Nicolas Malebranche

← Encyclopedia

Nicolas Malebranche was a French priest of the Oratory and one of the most ambitious philosophers of the seventeenth century, who set out to fuse the new science of René Descartes with the theology of Augustine and arrived at a system in which God is not merely the world’s maker but its sole continuing cause and the medium of all human knowing. Born in Paris on 6 August 1638 — by his own biographer’s reckoning the youngest of a large family, son of a secretary to Louis XIII and of a sister of a viceroy of New France — he came into the world with a malformed spine and weak lungs, and was kept at home under a tutor until he was sixteen. He studied at the Collège de la Marche and then philosophy and theology at the Sorbonne, where the reigning Aristotelian scholasticism left him cold. In 1660 he declined a canonry at Notre-Dame and entered the Congregation of the Oratory of Jesus, the priestly society founded in 1611 by Cardinal Pierre de Bérulle on a deeply Augustinian piety. There he buried himself in church history, Hebrew, and Scripture, and above all in Augustine, and was ordained a priest on 14 September 1664. He might have remained an unremarkable cleric had he not, the same year, come upon a posthumous edition of Descartes’s Treatise on Man (Traité de l’homme) at a bookseller’s stall. His earliest biographer, the Oratorian Yves André, records that he read it with such violent palpitations of the heart that he had to keep setting it down. The encounter redirected his life. A decade of Cartesian study followed, and out of it came his masterwork, The Search after Truth (De la recherche de la vérité), which appeared in two installments in 1674 and 1675 and then went through edition after edition, each larger than the last — six in his lifetime, the final one in 1712, swollen with the long appended Elucidations (Éclaircissements) he had begun adding in 1678.

Occasionalism: God the only true cause

Two doctrines hold the system together. The first is occasionalism: the claim that finite things never genuinely cause anything at all. When one billiard ball strikes another, or a decision moves a limb, the impact and the wish are only occasions on which God, the single real agent, produces the effect. Malebranche took the Cartesian split between thinking substance and extended substance and pressed it to a conclusion Descartes himself had shrunk from. Descartes had let mind and body interact and had left genuine forces in matter; Malebranche concluded that nothing in either realm can act on the other, or even on its own kind — that no created thing carries any causal power whatever. His decisive argument is the demand for a necessary connection. A true cause, he holds, is one between which and its effect the mind perceives a necessary link, such that the effect could not fail to follow; but between any created thing and any supposed effect of it no such connection is ever perceived. Only between the will of an omnipotent being and what it wills is the connection necessary — to conceive God willing a thing is to conceive that thing done. Therefore God alone is a true cause, and creatures are at most occasional causes: the regularities of nature are the regular, lawlike willing of God, acting in accordance with general laws he has freely laid down. What looks like the push of one body or the grip of the soul on the arm is the unfailing fidelity of the divine will to its own order. The doctrine did not spring from nowhere: it gathered up tendencies already present in Cartesianism — in Géraud de Cordemoy, Louis de la Forge, and the Flemish Cartesian Arnold Geulincx — but Malebranche gave occasionalism its most complete and uncompromising form.

The vision in God

The second doctrine is the vision in God. The mind does not perceive external things directly, nor by ideas of its own making; it sees them in the ideas that exist eternally in the divine understanding. An idea, for Malebranche, is not a modification of one’s own thinking but a real being, the very archetype of the thing, and archetypes have their home in God. To know a triangle is to behold, in the divine intellect, the eternal essence of triangle — what he came to call intelligible extension, the single infinite idea of body in which every particular figure is contained. He argued the point by elimination: ideas come to us neither from the objects themselves, nor from our own minds, which cannot manufacture eternal and necessary truths, nor are they created with us; the only adequate source of the immutable, universal ideas by which we think is the mind of God, in which created minds participate. He tied the doctrine explicitly to Augustine’s teaching of divine illumination, the claim that the soul knows eternal truths by a light that is not its own. One distinction he insisted on, against those who would caricature him: vision in God is not vision of God. To see things in the divine ideas is not to see the divine essence as the blessed are promised to see it; the mind reads the intelligible world that God contains without thereby comprehending God. Reason, he held, just is the divine Logos, the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity — so that to reason truly and to consult the inner light are one act. Knowledge and being alike run back, at every moment, to the one source.

To these two pillars Malebranche joined a third doctrine that would prove the most explosive: an account of providence and grace built from the same architecture. In the Treatise on Nature and Grace (Traité de la nature et de la grâce, 1680) he argued that God acts, for the most part, by general volitions expressing what he called the simplicity of God’s ways: a wise and perfect being does not intervene piecemeal but governs the whole order, of nature and of salvation alike, through simple and general laws worthy of his wisdom, reserving particular volitions for genuine miracles. From this he drew a theodicy — the apparent disorders and undeserved miseries of the world are the unavoidable cost of a creation run by laws simple enough to honor their author. The same logic fell on grace itself: even the distribution of saving grace, on Malebranche’s account, flows from general laws administered through the merits of Christ rather than from a separate divine decree for each soul. It was an austere and beautiful proposal, and it set the whole theological weather of his century against him.

The Arnauld controversy

The combination made Malebranche both celebrated and embattled. Antoine Arnauld, the great theologian of Port-Royal and a formidable Cartesian in his own right, read the Nature and Grace in manuscript, was alarmed, and set out to demolish the whole system. His opening blow, oddly, fell not on the theology but on the epistemology: in On True and False Ideas (Des vraies et des fausses idées, 1683) he denied that ideas are representative beings standing between the mind and its objects, holding instead that an idea simply is the perceptual act in its objective reach. Malebranche answered in 1684, and the quarrel widened from the nature of ideas into providence, grace, miracles, and the very meaning of God’s generality. It ran for some eleven years and filled several volumes on either side — by the usual count four of Malebranche’s collected works and two of Arnauld’s — and did not stop when Arnauld died in 1694, continuing through letters published from his papers. The campaign had teeth beyond the page: through Arnauld’s allies in Rome, the Treatise on Nature and Grace was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1690, and the Search after Truth followed it there in 1709. There was irony in this, since works of the Jansenist Arnauld already stood on the same Index. A second front opened over ethics. Against the Benedictine François Lamy, Malebranche’s Treatise on the Love of God (1697) refused the quietist reading that virtue must flow from a wholly disinterested pure love — he held that pleasure is a real good and a legitimate motive — and that refusal aligned him, in the great quarrel then dividing Bossuet from Fénelon and condemning Madame Guyon, with the anti-quietist side.

Reception: Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume

Beyond the theologians, the philosophers came. Leibniz, who had met Malebranche in Paris around 1675 and corresponded with him for decades, admired the rigor while rejecting the occasionalist machinery: he granted that created substances do not, in strict metaphysical terms, act on one another, but he refused a God who must intervene at every instant — a perpetual miracle, he called it, a god from the machine — and offered his pre-established harmony in its place. Each treated the same problem of how distinct substances keep step; each gave God a different office. George Berkeley borrowed heavily from the vision in God and from occasionalism while loudly denying he was a disciple, insisting the things we perceive are our own ideas and not archetypes beheld in the divine mind. John Locke wrote, but withheld from print, an examination of the opinion of seeing all things in God, judging it a notion that would spread little and die of itself. David Hume found in the denial of any perceived necessary connection between cause and effect a precedent he could turn to ends Malebranche would have abhorred: where the priest argued that no necessary connection is found among creatures because the only true cause is God, Hume kept the premise and dropped the conclusion, making the absence of perceived connection a fact about the mind’s habits rather than a proof of divine agency. The same observation served, in one hand, as a ladder to God and, in the other, as the foundation of skepticism about causation itself.

The mystic and the rationalist

For a tradition attentive to mysticism, the interest of Malebranche lies in how near his rationalism runs to contemplation. A doctrine built from geometry and Cartesian physics ends by placing the seat of all truth within the divine mind and making every act of understanding a kind of looking toward God — a philosopher’s version, austere and argued, of the older claim, carried from Neoplatonism into Augustine, that the soul finds the light it knows by in something greater than itself. Whether this makes him a mystic or a rigorous metaphysician is a question scholars have contested for two centuries, and contest still. Nineteenth-century readers spoke freely of his mystical theory of the vision of all things in God; Henri Gouhier, in the 1920s, organized the whole system around a religious experience; Ferdinand Alquié concluded that Malebranche began with a vision in God and ended with a vision by God, sliding toward the contemplative pole. Against this runs the dominant modern reading, which sets him squarely in the rationalist line of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz — a builder of argued metaphysics, not a seeker of mystical union, for whom even the inner light is approached by proof. A third party holds the dichotomy itself anachronistic: it asks a seventeenth-century Oratorian, who philosophized as a Catholic priest and saw no wall between demonstration and devotion, to stand on one side of a line his age had not yet drawn. He thought he was proving it.

The man and his afterlife

Malebranche lived almost his entire adult life within the Oratory in Paris, frail throughout, and gained a European reputation that drew correspondents and visitors from across the continent. Pierre Bayle, in his Historical and Critical Dictionary, ranked him among the greatest philosophers of the age. In 1699 the reorganized Académie royale des sciences made him an honorary member, and he pursued questions in optics, the perception of color, the laws of the communication of motion (which he revised in 1700 under Leibniz’s prodding), and the new mathematics of the infinitely small. Late in his career he turned his system outward: the Dialogue between a Christian Philosopher and a Chinese Philosopher (1708) measured his theism against a report of Neo-Confucian thought, and his last work, the Reflections on Physical Premotion (1715), returned to the question of grace and human freedom. He fell ill in the summer of 1715 while staying with a friend at Villeneuve-Saint-Georges and died at the Oratory in Paris on 13 October 1715, six weeks after Louis XIV, in whose reign his whole life had been folded — he had been born one month before the king. A durable legend has it that a heated argument with the visiting Berkeley hastened his end; the chronology refuses it, and it is a story, not a fact. After a long eclipse his work was recovered by French scholarship in the nineteenth century and by Anglophone philosophy from the 1980s, and he stands now where his contemporaries already placed him: between Descartes and the Enlightenment, the most systematic mind the Oratory produced.

Texts and scholarship

The French corpus runs from the Search after Truth (1674–75) through the Christian Conversations (1677), the Treatise on Nature and Grace (1680), the Christian and Metaphysical Meditations (1683), the Treatise of Ethics (1684), and the mature Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion (Entretiens sur la métaphysique et sur la religion, 1688), to the late dialogues and the final Reflections of 1715. The early modern editions are public domain and survive in the Bibliothèque nationale’s digital library, Gallica, including the first Recherche and the expanded edition of 1678. English readers met him quickly: Father Malebranche His Treatise concerning the Search after Truth was Englished by Thomas Taylor of Magdalen College, Oxford (printed at Oxford, 1694; corrected London edition 1700) — a translator not to be confused with the later Neoplatonist of the same name — while a rival version by Richard Sault appeared in London in 1694–95, and James Shipton turned the ethics into A Treatise of Morality in 1699. The modern critical foundation is the twenty-volume Œuvres complètes directed by André Robinet (CNRS / Vrin, 1958–1984), several of whose volumes were edited by Geneviève Rodis-Lewis. Standard English versions are Thomas Lennon and Paul Olscamp’s The Search after Truth (1980; Cambridge, 1997), Patrick Riley’s Treatise on Nature and Grace (Oxford, 1992), and Nicholas Jolley and David Scott’s Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion (Cambridge, 1997). The interpretive literature is large and continuing: Henri Gouhier’s studies of his religious experience and vocation (1926); Martial Gueroult’s three-volume Malebranche (1955–59); Geneviève Rodis-Lewis’s monograph (1963); Ferdinand Alquié’s Le cartésianisme de Malebranche (1974); Charles McCracken’s Malebranche and British Philosophy (1983); Nicholas Jolley’s The Light of the Soul (1990); Steven Nadler’s Malebranche and Ideas (1992) and his edited Cambridge Companion to Malebranche (2000); Tad Schmaltz’s Malebranche’s Theory of the Soul (1996); and Andrew Pyle’s Malebranche (2003). For orientation, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Malebranche and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Malebranche both survey the system, the controversies, and the standing scholarly debates.

Every line of the system bends back to a single point. The motion of bodies is the will of God renewing the world from instant to instant; the knowledge of a triangle is the divine archetype shown to a created mind; the grace that saves and the law that orders nature are the same simplicity working at different depths. Strike at any link in Malebranche’s chain — the falling stone, the geometer’s proof, the soul’s least true thought — and the chain pulls taut at the far end, where the only cause and the only light are one and the same. That is not a conclusion he reached at the close of his argument. It is the place from which every argument set out, and the place to which, by his own design, each one returns.

→ Related: Rene Descartes · Benedictus De Spinoza · Blaise Pascal · Francois Fenelon · Cartesianism · Augustine Of Hippo · Augustinian Divine Illumination · Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz · Mysticism · Neoplatonism · Quietism · Francis Bacon · Port Royal Catholicism · Divine Providence · Grace In Christianity · John Locke · Logos · Substance · Reason