Abstract

Comenius’s vision of the universal emendation of human affairs attracts attention both of scholars and of the general public for long decades. It is no wonder that there have been plenty of papers or monographs pointing out to Comenius’s emendation endeavour and quite often appreciating its exceptionality and topicality for a man living in the present. We can encounter the interpretations of Comenius as an anticipator of the United Nations organization or of a seer of the European integration project. According to other interpretations, Comenius has just in his time predicted possible negative consequences of Baconian and Cartesian understanding of nature, and therefore he can be seen as a predecessor of the ecological philosophy of the 20th century. However, if we accept such updating, we should on the other hand admit that Comenius’s project of emendation evinces a large amount of problematic aspects. In this light, Comenius could be compared to the authors of the most famous utopian works. Furthermore, there could be also arisen a Popperian question, whether Comenius was not one of the enemies of the open society. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to reflect on the method of the historical research, primarily on the difficulties emerging from the anachronous interpretation not only of the work of John Amos Comenius, but of the intellectual history of the 17th century at all.