Essais de Theodicee sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberte de lhomme et lorigine du mal, more simply known as Theodicee, is a book of philosophy by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz. The book, published in 1710, introduced the term theodicy, and its optimistic approach to the problem of evil is thought to have inspired Voltaires Candide. Much of the work consists of a response to the ideas of the French philosopher Pierre Bayle, with whom Leibniz carried on a debate for many years.
Theodicee was the only book Leibniz published during his lifetime; his other book, New Essays on Human Understanding, was published only after his death, in 1765.


1. Central claims
In various works, including his famous Historical and Critical Dictionary 1697, Pierre Bayle had argued that there is no defensible rational solution to the problem of why God permits evil. More specifically, Bayle had argued that powerful philosophical arguments can be given against a number of orthodox Christian teachings, including the goodness, justice, and freedom of God. Leibniz responds to Bayles arguments in detail, arguing that it can be proved that God is an infinitely perfect being, and that such a being must have created a world that has the greatest possible balance of good over evil "the best of all possible worlds". Leibniz distinguishes three forms of evil: moral, physical, and metaphysical. Moral evil is sin, physical evil is pain, and metaphysical evil is limitation. God permits moral and physical evil for the sake of greater goods, and metaphysical evil i.e., limitation is unavoidable since any created universe must necessarily fall short of Gods absolute perfection. Human free will is consistent with Gods foreknowledge, because even though all events in the universe are foreseen and pre-determined, they are not necessitated i. e., logically necessary, and only if human choices were necessitated would free will be an illusion. Against Bayles claims derived from Augustine that it is unjust for God to damn unbaptized infants or adult non-Christians who had lived as well as they could, Leibniz denies that Christian teaching supports such claims. Against Bayles claim that God cannot be free since he cannot fail to choose the best, Leibniz argues that such "moral necessity" is consistent with divine freedom. God would lack freedom only if there are no possible worlds in which less than maximal goodness exists, which is not the case, Leibniz argues.

mathematician Gottfried Leibniz coined the term theodicy in 1710 in his work Theodicee though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed
Des Bosses met Leibniz sometime in 1705 and agreed to translate his Theodicee into Latin. Their correspondence continued until Leibniz s death in 1716
discussion by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, published as an appendix to Leibniz s Theodicee Connolly, S. J. King, William Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
on 5 April 1896. His chief philosophical works were an edition of the Theodicee of Leibniz 1874 a monograph on John Locke 1878 Devoirs et droits
who each were allowed their own wife. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, in his Theodicee referenced the title of this work, using Sevarambian as a synonym for
coined by the German polymath Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Theodicee sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberte de l homme et l origine du mal Essays
possible worlds. Leibniz had published only a book on moral matters, the Theodicee 1710 and his more metaphysical views had never been exposed to a sufficient
on Human Understanding Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis Protogaea Theodicee Leibniz Archive Hannover at the Leibniz Research Center - Hannover Leibniz
an honourable lady and Dr. George Hickes Gottfried Leibniz Essais de Theodicee sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberte de l homme et l origine du mal Essays
moderne. Theologie du silence de Dieu apres Auschwitz, critique de la theodicee enfin recours à la notion de Mal absolu, voilà les points par où il faut
rather than to empirical evidence. Leibniz is noted for his optimism - his Theodicee tries to justify the apparent imperfections of the world by claiming that