Large-scale history must find a great deal of its moral significance, in contrast to a sociological study of historical dynamics, in disciplining moral comparisons. As we have seen, it is in large measure the human need to make comparisons that make historical study of the big questions – which are directly or indirectly commonly matters of comparison – inescapable. This is not necessarily a matter of invidious comparisons. All moral evaluation, positive or negative, is a tissue of comparisons; we build our very self-identity upon comparison with what is not ourselves. To deal with the individual is to deal with the individual in a moral sense – individuality has ultimately no inherent significance save on that level – and this is to deal with the individual in terms of norms of some sort; and comparison with norms is but one aspect of a wider process of mutual comparison of diverse individuals. We know Leonardo is great by comparing his work with that of other painters. It has not been a false instinct, but the very mission of history, which has led historians to regard moral judgment of their heroes as a primary duty; and though the old-style explicit summing-up be no longer in vogue, the implicit judgment in terms of which our modern narratives are constructed is – as is the case with the novel, from which our new way was learned (not from natural science!) – more, and not less, rich in its moral analysis, if done well at all.