Corpus · On the Genealogy of Morals

How Does the Ascetic Priest Treat Suffering?

On the Genealogy of Morals — Essential Reading Path · Reading 10 of 12

Read: Essay III §§13–18. Stop before §19.
Allow: About 120–155 minutes, including the assigned text, this guide, rereading, and a short written response. You can divide the lesson across two sittings.

Preferred translation: Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. Free alternative: Essay III §§13–18 (Horace B. Samuel).

Roman numerals identify the essay; section numbers restart in each essay, and the Preface is numbered separately. If highlighting fails, locate the stated essay and section. See the edition guide for translation terms and the separate editorial material. The explanations below are this site’s commentary.

Before you read

Someone experiences persistent distress without understanding its source. An explanation gives it a name, a daily practice gives the day a shape, and a community makes the person feel needed. The distress becomes more bearable. What would we need to know before calling this a cure?

Relief matters. But it leaves further questions: has the cause changed, what does the explanation ask the person to believe, and what happens to their dependence on those offering help? This is our example of distinctions Nietzsche brings to the ascetic priest.

Reading 9 ended with an apparent paradox: an ideal that condemns life nevertheless expresses the activity of something living. Nietzsche now interprets the priest as an agent through whom suffering life preserves itself. The interpretation recognizes considerable ingenuity while making its effects difficult to judge.

The main question: How can a practice sustain suffering people while leaving them sick, and whose interests does that preservation serve?

Read Essay III, §§13–18. Follow the movement from the ideal's function, through the priest's management of resentment, to several different forms of relief.

Three things to notice

1. Preservation without recovery. In §13, what does the ascetic ideal accomplish for life? Compare that achievement with the division between healthy and sick demanded in §14.
2. The direction of blame. In §§15–16, distinguish asking what caused suffering from demanding someone responsible for it. What changes when the priest names the sufferer?
3. Different kinds of relief. In §§17–18, compare reducing activity, occupying attention, providing small joys, and forming a community. What does Nietzsche concede that they achieve?

A way to read the passages

§13: a denial that helps life continue

Nietzsche changes the level of explanation. Viewed physiologically, he says, life literally turning against life would be nonsense. The apparent contradiction must express an activity whose function its participants misunderstand. His proposal is that exhausted life invents a means of maintaining itself. Return to Essay III, §13

The priest longs for another kind of existence. Yet the force of that longing binds him to a task in this existence: keeping suffering people attached to living. A promise directed beyond earthly life can organize practices that make earthly life endurable.

This is stronger than exposing a false doctrine. Nietzsche counts the apparent denier among life's great preserving and affirmative forces. The ideal can perform that function even when its followers understand their activity as renunciation of the world.

Preserving life does not, however, mean restoring the kind of vitality Nietzsche most admires. His account concerns a distressed form of life finding ways to persist. The distinction between staying alive, feeling better, and becoming healthier will organize the treatment that follows.

Nor does he explain human sickness only through weakness. He describes humanity as unusually daring, experimental, and exposed to danger. An animal that repeatedly challenges its conditions can also become unusually vulnerable. Disgust with itself may generate another attachment: even the wound becomes something around which life reorganizes.

§14: the explanation becomes a demand for separation

The next section ranks lives and assigns missions. Nietzsche calls exceptional bodily and psychological strength rare, then argues that it needs protection from the sick. The danger he imagines is the communication of self-contempt and resentment, until those who flourish become ashamed of flourishing. Return to Essay III, §14

Follow the proposed movement. Suffering becomes hostility toward successful lives; that hostility presents itself as righteousness; the happy come to regard their happiness as an offense in a world containing misery. Nietzsche fears the combination of disgust with humanity and pity for it, which he connects with a will toward nothingness.

His language goes far beyond criticizing manipulative accusations. He demands separation, rejects nursing as the mission of the healthy, and gives the successful a vastly greater right to existence because he treats them as guarantors of humanity's future. Those are substantive exclusions, not decorative harshness around an otherwise equal concern for everyone.

The category of sickness also moves between suffering, bodily condition, resentment, and moral condemnation. Nietzsche supplies no stable test that would let us sort actual people into these ranks. His attack on supposedly domineering sick women adds a gendered generalization; his denunciation of Dühring explicitly includes antisemitism among the forms of vindictive moralism he despises.

Those different judgments do not cancel one another. We must ask how he moves from interpreting a possible motive to declaring whole kinds of people dangerous. His language of infection describes a cultural and evaluative threat here; it is not medical evidence that contact with people who suffer corrupts health.

§15: the priest shares suffering and exercises command

Section 15 gives the task of tending the sick to someone Nietzsche considers sick himself. The priest must understand their condition from within, yet possess enough self-command and force to become their support and ruler. His authority combines affinity with difference. Return to Essay III, §15

He protects the group against threats from outside and against its own accumulating hostility. Nietzsche compares resentment to an explosive that could destroy both the community and its shepherd. Managing that danger becomes the priest's distinctive achievement.

The animal portraits make this ruler capable of cunning and aggression, while the imagery of balm and poisoned wounds joins assistance to injury. We should not flatten him into either a kindly counselor or a fraud who produces nothing but harm. His protection works through a power whose benefits and damage can be inseparable.

Nietzsche then reconstructs the sufferer's search. A question about the cause of pain becomes a demand for a responsible agent upon whom emotion can be discharged. The intense emotion temporarily drives duller suffering from awareness.

He explicitly distinguishes this from preventing another injury. The point is relief through emotional intensity, even if the supposed offender did not cause the underlying condition. Someone may revisit an old slight because indignation supplies an absorbing activity. This is our illustration of the proposed mechanism, not a diagnosis of any particular complaint.

The priest accepts the demand for someone at fault but names the sufferer. Resentment changes direction. A group threatened by mutual accusation becomes a group whose members search themselves for guilt. Nietzsche calls this answer false while acknowledging its capacity to contain a dangerous force.

This is not the initial invention of bad conscience. Reading 7 examined cruelty turning inward in Essay II. Here the priest redirects resentment and works upon an existing capacity for self-directed suffering; the next reading will follow its interpretation as sin.

§16: interpreting distress as guilt does not establish guilt

Nietzsche lists what the intervention can accomplish: making sufferers less dangerous, directing them toward self-surveillance, organizing them, and provisionally protecting those he ranks as healthier. He also includes the destruction of the supposedly incurable through themselves. His claimed preservation has severe limits within its own description. Return to Essay III, §16

He insists that this emotional treatment does not heal the physiological condition. Its aims concern the management and organization of suffering life. A successful institution and a recovered person are different possible outcomes.

The second argument concerns evidence. Feeling sinful does not prove that sin is present. Nietzsche points to witch trials in which judges and accused could share a conviction of guilt without the supposed offense existing. Sincerity on both sides does not establish the interpretation.

He then extends the claim: what is called pain of the soul is itself an explanation of bodily discomfort whose processes remain insufficiently understood. His deliberately crude contrast between soul and stomach replaces a moral interpretation with a physiological hypothesis.

We should preserve the strength of that hypothesis without treating its vocabulary as established medicine. It challenges the explanation of distress, not the fact that someone suffers. Nor does the witch-trial comparison establish that every experience of remorse lacks a defensible object. It shows why feeling and justification cannot simply be identified.

Nietzsche's assertion that his intended readers need no proof of the hypothesis is itself worth noticing. Shared disbelief in sin can help readers recognize a problem, but agreement does not supply evidence for every physiological account offered in its place.

§17: reducing the experience of life

Nietzsche now praises the priest's inventiveness in consolation while repeating the distinction between felt suffering and its cause. His general explanation of religion places it within struggles against exhaustion and heaviness experienced by populations. Return to Essay III, §17

The proposed causes include climate, diet, disease, and racial or class mixture. His claims about mixture and national dispositions are speculative hierarchies, not findings established by the passage. The historical language of depression should not be read as a precise diagnosis of a present-day condition.

One strategy reduces wishes, stimulation, and activity until life continues at its lowest intensity. Nietzsche compares the desired state with dormancy in animals and plants. What a religious interpretation calls sanctification, he redescribes as a kind of deadening of consciousness.

He emphatically grants that practitioners have obtained real relief. Calling the entire undertaking mere madness would miss both its discipline and its effects. But he also claims that such practices can produce disturbances which participants interpret as illumination or contact with ultimate reality.

Relief and knowledge therefore separate. An experience can change suffering without proving the religious explanation attached to it. Nietzsche's physiological redescription likewise needs support; the error of one account does not automatically demonstrate the other.

The extended discussion of Indian and Christian redemption adds another distinction. He argues that redemption is not attained through virtue and moral improvement, even where virtues help produce the mental state being pursued. His quotations place redemption beyond ordinary categories of deeds and faults.

Nietzsche acknowledges that distinction while interpreting the supreme state as the exhausted person's valuation of deep rest or anesthesia. The account gives the ideal a bodily meaning, but his sweeping assimilation of different religious traditions remains a claim the selected quotations cannot establish by themselves.

§18: filling attention instead of quieting it

Mechanical activity works differently. Instead of reducing the whole field of activity, it occupies consciousness so completely that little room remains for awareness of suffering. Regularity, obedience, routine, and self-forgetfulness become instruments of relief. Return to Essay III, §18

Nietzsche again accepts the effect. Work can make suffering more bearable. He also describes how renaming an existing burden can make a slave or prisoner regard it as a benefit. His inclusion of women as often combining the positions of laborer and prisoner makes subordination part of the scene.

The change of interpretation need not change the arrangement that causes distress. An institution may call exhausting routine therapeutic while gaining more compliant participants. That is our example of the distinction; it does not establish that every structured activity conceals exploitation.

A further method supplies small, repeatable pleasures, particularly giving pleasure to others. Help, praise, gifts, and comfort permit the helper to experience a modest power to act. Nietzsche interprets the consolation through the smallest feeling of superiority accompanying beneficence.

This is a strong account of motive, not merely the observation that kindness sometimes feels pleasant. It makes life-affirming power available within the very practices organized by the ascetic priest. The same underlying impulse, he says, could otherwise express itself through mutual injury.

Mutual assistance becomes a community

Cooperation enlarges these effects. Nietzsche points to associations supporting people through poverty, sickness, and burial in the Roman world. A new concern for the group's life can draw someone beyond their private disgust with themselves.

He calls organization a genuine advance in combating depression. The benefit should survive our criticism of his account. The passage does not portray every shared pleasure as counterfeit merely because the priest promotes it.

Yet he then sharply opposes the weak, who supposedly delight in association, to strong individuals, who associate reluctantly for particular exercises of power. His account of oligarchies makes their members' suppressed desire for tyranny a permanent tension. He claims a universal historical lesson without demonstrating it here.

The sequence thus joins real benefits to contested classifications. Occupation, helping, and belonging can alleviate distress; those effects do not establish Nietzsche's division of human types, the priest's interpretation of suffering, or an institution's right to rule its members.

A difficulty to keep in view

What standard distinguishes preserving a life from improving it?

Nietzsche makes useful distinctions among relieving a feeling, addressing a cause, and maintaining a community. His explanation also depends on a hierarchy that assigns exceptional people a future-bearing importance denied to others. That ranking shapes whose relief counts as a success and whose needs become an obstacle.

Ask what supports both parts. An interpretation might make someone dependent while helping them endure. Care might also develop capacities in the person receiving it and in the person offering it. Nietzsche's categorical separation of healthy and sick does not examine those possibilities adequately.

His physiological language cannot settle the normative question by itself. Even if a practice changes the body in the way he proposes, we still need reasons to judge that change and its costs. Conversely, rejecting his contempt does not answer his question about institutions that make distress manageable while perpetuating its conditions.

Preserve the complication at the center: the priest can succeed at an actual task without curing, and a critic can expose that limit while relying on standards that themselves need criticism.

Check your understanding

Try answering before opening each suggested response.

What should I write in my notes?

Choose an ordinary practice that helps people endure a difficulty: a routine, a shared task, or a mutual-support activity. Write 200–300 words, using an invented example if preferable:

1. Describe the difficulty and the relief the practice supplies.
2. Use §§17–18 to identify the proposed mechanism. Separate observation from conjecture.
3. Distinguish changing felt distress, changing its cause, and strengthening the group.
4. Ask who interprets the difficulty and whether the explanation assigns blame as in §15.
5. State one benefit worth preserving and one cost or exclusion requiring justification. Do not classify the participants as Nietzsche's healthy or sick types.

A strong response can recognize genuine assistance while examining the explanation and authority accompanying it.

Continue the reading

Reading 11: What Does Relief Cost the Sufferer? →

The next session reads Essay III, §§19–23. Nietzsche turns from these comparatively mild forms of relief to emotional excess, guilt, and sin, then asks why the ascetic ideal lacks an effective opponent.

Carry this question forward: What happens when relief comes through intensifying suffering, and how could a sincere healer become responsible for deepening the condition they treat?

Return to the Essential Reading Path

← Reading 9: Can Knowledge Escape Its Own Perspective?Texts & translations