118
II. The Resonating [150-152]

16. Every science is an inquiry that investigates, but not every science can be "experimental" in the sense of the modern concept of experiment

17. On the other hand, measuring (exact) science must be experimental. "Experimentation" is a necessary and essential consequence of exactness; in no way is it because a science experiments that it is exact (cf. The resonating, 77, regarding experiri, experimentum, and "experimentation" as a way of arranging research in the modern sense).

18. The modern counterpart to "experimental" science is "historiology," which draws from "sources," along with its derivative form of "pre-historiology." It is perhaps the latter which allows us the most penetrating insight into the essence of all historiology, namely, that it never reaches the level of history.

All "historiology" is nourished by the act of comparison and serves to expand the possibilities of comparison. Although comparison seems to aim at differences, yet for historiology differences never become a decisive distinction, i.e., never become the uniqueness of the unrepeatable and the simple, in the face of which historiology (in case it could ever be brought face to face with this) would have to acknowledge itself insufficient. The unrecognized foreboding that its own essence is threatened with negation by history is the innermost reason that historiological comparison grasps differences for the sole purpose of placing them in a broader and more complex domain of comparability. Yet all comparing is essentially an equalizing, i.e, a relating back to something one and the same, and this something does not at all come to be known explicitly. Instead, it constitutes what is obvious, and from it all explaining and relating derive their clarity. The less that historiology encounters history itself and the more that it records, calculates, and presents mere actions, works, productions, and opinions as incidents in their succession and difference, the easier can historiology then satisfy its own rigor. The fact that it always moves within this domain is most clearly demonstrated by the way the historiological sciences "progress." This way consists in the respective—and in each case differently caused—exchanging of the viewpoints that guide the comparison. The discovery of so-called new "material" is always the consequence, not the motive, of the newly chosen viewpoint from which an explanation is carried out. Moreover, there can be times which seem to exclude all "interpretations" and "presentations" and to limit themselves purely to the securing of the "sources." These latter themselves are then designated as the