In contradistinction to the animal, man has developed such a host of _antagonistic_ instincts and impulses in himself, that he has become master of the earth by means of this synthesis.--Moralities are only the expression of local and limited _orders of rank in_ this multifarious world of instincts which prevent man from perishing through their _antagonism._ Thus a masterful instinct so weakens and subtilises the instinct which opposes it that it becomes an _impulse_ which provides the _stimulus_ for the activity of the principal instinct. The highest man would have the greatest multifariousness in his instincts, and he would _possess_ these in the relatively strongest degree in which he is able to endure them. As a matter of fact, wherever the plant, man, is found strong, mighty instincts are to be found opposing each other (_e.g._ Shakespeare), but they are subdued. 967. Would one not be justified in reckoning all great men among the _wicked?_ This is not so easy to demonstrate in the case of individuals. They are so frequently capable of masterly dissimulation that they very often assume the airs and forms of great virtues. Often, too, they seriously reverence virtues, and in such a way as to be passionately hard towards themselves; but as the result of cruelty. Seen from a distance such things are liable to deceive. Many, on the other hand, misunderstand themselves; not infrequently, too, a great mission will call forth great qualities, _e.g._ justice. The essential fact is: the greatest men may also perhaps have great virtues, but then they also have the opposites of these virtues. I believe that it is precisely out of the presence of these opposites and of the feelings they suscitate, that the great man arises,--for the great man is the broad arch which spans two banks lying far apart. 968. In _great men_ we find the specific qualities of life in their highest manifestation: injustice, falsehood, exploitation. But inasmuch as their effect has always been _overwhelming,_ their essential nature has been most thoroughly misunderstood, and interpreted as goodness. The type of such an interpreter would be Carlyle.[5] [Footnote 5: This not only refers to _Heroes and Hero-Worship,_ but doubtless to Carlyle's prodigious misunderstanding of Goethe a misunderstanding which still requires to be put right by a critic untainted by Puritanism.--Tr.] 969.