08 Conservação da gramática latina clássica

BIBLIOGRAFIA. A GENERAL BRAZILIAN BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR THE STUDY OF THE LATIN LANGUAGE

Esta bibliografia disponibiliza para downloads dicionários e as principais obras didáticas utilizadas no Brasil, para o ensino do Latim, em português e noutros idiomas europeus. Dictionaries and textbooks used in Brazil for teaching Latin.

http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22DARCY%20CARVALHO%22&sort=-downloads

Bibliographia compilata nobis et praebita in Archive. Org demonstrat quod methodus nostra scribendi linguam latinam ad usum hodiernum et cotidianum , specialiter de rebus academicis,  praesupponit conservationem plenam grammaticae latinae classicae. Infra invenite directiones electronicas ad accedendum  cursus elementares linguae latinae classicae:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Werkmeister der Menschlichkeit: Johann Amos
Comenius
Von Klaus Schaller, Bochum

http://www.deutsche-comenius-gesellschaft.de/literatur_8.html

Am 28. März 1592 wurde Johann Amos Comenius — Jan Amos Komenský — im südlichen Mähren, wahrscheinlich in dem Dörfchen Nivnice bei Uherský Brod geboren. Die UNESCO hat das Jahr 1992 zum Jahr des Comenius erklärt, denn hochberühmt ist er bis  auf  unsere Tage als „der Begründer der neuzeitlichen Erziehungslehre“. Das ist wahr und falsch zugleich, und gerade auf der Spannung zwischen wahr und falsch beruht wohl die Aktualität, die Comenius heute zukommt
— und zwar nicht nur als Pädagoge. Schon seine eigene Aussage, dass er alles, was er für die Jugend aufgeschrieben, nicht als Pädagoge, sondern als Theologe dargelegt habe, lässt an der üblichen Einordnung zweifeln.
Die Familie des Comenius gehörte der „Brüderunität“ an, einer späteren Gruppierung der mit Johann Huss beginnenden böhmischen Reformation, die Gewaltlosigkeit und Frieden auf ihre Fahnen geschrieben und dank Jan Blahoslav die anfängliche Ablehnung einer gelehrten Bildung hinter sich gelassen hatte. Auch viele Adelsfamilien waren Mitglieder dieser Brüderkirche. Doch schon seit Ende des
16. Jahrhunderts formierte sich in Böhmen und Mähren die Gegenreformation. Zwar gelang es 1609, Kaiser Rudolf zur Ausstellung des sogenannten Majestätsbriefes zu bewegen, der ersten Reichsurkunde, die reich und arm, frei und unfrei, Frau und Mann, Christen und Juden völlige Freiheit in Religionsfragen gewährte, aber Ferdinand, sein Nach-Nachfolger, duldete dessen Verletzung. Auf einer stürmischen Sitzung der böhmischen Stände (1618) wurden die der Intrige beschuldigten Statthalter [des Kaisers] aus dem Fenster der Prager Burg gestürzt. Der Dreißigjährige Krieg begann. Die mit dem Sieg des Kaiserhauses Habsburg erstarkte Gegenreformation holte zum Gegenschlag aus, und die protestantischen Böhmen und Mähren, unter ihnen der Brüderprediger Comenius — in Herborn und Heidelberg hatte er studiert — wurden des Landes verwiesen oder zur Konversion gezwungen.
Jahrelang lebte Comenius mit anderen Brüdergeistlichen im südlichen Riesengebirge im Untergrund, ehe er 1628 das Land verließ und mit den Brüdern nach Lissa (Leszno) in Polen zog. Unter den damals an seine verstreute Gemeinde gerichteten Trostschriften gehört sein „Labyrinth der Welt und Paradies des Herzens“ noch heute zu den schönsten tschechischen Prosadichtungen. Noch in der Heimat hatte Comenius auf dem später konfiszierten Gut eines Adeligen die in deutscher Sprache geschriebene Didaktik des Elias Bodinus gelesen, die ihn anregte, selbst ein solches  Werk — besser und größer — in tschechischer Sprache zu schreiben, das ihm nötig schien, um nach der erwarteten Rückkehr in die Heimat das Königreich Böhmen wieder zu errichten. Als die Hoffnung auf eine Heimkehr schwand, übersetzte Comenius dieses Werk ins Lateinische unter dem Titel
„Didactica magna“ (Große Didaktik), das dann seinen Weltruhm als Schulmann begründete. Unter seinen Schulbüchern ist der „Orbis sensualium pictus“ (Der gemalte Weltkreis der sinnlich wahrnehmbaren Dinge) wohl das berühmteste; von Goethe noch hochgeschätzt, und vielfach überarbeitet, lebt es in den heutigen Bilderlexika fort.
Im 18. Jahrhundert hat man die „Große Didaktik“ des Comenius in tabellarischer Form herausgegeben, um seine Vorschläge für schnelles, sicheres und vergnügliches Lehren und Lernen in “Weisheit, Tugend und Frömmigkeit“ für die Schulpraktiker so recht handhabbar zu machen. Im 19. Jahrhundert waren es dann die Lehrer, die auf der Seite des bürgerlichen Fortschritts standen, die zwischen dem 200. Todestag des Comenius (1870) und seinem 300. Geburtstag (1892) den Schulmann Comenius und seine „Didaktik“ für sich entdeckten. Namentlich die Lehrer der Volks- und der Realschulen sahen sich genötigt, sich selbst im Gefüge

der traditionellen Gesellschaft Anerkennung und ihren Forderungen Geltung zu verschaffen. Dabei diente ihnen Komenskýs „Didaktik“ als Grundurkunde ihrer Profession. Was ihre Avantgarde angesichts der sozialen und politischen Situation ihrer Zeit forderte: ein einheitliches Schulsystem für alle Menschen, Überwindung der ständischen Bildungsprivilegien, Bildung für die ganze Nation, für Mann und Frau, Gleichberechtigung der realistischen und der humanistischen Bildung, neben Sprache, Geschichte und Religion nun auch Realien, Naturwissenschaften, statt der Buchschule nun die Arbeitsschule, Ausgang in allem Unterricht von der Anschauung vor der verbalen Belehrung, und überhaupt: neue Formen des Unterrichts, eine
„Mechanisch konstruierte didaktische Maschine“ (so ein Buchtitel bei Comenius) – all dies fanden die Lehrer in der „Großen Didaktik“ des Comenius vorformuliert. Einen besseren Gewährsmann konnten sie sich nicht wünschen.
Dabei störte es sie wenig,  dass  die ganze Didaktik  des  Comenius aus  der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen abgeleitet worden war, aus dem an die Menschen gerichteten Auftrag Gottes, an seiner Statt „vernünftig“ mit den Geschöpfen dieser Erde umzugehen. Und vollends wurde von den Lehrern an der Schwelle unseres [20.] Jahrhunderts übersehen, dass der ganze didaktische Aufwand des  Comenius, seine Vorschläge zu einer effizienten Unterweisung in Weisheit, Tugend und Frömmigkeit, seine rationale Schulordnung, dazu dienen sollten, den Menschen gut vorbereitet in die Ewigkeit als sein letztes Ziel, seine eigentliche Heimat, hinüberzugeleiten. Dieses „transitorische“ Schulverständnis des Comenius passte nicht in die pädagogische Landschaft um die [damalige] Jahrhundertwende und wurde geflissentlich überlesen.
Das schon reicht, um zumindest ein Fragezeichen hinter die Aussage zu setzen, dass Comenius der Begründer der neuzeitlichen Erziehungslehre sei. Allerdings hat sich das Schulverständnis des Comenius im Verlaufe seines Lebens deutlich gewandelt. Schon während der dreißiger Jahre proklamierte er eine neue Konzeption von Wissenschaft. Er nannte sie Pansophie: Allweisheit. Sie sollte nicht einfach eine Zusammenstellung des gesamten Wissens sein, eine neue Variante der herkömmlichen Enzyklopädien — diese erschienen Comenius wie „ein Haufen wahllos zusammengeworfener Hölzer“ —, sondern ein Wissen vom Gesamt der Dinge, das alles so anordnet, wie es vom Schöpfer in der Dingwelt disponiert ist. Was hier noch wie eine Neuformation des bloßen Wissens von den Dingen aussah, gewann für Comenius während seines Aufenthalts im vorrevolutionären England (1641/42) ein neues Gesicht. Pansophisches Wissen ist fortan nicht mehr ein so oder so konzipiertes Wissen, sondern es verdient diesen Titel erst dann, wenn es das Handeln des Menschen mit umfaßt, ein Handeln, das darauf bedacht ist, in den irdischen Verhältnissen die Wahrheit, die Ordnung und den Frieden Gottes durchzusetzen. Und das alles zur Vorbereitung der tausendjährigen Friedensherrschaft Christi auf Erden vor dem endgültigen Weltende, auf deren Anbruch Comenius als »Chiliast« wartete. Jetzt, in England und nach dem Englandaufenthalt, erhält die Pansophie einen neuen systematischen Ort: sie ist ein Teil seines unvollendet hinterlassenen pansophischen Hauptwerkes „De rerum humanarum emendatione consultatio catholica“ (Allgemeine Beratung über die Verbesserung der dem Menschen auf dieser Welt von Gott zugemessenen Aufgaben). Hier haben wir es zunächst nicht mit dem Pädagogen Comenius zu tun, sondern mit dem Philosophen, dem Wissenschaftstheoretiker.
Auch die von Francis Bacon von Verulam 1620 instaurierte neue Wissenschaft, die dem Menschen im Wissen Macht verspricht, die in der ersten wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Europas, in der Royal Society in London, ihre Stätte fand, wird von Comenius kritisiert. Ein Wissen, das nicht zugleich dem im Wissen zum Handeln ermächtigten Menschen die Besserung der menschlichen Verhältnisse als maßgeblich vor Augen stellt, ist unmenschlich. Die Pansophie des Comenius behält die Humanität der sozialen, der politischen und der religiösen Verhältnisse der Menschen fest im Blick. Ihre allfällige Verbesserung ist das Kriterium des pansophischen Wissens.

Der vierte Teil dieser siebenteiligen „Allgemeinen Beratung“ ist eine Pädagogik: die „Pampaedia“ (Allerziehung), in der nun die Didaktik des Comenius nicht überwunden, sondern aufgehoben ist. Auch sie ist jetzt auf das Ziel des Gesamtwerkes bezogen: auf die Verbesserung der dem Menschen von Gott aufgetragenen Verhältnisse in Wissenschaft, Politik und Religion. Damit verlieren nun auch die Schulen ihren transitorischen Charakter. »Dieweil wir auf der Erde sind, sind die irdischen Schulen nicht für den Himmel, sondern für das irdische Leben da.“ Wer es gemäß dem Auftrag Gottes auf sich nimmt, für die Erfüllung der dem Menschen in seinem Erdendasein zugemessenen Aufgaben (Wissenschaft, Politik, Religion) einzutreten, wer, wie es in der „Pampaedia“ heißt, „die Bühne dieser Welt ändern“, ihr „Ordnung, Licht und Frieden“ bringen will, „der hat alles Lernen der Menschen gemäß den Kriterien des pansophischen Wissens umzugestalten“.
Das ist dann nicht die Pädagogik der zwanziger Jahre unseres [20.] Jahrhunderts, die das pädagogische Kriterium in der Besserung des subjektiven Lebens des Zöglings sah, das ist nicht die oft gegen die gesellschaftliche Funktionalisierung der Erziehung geforderte „autonome“ Pädagogik: das ist eine politische Pädagogik! Humanität wird eben nicht in der Vollkommenheit des Einzelnen, sondern in der Menschlichkeit unserer Lebensverhältnisse sichtbar. Nicht einfach Änderung ist das Ziel dieser Pädagogik, sondern Besserung der immer wieder und immer wieder neu bedrängten menschlichen Verhältnisse. Pädagogik wird zum Dreh- und Angelpunkt der in Komenskýs pädagogischem Hauptwerk, der „Allgemeinen Beratung“, angestrebten Besserung der menschlichen Verhältnisse (res humanae). [...]
Wie ist es in der Folgezeit diesem Pädagogen ergangen, der sich nicht mehr so mühelos als geschickter Erfinder didaktischer Kunststücke rezipieren ließ, jenem Pädagogen, der von der Leidenschaft der Besserung der dem Menschen auf dieser Welt aufgetragenen Aufgaben besessen war? Johann Christoph Adelung kommt 1785 in seiner „Geschichte der menschlichen Narrheit“ auf Comenius zu sprechen. Seine didaktischen Erfindungen finden seinen Beifall. Seine Pansophie aber wird als ein „Steckenpferd“ abgetan. In seiner politischen Absicht der Besserung wird er übel denunziert, er habe, so heißt es bei Adelung, „die ganze bürgerliche Verfassung ummodeln wollen“. Jawohl, das wollte er: er wollte sie bessern. Und im Blick auf den „Angelus pacis“ (Friedensengel), den Comenius nach Breda an die Abgesandten Englands und Hollands geschickt hatte mit dem Appell, dem englisch-niederländischen Seekrieg ein Ende zu machen, spottet Adelung, dass darüber die „aufgeklärten Staatsmänner“ nur werden haben lachen können. Einzig Johann Gottfried Herder, der den ersten Teil der „Allgemeinen Beratung“, der 1702 in Halle erschienen war, gekannt hatte, wußte und würdigte, dass Comenius nicht im eingeschränkt herkömmlichen Sinne allein als Pädagoge verstanden werden dürfe. Nachdem er in seinem 57. „Brief zur Beförderung der Humanität“ Comenius’ Einsatz für Schule und Unterricht gewürdigt hatte, schreibt er: »Sein Plan indes ging noch weiter. Er sah, dass keine Erziehungsreform ihren Zweck erreichte, wenn nicht die Geschäfte verbessert würden, zu denen Menschen erzogen werden; hier griff er das Übel an der Wurzel an. Er schrieb eine Panegersie, einen allgemeinen Aufruf zu Verbesserung der menschlichen Dinge“. Sofern sich die moderne Pädagogik in einigen ihrer Gestalten als eine wertfreie Erziehungswissenschaft versteht, wird sie mit diesem Comenius nichts anzufangen wissen; zwar Effektuierung der pädagogischen Prozesse, aber nicht die Besserung der menschlichen Lebensverhältnisse ist ihr Thema. Comenius wäre dann jedenfalls nicht der Begründer der (dieser) neuzeitlichen Erziehungswissenschaft.
Eine Pädagogik, die nichts anderes zum Ziele hat, als die Heranwachsenden in dem gerade eingerichteten Weltgehäuse heimisch zu machen, die Erziehung, Unterricht und Schule in den Dienst dieser Einhausung stellt, die den Heranwachsenden befähigen will, dieses Haus zwar vor dem Einsturz zu bewahren, es zu reparieren, statt aber — wenn es nötig ist — ein neues, besseres an seiner Stelle zu errichten, kann sich auf Comenius nur unter Auslassung seiner pädagogischen Zentralidee berufen. [...]

Der neuzeitliche Mensch hat sich in ein Gehäuse von Technik und Zivilisation eingeschlossen. Über die dabei entstandenen Probleme gilt es, sich in der Erziehung zu beraten. Erziehung zur Menschlichkeit bietet Gelegenheiten, aus der Geschlossenheit des Weltgehäuses in das Offene von Welt herauszutreten, um — gemessen an konkreter Unzulänglichkeit — das Bessere in den Blick zu bekommen und für seine Realisierung in der Welt einzutreten. Um in der Sprache der 68-er zu reden: Erziehung (nach Comenius) fungiert in der Gesellschaft nicht affirmativ, sondern kritisch. Darin liegt seine Aktualität für uns, denen die Unzulänglichkeit unseres Umgangs mit der Schöpfung so augenfällig geworden ist, eine Aktualität, die viele, die sich im Jubiläumsjahr auf ihn berufen, am liebsten verschweigen würden. Der tschechische Philosoph Jan Patočka, einer der ersten Sprecher der Menschenrechts-Charta 77, schrieb: »In diesem Zusammenhang ist das erneute Interesse an Komenskýs Erziehungslehre gerade in ihrer merkwürdigen, vom Standpunkt der Moderne fragwürdigen pansophischen Gestalt nicht nur begreiflich, sondern eine rechtzeitig kommende Inspiration. Am Anfang der Geschlossenheitsepoche stehend, hat Comenius sie überlebt und ist an ihrem Ende erneut in Erscheinung getreten.“
Aus: Schaller, Klaus: Comenius 1992. Gesammelte Beiträge zum Comeniusjahr. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag 1992. Hier gekürzt und ohne Anmerkungen.

The Didactic of J. A. Comenius
Between Instruction Technology and Pansophy
By Klaus Schaller, Bochum

“It is undisputed that the common roots of didactic and curriculum theory can be traced back at least to Comenius.” This is a sentence from the programme notes for this symposium with which I emphatically agree.
When Comenius (1592-1670) is referred to as "the teacher of nations", his reputation tends to be founded on his Didactica Magna, which was published in Amsterdam in 1657 as the first part of his Opera didactica omnia, but which had been written in Czech as early as 1628-1630; and on his Methodus linguarum novissima, particularly Chapter X, which was written from 1644 -1647, first with no date or year, and later appeared as Volume II of his Opera didactica omnia in 1657. [...]
“Didactic is the art of instruction, namely of how man, before maturing and entering upon a profession, can propitiously, easily and thoroughly be taught all things which serve to benefit the present and the future life and thus be equipped for both lives.” (Comenius 1970)
The later title is more detailed: “The Great Didactic setting forth the whole Art of Teaching all things to all Men or a certain Inducement to found such schools in all the Parishes, Towns and Villages of every Christian Kingdom that the entire youth of both sexes, none being excepted, shall quickly, pleasantly and thoroughly become learned in the Sciences, pure in Morals, trained to Piety, and in this manner instructed in all things necessary for the present and for the future life.”
In Chapter X of Methodus linguarum novissima we find didactics defined as "the science of proper learning." To teach, says Comenius here, is to cause knowledge possessed by one man to be learnt, to be acquired by another. To teach properly means to occasion someone to learn "quickly, pleasantly and thoroughly". Quickly, pleasantly and thoroughly: cito, jucunde, solide (or, occasionally, cito, tuto et jucunde) are criteria still current today for the optimization of instruction processes. Equipping every person with an unlimited amount of knowledge means—in accordance with Francis Bacon's (1561-1626) conception of knowledge—providing him with previously unconceived opportunities for acting ("power"). Although Chapter X of Methodus promises to give the means by which this could be achieved

(examples, rules, imitation), the objects, the people and the goals of instruction, it was the criteria for the optimization of instruction processes which fascinated contemporaries.
This form of didactics appeared to answer the educational requirements of the growing middle classes, which were gaining influence in the seventeenth century and which saw knowledge as a source of power beyond the authority of the church and the feudal system, enabling them to play their role in society through the medium of commerce and the trades, and later in pre-industrial production. This interest in education demanded a rationally organized system of schooling and new methods of instruction promising a rapid and effective acquisition of knowledge. Comenius’ Great Didactic seemed to promise all this, advocating as it did that a school be established in every town, village or hamlet to the benefit of the whole Christian community (cf. chap. VIII). "Not the children of the rich or of the powerful only but all alike, boys and girls, both noble and ignoble, rich and poor, in all cities and towns, villages and hamlets, should be sent to school." (chap. IX) As all men are born to be reasonable beings, lords of Creation, in the image of their Maker, they should be enabled to live a useful life on Earth, properly initiated into the sciences, the virtues and religion, yet fittingly prepared for the Hereafter, God being no respecter of persons. And the fact that some do appear dull or stupid by nature only serves to make a general furtherance of the intellect all the more imperative (cf. chap. IX). Instruction as envisaged by Comenius is all- encompassing: all things which concern mankind should be taught, even though some things will of more use than others in the students’ subsequent lives. Comenius sees the justification for this in the fact that we are all born with the same bodies, with hands, feet, tongue,  etc., yet do no all go on to become craftsmen,  runners, orators, etc. (cf. chap.  X). For Comenius, a school which completely fulfils its purpose is one which is in truth a “workshop of humanity”, where all things are taught to all men universally (omnes, omnia, omnino, cf. chap. X). To achieve this, a four-tiered system is proposed, four stages of education according to age (cf. chap. XXVII). The ages of man Comenius specifies are the stage of infancy, the stage of boyhood, the stage of adolescence and the stage of young manhood, each lasting six years. The corresponding schools are the mother school, the elementary or public vernacular school, the Latin or grammar school and the university complemented by travel.
There are bound to be obstacles  to a  school in which everyone can learn everything from all sides. But if school and instruction are arranged according to the order taken from nature, these obstacles can be overcome. And now Comenius addresses method, which applies equally to instruction in the sciences, morals and religion. He calls for a study of principles, following the “signposts” provided by nature, “for the prolongation of life (through a wise apportionment of time in order to learn everything which is necessary); for the limitation of the arts in order to learn more quickly; for the seizing of opportunities in order to learn soundly; for the tapping of intellectual reserves in order to learn easily; for the honing of the faculty of judgment in order to learn thoroughly” (cf. chap. XIV).
Thus Comenius’s The Great Didactic appeared to offer everything which the interest of the emerging middle classes in education demanded. Seen from this perspective, Comenius proved “progressive”.
The extent to which this system of didactics seemed to fulfil society’s requirements is witnessed in the fact that in the mid-eighteenth century Friedrich Haehn (1710-1789) published the contents of The Great Didactic in table form. Presented in such a simple and handy form, Comenius’ teachings were destined to become comprehensible and usable for everyone down to the last village schoolmaster.
With his editions of Agenda scholastica or collections of school material (10 works, 1750-1752, prefaced by a picture of Comenius), Haehn made a significant contribution to the dissemination of Comenius’ The Didactica Magna in the eighteenth century and beyond. His tabular presentation of The Great Didactic in

Latin and German, "Kurtzer Begrif von der gantzen Didactic des Comenii in einer Tabelle vorgestelet", appeared in several consecutive parts. In his preface, Haehn explained that there were two aims in selecting extracts from the works of the “great educationist Joh. Amos Comenii” and in presenting his general didactical principles as briefly as seemed possible in table form. One was to provide a large number of readers with a concept of the whole of didactics, in other words of “the science of instructing the ignorant reasonably, clearly and advantageously”. The other was to convince readers that even in times past there had been “men who perfectly understood the reason, purpose and benefit of schooling”. For Haehn the teacher educator, Comenius’ system of didactics is a tried and tested means of perfecting the techniques of instruction in school.
Comenius himself gives good cause for such a technological understanding and utilization of his didactical theories. For one thing, he liked to use technical metaphors. He compares his system of didactics with book-printing, with the steady movement of a clock; he composes a “mechanically designed didactical machine”. In teaching, according to Comenius, everything can run mechanically, inasmuch as everything which is commenced, properly ordered and soundly interlinked, will achieve its effect. He recognizes, however, that a mechanistic understanding of the "didactical machine" does not dispose of the need for checking, as no technical machine can be designed with such skill that it is unnecessary to check whether everything is in order. It would be a thorough misunderstanding of Comenius if his system of didactics were to be received and implemented as purely instrumental, detached from any concrete, "human" objectives, an error which has been and continues to be made.
In a paper he wrote in later life, Unum necessarium (1668), which is to a certain extent a summing up of his life and work, he calls didactics one of the three labyrinths in which he had hopelessly lost his way for a time, thanking God that he had at last been able to liberate himself from it. “I have said that my life’s work has resembled that of Martha in the service of the Lord and His disciples—for love—and I know no other. Or accursed be the hour and each moment I have devoted to other works, in my estimation even those which others have deemed unusual and intrepid. I also count among these my didactical studies.” (Comenius 1904, 1974/a)
If Comenius himself was plagued by such questioning with regard to his didactics, we cannot pretend today that there are no queries, that the whole matter is clear and unequivocal. His pride as a didactical inventor took a hard knock as early as 1639, which evidently affected him until the end of his life.
Comenius had sent the Latin translation of The Didactica Magna to friends in England (where his Conatuum Comenianorum praeludia had appeared in 1637 and his Prodromus pansophiae in 1639) with whom he was corresponding about his “pansophia”. The critical reaction was devastating! In November 1639 Joachim Huebner responded in a letter. Jan Kvačala (1898) highlighted the significance of this letter for any true understanding of Comenius’ didactical theory. It contained, wrote Kvačala, “devastating criticism”, describing The Great Didactic as "unfit for publication", maintaining that the work “did not fulfil the promise of the title” and that what it did achieve was “inadequate, disjointed and unfounded”. In any case, says Kvačala, Huebner “speaks out against school instruction and stresses the gift of the Holy Spirit. He asks forgiveness for pronouncing such strict Judgment and anticipates similar honesty on Komensky's part [...]” (ibid., p. 73).
Kvačala concluded that "This highly interesting judgment of Comenius’ famous Didactic, the first and only one to be given, explains why the work itself was not printed" (ibid. p. 82).
With our specific question in mind, it is worthwhile looking more closely at Huebner’s letter. To premise “pansophia” by didactics, we read, was contrary to what had been agreed and certainly not recommended by Huebner, who would now try to put forward his objections and opinions in a letter. There were, in general, two shortcomings of the work. It was not precise enough for publication and was, moreover, inappropriate for publication before the pansophia. He, Huebner, had

encountered great contradictions between the title and the text. Much was missing. If the claim of this art of teaching was to teach all things to all men, he could find no precise definition of what actually should be taught (quid sit proprie docere) and in what way this teaching differed from other actions by which people endeavour to effect something in others by means of conversation. Nevertheless it was shown how anybody could teach anybody anything as efficiently as possible (quam quomodo quilibet quoslibet quaelibet, quam optime possit docere). Moreover, almost the whole art of teaching was restricted to school, as though there were no teaching and in human life outside the school walls, whereby the preacher teaches in church, the parliamentarian in parliament, etc. as well as the teacher in school. (Then Huebner turns to the question of the justification of the didactical rules explicated by Comenius, to his examples from the world of nature and commerce.) A lazy person would be clearly reminded of his duties by an ant. But from which animal could the art of teaching be taken? Which animal teaches something unknown to its species? And even if such an example could be found, what would happen if this method of teaching did not correspond to the peculiarity of man? If the teaching of man did not have any other foundations than that of animals, man would not learn any more than the animals. The rules drawn by Comenius from nature and from the world of human art were largely acceptable, but he, Huebner, refused to acknowledge them as the foundations of teaching.
“Why should I derive something from things external to me which is born within me—everyone is his own example. [...] There would have been no worse confusion if you [Comenius] had drawn the individual rules, written on individual pieces of paper, as out of a barrel and put them in first or last place according to chance. How people like Jungius, Tassius, Cartesius and other exact thinkers among mathematicians, who ensure that their deductions are of the strictest kind, will laugh when they see that something is being offered to them as an unshakable foundation which could only beg applause.”
Then Huebner deals with a few particularities. In the end, he said, the untenableness of the Didactic was due to the incompleteness of pansophia as Christian philosophy, and he thus admonished Comenius to produce a complete “pansophia” first. Huebner concludes the critical comments he felt bound to make and then sets out his own position. [...]
In the following we shall consider how Comenius worked his way out of this understanding of didactics, how he slowly and painstakingly approached what we would in modern terms call didactics as theory of education (bildungstheoretische Didaktik), for which the "curricular" elements of instruction are not the "anything" of the "quaelibet". We shall look at the revision of his understanding of didactics, which had to be completed before Comenius could allow his Didactica Magna to be published in Amsterdam in 1657 as the first part of his Opera didactica omnia.
In Unum necessarium Huebner’s objections appear to have been finally cleared when the observation of the “Rule of Christ” is admonished, inasmuch as it is a question of changing the world for the better (totum mundum in melius mutari, chap. IX). Taking the major collection of Comenius' didactical works as an indicator, we can retrace this revision step for step. The writings which are particularly helpful here are printed in Opera didactica omnia: those which Comenius wrote after his visit to England (1641/42), as well as the essays from his time in Hungary (vol.
III) and, above all, the essays in Volume IV, written in Amsterdam. In the introductory section of the fourth volume, Vitae gyrus (the maelstrom of life), Comenius draws particular attention to the change in his understanding of didactics and enumerates the writings in which this is expressed. They also include Machina didactica mechanice constructa, although this would not at first sight appear to belong here. Later, Unum necessarium recalls these works. How do these works differ from The Great Didactic? The change is expressed in a new, pansophical. conception of knowledge, in the consideration of the "pansophia" which Huebner criticized as being absent in The Didactica Magna and an exact image of which Comenius had already developed in Praeludia and Prodromus pansophiae. Unlike

modern science after Francis Bacon and unlike contemporary proponents of didactics, Comenius no longer sees the aim as being the accumulation of knowledge usable for anything and everything in keeping with the methodical principle cito, tuto et jucunde (quickly, surely and pleasantly), but three stages of knowledge which are not mere knowledge (scientia or theoria), but action-oriented "co- knowledge" (con-scientia) about what God intended with His creation (praxis) and what man must stand up for in everything he does (chresis). From his time in England onwards, Comenius’ motto would be emendatio rerum humanarum— improvement of the tasks apportioned by God for mankind in this world. Pansophical knowledge has three levels. It is not exclusively a matter for the brain, but guides the tongue and moves the hands (ratio—oratio—operatio) to affect the world and improve it. Pansophia is not simply a new, particular concept of science, as was assumed until relatively recently. Pansophical knowledge centres around human action to improve the world—it is here that the quality of being human (humanitas) is revealed and only in this goal of emendation do schools become officina humanitatis, the workshop of humanity.
Comenius calls this remarkable theory of knowledge, in which knowledge and action go hand in hand, pansophy. He died before he was able to finish his later pansophical writings De rerum humanarum emendatione consultatio catholica (General Considerations Concerning Human Improvement). The complete pansophical writings edited by Comenius’ pupils after his death were not brought to light until 1935, when Dmitrij Tschižewskij discovered the collection in the library of the Halle orphanage. In the middle of this seven-part work we find Comenius’ pedagogical theory, Pampaedia. It is the pivotal element of a design for a better world (Panorthosia) set out in Part Vl. In place of  the quaelibet, school and instruction here revolve around the contents which make the young person (but not only the latter) aware of specific inhumanities in the world and appeal to him to improve them.
The difference between The Great Didactic and Pampaedia (Universal Education) cannot be discerned by attention to detail only, such as the extension of school to encompass the whole of life (Panscholia: 7 or 8 schools instead of 4). In general, it is the meaning of school which has changed. In The Great Didactic schools help a person to achieve the aim of his life in salvation with God. They have a transitory, a transpositional character. But in 1668 Comenius writes “hae subcoelestes scholae [...] sunt pro praesenti vita, quam sub coelo vivimus: non pro illa futura” (Comenius 1974/b, p.288).
In Pampaedia we read: “Should anyone wish to change this worldly stage, human learning must first be recast in accordance with pansophical criteria” (Comenius 1991, p. 69).
This change is not, however, left to the arbitrariness and greed for power of individuals or elites. It is not particular, but universal: it has its measure in the humanity which man does not possess, but to which education must lead him, to his mission to bring order, light and peace into this world.
Although Comenius’ later pedagogical statements in his pansophical concept of human improvement do not repeat the didactical devices which are presented in great number in The Great Didactic, it does not indicate that The Great Didactic was thus superseded. In his own words Comenius did, however, emerge from the "didactical labyrinth" and in Pampaedia he shows what must be added to The Great Didactic. In Pampaedia, the fourth part of the universal betterment of this world, The Great Didactic is emended. Both these major pedagogical works of Comenius should be read together if we are to understand Comenius’ pansophical revision of his initial conception of didactics, so vehemently criticized by Huebner.
In the words of Jan Patočka, one of the first spokesmen of the "Charta 77" human rights movement, who died in 1978 in pursuance of his political involvement, Comenius’ essay Via lucis (The Way of Light), which he wrote during the months he was in England, was a Consultatio catholica (de rerum humanarum emendatione) “in nuce”. It was printed in 1668 and Comenius sent it with a long covering letter to

the scholars of the Royal Society (Regia Societas) which had in the meanwhile been founded in London (1662). The letter expresses in precise terms his pansophical conception of knowledge, upon which his new concept of didactics oriented to the humanity of this world and thus to the humanity of young people is based. First he exuberantly praises the Royal Society, founded to promote the study of the natural world (“pro vestigandis Naturalium rerum mysteriis Regia Londinensis Societas"), which had already provided “tot jam admirandarum Observationum experimenta” and made such scientific progress: “Macti heroicis ausis, Viri eximii!” He even acknowledges that the Society’s excellent achievements in its experiments (“illustere molimen Vestrum”) had fulfilled a good part of the wishes  he had expressed in Via lucis, written in England. He praises the Society, because it eagerly endeavours to seek out the truth in the school of sensuous things, especially as the first school prepares the way for the second and the second for the third “etiam Veritates naturales moralibus et spiritualibus indubie parabunt”. But as the Royal Society placed experimental knowledge of the physical world within a concept in which knowledge was not allied with the chance of human emancipation and where science separable from social commitment and political context appeared conceivable and practicable, Comenius felt bound to indicate these deficits in the Society’s work. For Comenius, reflection in science is bound up with its social significance; the consideration of the social opportunities and consequences of science is a part and condition of its being. Science is not detachable from the intention to improve, from utilization in respect of human dignity, from a duty to humanity which accrues in the same measure as the power it creates. By proceeding only from social reality and separating itself from social hopes, the Royal Society could only miss the chance of humanizing itself if it legitimized, as Jan Patočka said, “that unfortunate separation of scientific accuracy and the human significance of science [...] which even today leads to disastrous consequences of its misuse: against universal, in the truest sense human interests”.
With this admonition and in the hope that the fellows of the Royal Society would distance themselves from their practice of endeavouring to maximize experimental knowledge of the natural world without consideration of its social significance; in the hope that they would come to favour a concept in which the progress of science could be associated with social, religious, political and moral commitment; in the hope that they would not be deaf to the appeal to adapt their work in support of emendatio rerum humanarum, Comenius, the old man, his life ebbing in pain ("Comenius senex, cujus vita defecit in doloribus") makes his farewells to the learned members of the Royal Society: “Vos interim, Lucis phosphori, fulgete!”
The way of knowing (modus sciendi) must guide the way of teaching (modus docendi). This was a current thought in the seventeenth century (cf. J. J. Becher: Schaller 1990, pp. 225-244, esp. pp. 239 ff.). Thus what Comenius requires of science also applies to his didactics. Science which does not regard the human consequences of the progress it makes possible and does not focus on the proliferation of humanity has become highly suspect for us today. Comenius’ desperate attempt to hold together scientia and con-scientia (Schaller 1992, pp. 61-75) applies equally to his theory of science and his didactical theory. The question of the quid, the “what” of instruction, which Huebner found unanswered in the The Didactica Magna, is now unequivocally answered: The object of instruction must be something which, in the imperfections of the time (and the seventeenth century was in this respect no less impoverished than the twentieth), draws attention to whatever is better but which has not yet been achieved and calls upon us to achieve it. In place of the quaelibet (anything) comes the id, the “very thing” which admonishes mankind in its knowledge and actions not to lose sight of the improvement of conditions, the proliferation of humanity. Whatever it was that Comenius was specifically thinking about in this definition may appear unintelligible to many of us. A gulf of 300 years after all separates our world view from his. And yet he sets a standard for didactics which should not be overlooked today.

Comenius’ didactical concept oscillates, as we have seen, between instruction technology and pansophia. The more he is consumed by the passion for human improvement, the more the pansophical foundation comes to the fore. This oscillation marks a framework within which the modern debate on didactics continues to move.


From: Stefan Hopmann, Kurt Riquarts (eds.): Didactik and/or Curriculum (Kiel: IPN an der Universität Kiel, Kiel 1995), pp. 57-69. References
have been omitted from the present text.

Comments