Talk:Mother Nature

message: The end of this section about sexual metaphor is problematic for a few reasons. Firstly, Bacon was talking about looking at witchcraft and other folklores to see if something could be learnt about nature from them. So, even if he was feminising something, it was witchcraft, not nature. 
Secondly, this passage seems to base the idea of the feminisation of nature on the wording "penetrating into these holes and corners", as quoted by Carolyn Merchant. However, this wording comes not from the original, but the later Latin version then translated back into English. The words are taken out of context to support the sexual metaphor, but in context it is more obviously a metaphor of shining a light into a dark place:
"… a useful light may be gained, not only
for the true judgment of the offences of persons charged with
such practices, but likewise for the further disclosing of the
secrets of nature. Neither ought a man to make scruple of
entering and penetrating into these holes and corners, when
the inquisition of truth is his sole object, — as your Majesty
has shown in your own example ; who, with the two clear and
acute eyes of religion and natural philosophy, have looked
deeply and wisely into those shadows, and yet proved yourself
to be truly of the nature of the sun, which passes through pollutions and is not defiled."
In the earlier English version, the light metaphor exists without sexual connotations: 
"Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering into these things for inquisition of truth, as your Majesty hath showed in your own example, who, with the two clear eyes of religion and natural philosophy, have looked deeply and wisely into these shadows, and yet proved yourself to be of the nature of the sun, which passeth through pollutions and itself remains as pure as before."
— The Advancement of Learning (1893 Cassell & Company, ed. Henry Morley) 
(Also 1863 Parker & Son, ed. Thomas Markby, page 70
https://archive.org/stream/twobooksfrancis00bacogoog)
The sexual interpretation is only possible in the translation that Merchant references, and only by taking the words out of context. And more importantly for this article, it refers to witchcraft, not nature.
All in all, this is a tenuous point not supported by the referenced literature and I don't think it's suitable for a single-paragraph entry on the view of Nature in the Enlightenment.
Lugh Summerson (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Enlightenment 

message: Sorry, I don't know what exactly I'm doing, I just read this article and noticed that a lot of the links in it lead to other articles that can't possibly be the correct ones and are in two cases unrelated to what it is supposed to link to. As in, the link about the book leads to the article to the man, 'Gothel' leads to the Mother Gothel of Tangled instead of the Mother Gothel / Actress / Series it is supposed to refere to... I can't fix this, as I really don't know a thing about Wikipedia or editing and don't really feel I understand the help-pages either, so I thought I leave a note, hoping someone with a lot more expertise has a bit of time on their hand.
91.56.51.212 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links are leading to unrelated / irrelevant articles