119
§76 [152-153]

genuine "findings." Yet even this very securing of "findings" and of what can be found passes over immediately and necessarily into an explanation and thus involves the adoption of a guiding viewpoint. (The crudest process of assigning and incorporating of a finding into already acquired findings is an explanation.)

In the course of the development of historiology, the material does not merely expand and become more surveyable and also, on account of refinements in the way the material is organized, more readily and reliably accessible. Furthermore, and above all, the material in itself becomes more constant, i.e., it remains more constantly the same throughout changes in the viewpoints adopted toward it. Historiological work thereby becomes ever easier, since it can be carried out simply by applying a new interpretative viewpoint to already acquired material. Historiology itself, however, never introduces the interpretative viewpoint; instead, historiology always merely reflects the current history in which the historiologists stand but which they themselves precisely cannot know historically and in the end must simply once again explain historiologically. The exchanging of interpretative viewpoints then guarantees for a longer time an abundance of new discoveries, and this in turn confirms historiology itself in the self-certainty of its progress and entrenches it even more in its avoidance of history. But if some particular interpretative viewpoint is elevated into the only definitive one, then historiology finds in this clarity of the guiding viewpoint a further means to raise itself above the previous historiology with its changing viewpoints and to bring this constancy of its "research" into the long-desired correspondence with the "exact sciences" and thereby to become "science" in the genuine sense, which shows itself by historiology becoming business-like and "institutionalized" (perhaps in correspondence to the organizations of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society). This consummation of historiology into a secure "science" is by no means contradicted by the fact that its main accomplishment is carried out henceforth in the form of newspaper reports (news coverage) and that historiologists have become gluttons for such presentations of world history. Indeed, "newspaper science" is already, and not accidentally, coming into being. It is still seen as a deviation from historiology, if not actually a degeneration, but in truth it is merely the latest anticipation of the essence of historiology as a modern science. To be noted is the inevitable coupling of this "newspaper science," in the broad sense, with the publishing industry. Both, in their unity, stem from the essence of modern technology. (Therefore as soon as