Jan Čížek

In his Physicae synopsis of 1633, Johann Amos Comenius (1592–1670) presented a list of previous representatives of Mosaic physics. They included Francisco Vallés (1524–1592), Lambert Daneau (1530–1595), Levinus Lemnius (1505–1568), Thomas Lydiat (1572–1646), Kort Aslakssøn (1564–1624), and Otto Casmann (1562–1607). Although Ann Blair has noted some time ago that Mosaic physics did not form a unified school but was, rather, a cluster of names linked by an agenda and mutual references, the question remains as to what exact topics the individual representatives were pursuing and, above all, whether it is possible to find thematic overlaps and referential bonds between all six authors named by Comenius. This paper, therefore, analyzes their definition and understanding of the Mosaic program with particular attention to the imperative to read the Scriptures literally and explores in detail the mutual links of Comenius’s alleged forerunners.

This paper draws on research on Early Modern Mosaic physics carried out in recent years. Its results show that the six authors traditionally regarded as the key representatives of this exceptional movement, whose aim was to offer a new, biblically based natural philosophy that surpassed the existing systems, especially the Peripatetic one, were not as coherent a group of authors as had been thought since the time of Comenius. The author expands on these findings while analyzing the Czech encyclopedic work Theatrum divinum (1616), published by the Bishop of the Unity of the Brethren, Matouš Konečný, which he shows not only to meet in many respects the demands placed on the works of Mosaic natural philosophy, but to exceed directly the writings of some of the traditionally named representatives of this endeavor (Francisco Vallés, Levinus Lemnius, Thomas Lydiat). This illustrates the difficulty of theoretically grasping and, above all, personally defining this specific natural-philosophical approach, which – albeit rather negatively: through its opposition to Aristotle but also to a decisive emphasis on experience – has spoken into the process of the formation of modern science.

From the earliest histories of philosophy (Johann Franz Buddeus, Johann Jakob Brucker) to twentieth-century scholarly research (Jaromír Červenka, Ann Blair), the work of Johannes Amos Comenius, especially his Physicae synopsis (1633) with its later Addenda (1663), has been understood as the culmination of so-called Mosaic physics, a remarkable endeavour of early modern natural philosophy. Comenius’ conception was characterized as both the most elaborate and the most successful, even if compared with his alleged predecessors. In this paper I examine this evaluation. It is evident that Comenius denies the main principles laid down by the first generation of Mosaic natural philosophers (e.g. Lambert Daneau, Otto Casmann, and Kort Aslakssøn), namely their emphasis on the significance of the Bible as the most reliable source of natural-philosophical knowledge (overshadowing reason and the senses), the necessity of reading it literally, and the facticity of the world’s creation out of nothing within six actual days. For this reason, the fundamental works of the aforementioned philosophers will be introduced and compared with Comenius’ texts to facilitate a proper grasping of Comenius’ place in the tradition of Mosaic physics. Finally, the texts written by Johannes Bayer and Johannes Sophronius Kozák, Comenius’ direct followers in the field of natural philosophy, will be studied as well.

The idea of the emergence of modern science as a clearly defined, clear, basically linear process, initiated by Copernicus and completed by Newton, is nowadays rather a shorthand, which we encounter at best in textbooks or popularization texts. However, it remains a research challenge to accurately map the subsoil from which modern science sprung. Although we are familiar with the main strands of development - those that prevailed and became successful - in their shadows still lie some influential and much debated concepts of their time, which were eventually abandoned and fell into oblivion, but which, by forming a critical alternative, helped to shape the image of science as we understand it today. Mosaic physics is one of them. Moreover, the study of this unique early modern phenomenon helps to show that the complex process that was the emergence of modern science is far from being captured by simplistic schemes, such as the story of the struggle between secular 'progress' and religious 'obscurantism' that was minted by positivist historiography.

The Natural Philosophy of Jan Bayer The main focus of this study is a reconstruction of the natural philosophy of the early modern Prešov's scholar Jan (Johannes) Bayer (1630–1674), with special regard to its Mosaic profile. After a critical reading of the research done on Bayer up to this point, the author concludes that Bayer’s natural-philosophical work, as such, has not yet been satisfactorily analyzed, nor has its connection to its supposedly two most important sources, Francis Bacon and Jan Amos Comenius, been sufficiently explored. The study therefore concentrates on a critical analysis of Bayer’s interpretation of creation and his natural history, which are then both situated in the philosophical context of their time. The author then notes that although Bayer’s project of erecting an original and on the (especially Aristotelian) tradition independent Mosaic natural philosophy ended in failure, the thinker’s work can be assessed as a valuable attempt to synthesize Baconian and Comenian motifs while at the same time reflecting broader intellectual contexts of the period.

This article aims to present a detailed analysis of the “Christian natural philosophy” elaborated by the German humanist philosopher and theologian Otto Casmann (1562–1607) in his various works. To this end, Casmann’s general idea of philosophia Christiana is discussed and critically evaluated. Regarding natural philosophy, or physics, attention is paid mainly to topics such as cosmogony and cosmology, which Casmann promised to have developed biblically and independently of the pagan (namely Aristotelian) tradition. However, when Casmann’s natural philosophy is analyzed in detail, his resolute emphasis on the literal reading of the Bible, the cornerstone of his entire concept, turns out to be problematic. Similarly, despite his resolutions, his natural‑philosophical views are, to a considerable extent, still dependent on Aristotelian terms and concepts.

The paper deals with the work Philosophia Sacra: Or The Principles of Natural Philosophy. Extracted from Divine Revelation, published in 1753 by the relatively unknown English clergyman Samuel Pike (circa 1717 – 1773). This work falls within the tradition of the so-called Mosaic physics, a specific Early Modern endeavor to build natural philosophy based on a literal reading of the Holy Scriptures, particularly the first chapters of the book of Genesis attributed to Moses – hence the term “Mosaic.” For this reason, at the beginning of the paper, the author seeks to introduce the fundamental ideas of this movement as expressed by its key proponents, namely L. Daneau, O. Casmann, and K. Aslakssøn. In the subsequent analysis of Pike’s natural-philosophical conception, the author highlights its specific features, including obvious Newtonian influences on the one hand (Pike’s work was written about a century and a half later than the texts of the ‘founding fathers’ of Mosaic physics and must have been influenced by the contemporary discourse). On the other hand, Pike’s work exhibits strong, albeit implicit, similarities with the ideas of J. A. Comenius, another thinker associated with Early Modern Mosaic physics (and often considered its most significant representative, which are explored in the concluding part of the text. It can be said that Pike’s work appears as a remarkable and highly original culmination of the Mosaic natural philosophy tradition, combining a range of seemingly unexpected, if not outright contradictory, motifs.

This study deals with the concept of natura as it is presented in Comenius’s Pansophia. Since Comenius’s concept of nature is inseparable from his anthropological views, the paper discusses also his anthropology. Man is considered here an integral part of the material world which, however, through his immortal mind and its three infinite components surpasses the material world and rises above it. Man, especially in his limitlessness and freedom of human will, resembles God. The human individual thus becomes not only the creation of God, but the partner and collaborator of God, insofar as the process of completing the work of Creation is concerned. The outcomes of human activity are called the world of human creation, the world of morality and the world of the spirit, in which nature is brought to perfection. The final part of the study focuses on the concept of natura humana which is important in the whole Consultatio catholica, not only in the Pansophia. Despite all difficulties in interpretation, Comenius’s concept of human nature can be reconstructed. According to Comenius the basis of human nature is the openness of human existence founded on the free and unrestricted will. © FILOSOFIA, 2014.

Since the very beginning of modern Comenius studies there have been attempts to examine the relationship of the Czech philosopher, theologian, and educational reformer Jan Amos Comenius to the English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon. A study dealing with the efforts of both philosophers to reform philosophy is, nevertheless, still lacking. The aim of this paper is, therefore, to introduce Comenius’s relationship to the work of Francis Bacon in this regard. In the first part, the author presents an overview of Comenius’s references to Bacon. The following section focuses on a description and comparison of the structure and fundamental concepts held by both Comenius and Bacon in their works relevant for the topic. In the last part of the paper, the reader will find the characteristics of both philosophers’ projects of the restoration of knowledge. The author concludes that although both Comenius and Bacon directed their intellectual powers towards restoring the original immaculate knowledge of Adam, they approached its implementation in their own unique and original ways. © Filosofia, 2017.

Cílem této studie je představit základní rámec filozofického díla anglického volnomyšlenkáře Anthonyho Collinse (1676–1729) v kontextu britského osvícenského myšlení konce 17. a první poloviny 18. století. Prostřednictvím analýzy jednotlivých spisů je vyloženo Collinsovo chápání rozumu jako nástroje nepostradatelného nejen v oblasti poznání profánního, ale také divinálního. Studie dále sleduje Collinsovu obhajobu naprosté volnosti myšlení i formy jeho vyjádření. Významný prostor je věnován rovněž autorově filozofii náboženství. Studie dokládá, že Collins nebyl izolovaným myslitelem, ale že ve svém díle těžil jak z předcházející (Spinoza, Herbert z Cherbury a především John Locke), tak i současné filozofické diskuze (zejména John Toland).

Some early modern scholars believed that Scripture provided more certain knowledge than all secular authorities – even Aristotle – or investigating nature as such. In this paper, I analyse one such attempt to establish the most reliable knowledge of nature: the so-called Mosaic physics proposed by the Reformed encyclopaedist Johann Heinrich Alsted. Although in his early works on Physica Mosaica Alsted declares that his primary aim is proving the harmony that exists between various traditions of natural philosophy, namely between the Mosaic and the Peripatetic approaches, and despite the fact that his biblical encyclopaedia of 1625 was intended to be based on a literal reading of the Bible, he never truly abandoned the Aristotelian framework of physics. What is more, in his mature encyclopaedia of 1630, he eventually openly preferred Aristotle to other natural-philosophical traditions. I argue, therefore, that Alsted’s bold vision of Mosaic physics remained unfulfilled and should be assessed as an unsuccessful project of early modern natural philosophy.

The paper aims to introduce the encyclopaedic project presented by the reformed philosopher and theologian Johann Heinrich Alsted and study it as one of the possible sources of the pansophism of the Czech philosopher, theologian and educational reformer Jan Amos Comenius. For this reason, the author first briefly describes the genesis, development and structure of Alsted’s encyclopaedic work with a special focus on his mature and monumental Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta. The crucial part of the paper is devoted to comparing Alsted’s and Comenius’s conceptions of metaphysics, physics and other important fields of their shared interest. The author concludes that Comenius was undoubtedly influenced by Alsted in structural and terminological matters; furthermore, that both Alsted and Comenius inclined to base their philosophy of nature on so-called Mosaic physics and tended to understand metaphysics as a primary science not only in view of its dignity, but also with regard to its place in the system of sciences and in the curriculum.

Our aim in this study is to examine the attitude to violence expressed in the works of two leading figures in the history of Czech philosophical thought. Several scholars in the field of Comeniology have expressed the belief that not only clear parallels but also direct continuity can be traced between the views of Petr Chelčický and those of Jan Amos Comenius. To make a proper judgement as to whether Comenius and Chelčický shared identical attitudes to the question of the legitimacy of violence, we focus first on Comenius’s climactic work, in which his point of view is most fully expressed. Subsequently we analyse Chelčický’s views and compare them with Comenius’s attitude. A comparison of the works of the two thinkers leads to the conclusion that on the one hand Comenius’s key opinions are much more comprehensively founded; on the other, he does not restrict himself to a critique of physical violence but also deals with the spiritual struggle. Any analogy between Chelčický and Comenius’s attitude to violence can therefore be related only to the early works of Comenius in which his concept of universal tolerance was not yet thoroughly thought through. The study therefore focuses on the issue of the development of Comenius’s concept of tolerance as well.

The paper deals with the question of the relation between Francesco Patrizi and John Amos Comenius, especially in the regard to the metaphysics of light and its concept panaugia. It is without doubt that Comenius adopted the basic principles of his conception of the metaphysics of light from Patrizi. The light is crucial not only for the metaphysics of both authors; it also figures as a central part of their epistemological conceptions, which are de facto identical. Although Patrizi and Comenius deal with the concept panaugia and understand the metaphysics of light in the same sense, they differ in their further handling of it. While Patrizi focuses on the natural-philosophical aspect of panaugia, Comenius further elaborates the epistemological and panorthotical aspect of the metaphysics of light.

The study aims to analyze the importance of analogy in the writings of the Czech theologian, philosopher and educational reformer John Amos Comenius. Analogy is clearly invaluable for Comenius as it plays a key role in the introduction of a third, particularly reliable method – syncrisis that allows us to see an image of something invisible (uncreated) on visible (created) things. For Comenius, this method became an integral supplement to analysis and synthesis, with all three forming the basis of all his studies. Syncrisis is principally applied to theological matters, for instance to the study of man, the living image of God that reflects the creator. The analogy of the micro- and macrocosm that Comenius uses is integral to both his epistemology and metaphysics. If a man (the microcosm) attains self-knowledge, he is able to know other humans, the entire material world (the macrocosm), and also his very archetype – God. For Comenius though, man is not only a microcosm but also a little God (mikrotheos), a faithful imprint of God's perfection. Man, created as the culmination of the material world, becomes God's partner in maintaining and completing the entire universe. Human creativity, analogous to God's creative power, plays a decisive role in the creation of other worlds – the World of Human Artifice, the Moral World and the Spiritual World. Ultimately, the collaboration of man and God is an inherent prerequisite to the culmination of creation – the last world, the Eternal World.

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.

The paper is concerned with Comenius’ philosophical view of man. In Comenius’ late writings, man is presented as a being determined by its own unique nature, at the core of which lies an existential openness founded on a free and limitless will. Comenius defines man as a being that creates itself endlessly and in infinite ways and presents a well-thought out argument to the effect that the defining feature of man is the God-given mind, conceived of as a trinity of crucial dispositions – will, reason and agentive faculties. The will is set to be the central part of the mind. However, this concept is not characteristic for all writings by Comenius. In his earlier treatises, we can see that Comenius preferred reason over will. This paper tries to illustrate the genesis of Comenius’ conception and also to give a general overview of Comenius’ anthropology. Last but not least the paper aims to put Comenius’ philosophy of man into context of Renaissance and Early modern philosophy.

The aim of this paper is to present a systematic reconstruction of the development of the pansophic idea in the work of Jan Amos Comenius. The concept of pansophia, rooted already in the ancient philosophical thinking, became a very popular topic of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century discussions, and it is one of the central topics of Comenius’s philosophy. It is assumed that Comenius elaborated the formulation of the pansophic program—i.e., the program for creating a universal science incorporating the findings of both the profane and the divine—at the end of 1630s. This study therefore aims to analyse all relevant Comenius’s treatises and attempts to identify the individual development phases of Comenius’s pansophic idea until its transformation into the idea of the universal reform, panorthosia. The analysis of Comenius’s treatises is complemented with a reflection on Comenius’s correspondence, which facilitates the understanding of the author’s more private motives.

Protože česká komeniologie a intelektuální historie dosud postrádají komplexnější monografické pojednání o vztahu Komenský – Bacon, je cílem této knihy přiblížit koncepci reformy (respektive obnovy) vědění obsaženou v dílech obou jmenovaných osobností – českého teologa, filozofa a pedagogického reformátora Jana Amose Komenského (1592–1670) a anglického filozofa a státníka Francise Bacona (1561–1626). Zatímco v první části knihy jsou cesty obou myslitelů k vrcholné podobě jejich vizí sledovány odděleně, druhá část se soustředí na zodpovězení především těch otázek, které oba autory spojují: V čem spočívá jádro projektu reformy vědění u Komenského a v čem u Bacona? Jaká je struktura a koncepce jejich projektů? Jedná se o projekt obnovy, nebo o vizi pokroku vědění? Jak si Komenský a Bacon představovali realizaci svých záměrů? Jakou metodu k tomu zvolili? Do jaké míry byl Komenský Baconem ovlivněn? Co je pojítkem obou projektů? Na základě odpovědí na tyto otázky se autor v závěru knihy pokouší rozřešit dlouhodobý interpretační spor o povaze Komenského vztahu k Baconovi: Byl Komenský významným pokračovatelem a propagátorem Baconova díla? Nebo byl naopak myslitelem, který Baconův odkaz zjednodušil a zvulgarizoval? Anebo byl Komenský vskutku svébytnou filozofickou osobností, jež byla inspirována spíše jen duchem Baconova díla?

This book maps the entire development of Comenius’s considerations on man, from his earliest writings to his philosophical masterwork. Although this book primarily offers an analysis and description of the conception of man in Comenius’s work, it may also serve the reader as a more general introduction to his philosophical conception. The author shows that, in spite of the fact that Comenius has received no small amount of academic attention, funded studies or monographs in English language remain in single figures. Thus, a range of Comenius’s remarkable ideas are still unknown to the wider public.