbolism of him holding his hat like that... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hat is a Biretta, a traditional cap worn as part of the vestments of Catholic clergy. I feel here Richelieu is simply displaying it with outstretched arm as a mark of his office, similar to the way his red robes are portrayed as shimmering and dynamic. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he holds it at a distance, as if it is something distasteful to him. Off topic, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is he holding it "over" the land (in the background)? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other portraits can be seen of him wearing it. Such as this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NDKeSTF6cDA/TNoO-DDFJ0I/AAAAAAAAABY/9nKSpOlggfM/s1600/cardinal5.jpg However, in this one, the emphasis is definitely made on his holding out the cap. He is holding it out into the light (his robe is gently highlighted as well), and he is wearing his Zucchetto at the same time, so his head is not uncovered. Cardinals, specifically, wear scarlet Zucchettos, scarlet Birettas, and scarlet robes, so here Richelieu is consciously proffering to the viewer all of his marks of office as a Cardinal. As you can see, he is holding his robes as he holds his cap. Indefatigable2 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I figured if we're diving into the realm of OR that maybe there was a crafty "reason" for the window being conveniently behind his Biretta. The contre-jour is certainly not silhouetting it. He's well lit by the (I assume) setting sun, and so is "his domain" :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Great painting! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — nice picture.--g. balaxaZeႫ 09:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cardinal de Richelieu.jpg --Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]