What if time flows not, if its progress is only a kind of illusion? There is a possibility that our perception of past and future is wrong, that only presence exists. For any historian the notion of time should be crucial, but quite oft en we forget about the implications and fallacies that arise from our comprehension of this phenomenon. The most common attitude the researchers cultivate is linked to the feeling of omnipotence and omniscience, which they show in their studies. How oft en is it that we encounter acerbic remarks on certain commands, battle plans or diplomatic missions? “It should not have been done,” exclaims the demigod scholar, “why, everyone could see that this was a mistake! How could such a stupid scheme be adopted?” It is quite an easy task to criticize past generations for not seeing clearly what would happen. The irritating habit of scholars to express their superiority about past events is of the same value as stock brokers predictions concerning share prices. Fortunately, there is no stock exchange for the opinions of historians.

In his thorough book on German historiography in the age of Enlightenment, Peter Hanns Reill presented a typology of Samuel Pufendorf 's historical works and noted his specific understanding of the matter of time. Following Georges Gurvitch's terminology, Reill describes it as “erratic,” where “the present appears to prevail over the past and the future,” and no historical development seems to take place. The method used by Pufendorf is most oft en a simple description of events – these are modern chronicles, in which stories are disconnected, are presented as separate, closed entities. According to Pufendorf, the truth from the past can be useful, but it is the analysis of the contemporary events that is especially valuable. The science of history is therefore merely “auxiliary to political science.” Basically, Reill's description has to be accepted. There is, then, one point which should be discussed – are there any positive aspects of such an understanding of time and “eternization of the present”?