Corpus · The Gay Science · Full-text route

Scholars, Priests, and Moral Costume

Optional full-text route · Station 27 of 35

Read: Book V, §§348–353, in full, added in 1887. Begin at §348 and stop before §354.
Allow: About 55–75 minutes, including the passages, this guide, rereading, and a short written response. This is an editorial estimate, not a measured reading time. The six sections total about 2,150 words in the free edition; §§348 and 351 are the longest. If you need two sittings, stop after §350.

Preferred translation: Walter Kaufmann. Free alternative (Thomas Common, The Joyful Wisdom): begin at §348 · §349 · §350 · §352 · §353.

Quotations on this page follow Common’s free translation, including his section titles. Kaufmann’s wording differs, and none of it is quoted here; this lesson has not been compared with Kaufmann’s text. Where a word drives the interpretation, this page notes the German, from the Projekt Gutenberg-DE text.

Before you read

Book V, added in 1887, continues. These six sections ask where scholars, priests, and religions come from, and why Europeans cannot do without the costume of morality. Several explain a belief by the believer’s family, class, people, or country. Station 26’s §345 has just warned that the origin of a morality does not settle its worth. Test these sections against that warning.

The main question: How do scholarship, religion, and moral costume interact—and does knowing where a view comes from settle what it is worth?

Keep using the marks: P, H, V, and ? for Nietzsche’s own hedge only. In this station, mark H for every explanation by descent, class, or nation, and ask what evidence it offers.

What to notice

1. Ancestors. §§348–349 read scholars’ habits as their parents’ trades. Compare §345’s rule.
2. North and South. §350 sets the Roman Church’s “Southern suspicion” against the North’s shallowness. Compare §§148–149 (station 16).
3. Costume. §352 calls morality a disguise. Compare §299 (station 21), where artists disguise things to make them bearable.

Close reading

One way to group the sections

These groups are this guide’s, not Nietzsche’s.

• The origin of the learned: §§348, 349.
• Church, priest, and people: §§350, 351.
• Moral costume and the origin of religions: §§352, 353.

The origin of the learned

§348, “The Origin of the Learned,” says that the learned man, who can come from any class, belongs “essentially and involuntarily to the partisans of democratic thought,” and that his work betrays “the ‘antecedent history’ of the learned man and his family.” His satisfaction at having proved something is often “the ancestor in the blood and instincts of the learned man.” The examples follow. The sons of registrars and clerks think a problem nearly solved once they have systematised it. The son of an advocate “seeks as a first consideration, to carry the point in his case.” The sons of Protestant clergymen and schoolmasters assume their case proved once it has been warmly presented, because “it belonged to their fathers’ ‘trade’!” Mark it P and H: a psychology of scholarship by family occupation, offered as observation. §348, the origin of the learned

Then comes a passage to read slowly and state plainly. “A Jew, contrariwise, in accordance with his business surroundings and the past of his race, is least of all accustomed—to people believing him.” Jewish scholars therefore “lay great stress on logic, that is to say, on compelling assent by means of reasons.” They must win “even when race and class antipathy is against them.” “For in fact, nothing is more democratic than logic: it knows no respect of persons, and takes even the crooked nose as straight.” A parenthesis adds that “Europe is not a little indebted to the Jews,” “above all the Germans, as being a lamentably déraisonnable race.” §348, logic and the Jews

The passage does several things at once. It credits Jewish scholars with Europe’s habits of clearer thinking, and it names the antipathy they faced. It also explains them by trade and descent, and it uses a physical stereotype, “the crooked nose.” Common’s “the past of his race” renders der Vergangenheit seines Volks, the past of his people; the German does use Rasse for the Germans, and in “race and class antipathy” (Rassen- und Classen-Widerwille). Compare §§135–141 (station 15) and station 29’s §357. Keep the praise and the stereotype distinct as you judge the passage.

§349, “The Origin of the Learned once more,” applies the method to a doctrine. The wish merely to preserve oneself is “the expression of a state of distress”; the fundamental instinct of life “aims at the extension of power.” Spinoza, “the consumptive Spinoza,” saw self-preservation as life’s main feature because he lived in distress. Modern science’s attachment to that dogma, “finally and most grossly in Darwinism,” is “probably owing to the origin of most of the inquirers into nature” (German wahrscheinlich; mark ?): their forefathers were poor. “Over the whole of English Darwinism there hovers something of the suffocating air of over-crowded England.” In nature, the section says, “the state of distress does not prevail, but superfluity.” It ends: the struggle turns everywhere “on power, in conformity to the will to power, which is just the will to live.” §349, the will to power

Two notes. First, this is the only place in the book where the phrase appears: Willen zur Macht, the will to power, in the German text used here as in Common. Do not read into it the posthumous compilation later published as The Will to Power, an editorial selection from Nietzsche’s notebooks, not a book he completed. Second, Common’s “the will to live” renders der Wille des Lebens, the will of life, not Schopenhauer’s phrase Wille zum Leben. Mark the section H and V, and test it against §345: does explaining Darwin’s theory by English poverty touch the theory’s worth?

Church, priest, and people

§350, “In Honour of Homines Religiosi,” reads the struggle against the Church as “most certainly” (German ganz gewiss) “the struggle of the more ordinary, cheerful, confiding, superficial natures against the rule of the graver, profounder, more contemplative natures.” The Roman Church rests on “a Southern suspicion of the nature of man,” inherited from “the profound Orient.” Protestantism was “a popular insurrection in favour of the simple, the respectable, the superficial.” And “the French Revolution” gave the sceptre to “the ‘good man’ (the sheep, the ass, the goose, and everything incurably shallow, bawling, and fit for the Bedlam of ‘modern ideas’).” Mark it H and V: a ranking of peoples and movements by depth, stated without a hedge. Compare §§148–149 (station 16), where the Reformation was also read as a sign of the North’s condition. §350, in honour of homines religiosi

§351, “In Honour of Priestly Natures,” is more generous than its neighbours. The people are “a thousand times justified” in honouring “the gentle, serious, simple, chaste, priestly natures,” before whom they can pour out their hearts: “the priest is, and continues to be, a human sacrifice.” Philosophers, for their part, do not count the priest as a sage, because they do not believe in sages at all; they have felt furthest from popular wisdom, “probably” because they were not enough of the people (German wahrscheinlich; mark ?). Philosophers will also “perhaps be the latest to acknowledge” that the people understand anything of the thinker’s passion (German wohl; mark this ? as well). The section ends with the Greeks: it was “modesty which invented in Greece the word ‘philosopher,’” the modesty “of such monsters of pride and self-glorification as Pythagoras and Plato.” Mark it V.

Moral costume and the origin of religions

§352, “Why we can hardly Dispense with Morality,” begins: “The naked man is generally an ignominious spectacle—I speak of us European males (and by no means of European females!).” The German is und nicht einmal von den Europäerinnen!, literally and not even of the European women. The parenthesis leaves women out of the example, but it does not say whether that spares them or judges them more harshly; Common’s “by no means” does not settle the question either. State the aside plainly, and leave that question open. As Europeans need clothes, so they need “the disguise of ‘moral men.’” Not because they are too wild, but because they are too tame: “It is not the fierceness of the beast of prey that finds moral disguise necessary, but the gregarious animal, with its profound mediocrity, anxiety and ennui.” Morality dresses the European up “in ‘divine’ guise.” Mark it P and V. §352, moral costume

§353, “The Origin of Religions,” says that founders invent two things: “a definite mode of life and everyday custom,” and an interpretation that gives it the highest value, and that “the second of these inventions is the more essential.” “Jesus (or Paul), for example, found around him the life of the common people in the Roman province, a modest, virtuous, oppressed life.” He interpreted it, and gave it “the courage to despise every other mode of life,” a secret self-confidence “at last ready ‘to overcome the world’ (that is to say, Rome, and the upper classes throughout the empire).” Buddha found a type “good and kind (and above all inoffensive), owing to indolence.” The founding of a religion “always becomes a long ceremony of recognition.” Mark it H and P. Common’s “Moravians” renders Herrenhuter, the Moravian Brethren of Herrnhut. §353, the origin of religions

Notice the contrast with §319 (station 23), which said that founders of religions never made their experiences “a matter of the intellectual conscience.” Here their genius is interpretation. The two claims can both be true, but only if interpreting a way of life is a different skill from examining one’s own experience.

A difficulty

Does an origin settle a worth?

§345 (station 26) says, “A morality could even have grown out of an error: but with this knowledge the problem of its worth would not even be touched.” Yet §348 explains scholarly habits by family trades, §349 explains Darwinism by “the suffocating air of over-crowded England,” and §350 explains Protestantism by the North’s shallowness.

Three readings are possible.

• Consistent. These sections diagnose why people believe, not whether what they believe is true or valuable. §345 allows such diagnosis; it forbids only mistaking it for a verdict.
• Inconsistent. §349 does use an origin as a verdict. It dismisses a scientific theory by its authors’ class, which is what §345 says the English historians did to morality.
• A heuristic. An origin tells you where to look for a bias; it is a reason to test, not a result. The sections are strongest where they suggest a test and weakest where they stop at a diagnosis.

Decide which the text best supports. Name one sentence from §345 and one from §§348–350.

Check your understanding

Try answering before opening each suggested response.

Writing prompt

Write 200–250 words answering:

Choose one explanation by origin in §§348–350. By §345’s standard, does it touch the worth of what it explains?

• Quote no more than two short phrases.
• Name the kind of origin: family, class, people, or nation. Where it matters, say which word the German uses.
• Say what evidence would support the explanation, and whether the section gives any.

A successful response states the explanation plainly, including any stereotype; separates a psychological diagnosis from an evaluation; and applies §345’s rule to the section itself.

Continue

Continue to station 28: Consciousness, Knowledge, and the Stage-Player →

Read next: Book V, §§354–356. Its question: what can consciousness communicate, and for whom?

Previous station: station 26, the Book V epigraph and §§343–347. Return to the route list in the book guide.

A reading guide from Reading Nietzsche · Revised September 27, 2026.

← Full-text routeTexts & translations