I’m in 100% agreement with @Jeruba here. The writer needs to be clear in his or her own mind exactly what idea should be conveyed. Clearly, the intent seems to be to communicate the high value of the entertainment being provided by the worthy establishment, based as it is in various historical eras (a better phrasing, I think, than “eras of history”, but that’s beside the point), and the classy nature of the entertainment being so based. (Because it’s also possible to base low, risque and bawdy entertainment in certain historical contexts, too, but clearly this establishment will brook no such nonsense! Harrumph!)
I doubt that the writer’s idea is that “history is the epitome of a comprehensive form of entertainment”, which is the impression that the sentence actually conveys. Although the notion is worth pursuing for its value as a potentially excellent parody of the value of much modern education, it’s not a “serious” statement worthy of credibility, and certainly not the writer’s intent.
As for the term “comprehensive form of entertainment”, it simply leaves one wondering, “Whatever could aspire to be that? A musical comedy-drama-tragedy-spy thriller-murder mystery movie-play with live actors, dance numbers, music videos and a ventriloquist, followed by some form of performance art, a Punch and Judy show and live concert? Where would the comedian fit in?”
Don’t aspire to things you can’t even define, because you cannot deliver them.