Joanna wrote:
>
> By the 19th century the two truths of science and art were an
> established fact.
>
> In the 17th century you see the beginnings of that distinction. Bacon
> talks about it, as does Sidney in the Defense of Poesy. And there are
> lots of others. The whole notion that Donne was reacting to the truth of
> the scientific revolution also depends on a perceived difference in the
> 17th century.
Well, yes and no. Science (or, rather, Natural Philosophy) at that time (esp. in Bacon) was pretty close to pure empiricism; Keats on the other hand was clear that science was essentially abstract explanation of facts rather than a mere accumulation of facts. His objection to the rainbow disappearing in Newton's equations was a far better understanding of science than you can find in Bacon or the Royal Society of the 17th c. As Susanne Langer remrks, had scientists followed Bacon's advice to put their notions aside there never would have been any science.
That aside, I'm not sure what y9u mean by the "notion that Donne was reacting...." I would think that a v ery debatable question: I don't think one should put too much weight on his reference to the new science [knowledge] putting all in doubt, and his moving of the earth was almost certainly a reference to earthquakes, not to Galileo.
Carrol