Malebranche's Theodicy

Malebranche's Theodicy ANDREW G. BLACK LEIBNIZ'SSOLUTIONtO the problem of evil, his theodicy, might be regarded as a paradigm of philosophical theology. Its pattern, as with so much of Leibniz's philosophy, is reconciliation of deep metaphysical truth with recalcitrant appearance . Thus, a theodicy is not just any solution to the problem; strictly speaking it is a vindication of divine providence in the face of the challenge posed by apparent imperfections of all kinds in creation.' The preeminence of Leibniz's theodicy as a modern solution to the problem of evil has helped to obscure distinguished contributions from among his contemporaries. Not least among these is that made by Nicolas Malebranche, a philosopher having much in common with Leibniz (the lines of influence run in both directions). ~ Malebranche shows a deep concern for the problem of evil throughout his philosophical writings, though nowhere more so than in his Treatise on Nature and Grace, a a book written in response to the Jansenist4 challenge to orthodox In addition to an entire and substantial book, the Theodicy (in volume 6 of C.J. Gerhardt, ed. Diephilosophischen Schriften yon G. W. Leibniz [Hildesheim: Olms, 1965] and in translation from the French by E. M. Huggard [La Salle: Open Court, 1985]), a number of Leibniz's essays contain versions of his theodicy. See, for example, articles 1- 7 of the Discourse on Metaphysics; also "A Vindication of God's Justice Reconciled with his other Perfections and all his Actions," a summary essay in Latin containing the main doctrines of the Theodicy and bound with it for publication in the second edition (also in volume 6 of Gerhardt). •Andr6 Robinet, ed., Malebranche et Leibniz: Relations Personelles (Paris: Vrin, 1955), constitutes a comprehensive resource for the transactions between the two, including a catalogue of all their interactions, texts of their significant philosophical communications with each other, both direct and indirect, and an extensive commentary on their philosophical relations. The extent of influence , in particular of Leibniz's influence on Malebranche, is a matter of controversy. In his introduction to Malebranche et Leibniz, Robinet defends the view that influence was strong in both directions. For recent discussion of the relations between Leibniz's and Malebranche's theodicies see Catherine Wilson, "Leibnizian Optimism," Journal of Philosophy 80 0983), and a paper by Steven Nadler forthcoming in the Journal of the History of ldeas. 3In A. Robinet, ed., Oeuvres Completes de Malebranche (Paris: Vrin, 1958-1967), vol. 5' The following abbreviations are employed in this paper: Treatise = Treatise on Nature and Grace (Trait( de la Nature et de la Grace). Dialogues = Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion (Entretiens sur la M~taphysique et sur la Religion). [27] 28 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 35:1 JANUARY ~997 teaching on grace, and one in which many pages are devoted to Malebranche's vindication of divine providence in view both of the existence of natural imperfections and of the seemingly arbitrary distribution of the grace necessary for salvation. For Malebranche, the problem is particularly poignant given his strict adherence to a thoroughgoing occasionalism.5 Malebranche holds an uncommonly strong version of the doctrine of divine providence. It is rooted in the idea that God is the sole and total cause of every single state of affairs requiring a cause in the created world. He also holds that God is "the infinitely perfect Being," a being who always acts in a way that maximizes his own glory. "But really!" declares his spokesman Theodore in the Dialogues on Metaphysics. "So many monsters, so many disorders, the great number of impious men-does all this contribute to the perfection of the universe?" (OC XII 21 ~, D 210--11). An examination of Malebranche's solution to this problem will take us to the heart of an important dispute. Malebranche's Treatise was originally composed in answer to a challenge laid down by Antoine Arnauld, and the book occasioned the prolonging of a fierce and ill-tempered debate between the two. 6 After laying out, in section ~ of this paper, Malebranche's treatment of the problem of evil, I will turn my attention, in section 2, to Arnauld's most serious criticism. Central to Malebranche...