Genèse du Dieu souverain (Archéologie de la puissance II) by Gwenaëlle Aubry (review)

As the subtitle indicates, and the introduction explains in more detail, this is a sequel to Aubry's 2006 book, Dieu sans la puissance. Dunamis et energeia chez Aristote et chez Plotin. In the present as well as in the previous studies, the author traces the developments and transformations undergone by the notion of power (dunamis, potentia) and in particular how these transformations affect the understanding of God. Whereas the first study follows the development from Aristotle's account of the divine being to Plotinus, the present volume covers, in five densely written chapters, medieval philosophers from Augustine to John Duns Scotus. According to the author, the history of the notion of power reflects two broad shifts, which she sets out to explore in her overall project: one from an Aristotelian ontology based on the act-potency distinction to an ontology relying on the distinction between power and action, and another from a God of pure actuality to an omnipotent God.

Despite the overall ambition, it is best to approach this book as a set of almost independent studies around the problem of divine omnipotence. In the first chapter, the author examines Augustine's views on divine omnipotence. As Aubry points out, divine omnipotence goes hand in hand with divine goodness for Augustine. That God is good does not mean that God's omnipotence is restricted, nor can God's omnipotence be a reason for abandoning what is good. She points to Augustine's struggle with Manicheanism as one of the motives behind the strong link between goodness and omnipotence, and deals with some of the problems Augustine's account seems to face. For why is there evil and damnation if God is not only good but also all powerful? This is an incredibly rich chapter, which also covers Augustine's views on powers in creatures.

Not all medieval authors managed to maintain the delicate balance between divine goodness and omnipotence. In the second chapter, Aubry contrasts two thinkers, Peter Damian and Peter Abelard, who drew completely opposing consequences from divine omnipotence. Whereas for Peter Damian it guarantees the radical contingency of the creation, for Abelard it means that the existing created world is the best possible world, which also means that it was necessary for God to create it as it is. As Aubry shows convincingly, their differences in how they understand and prioritize divine goodness lead them to their diverging conclusions.

The third (and shortest) chapter examines how the understanding of divine omnipotence changes during the thirteenth century up to the condemnations of 1277 and contrasts this development with the emergence of the famous distinction between God's absolute and ordained power. The author makes a good case for what she calls the autonomisation of divine omnipotence during this period.

The last two chapters deal with two main figures in medieval philosophy: Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus. Aquinas provides Aubry with a good case study for how the Aristotelian idea of God as pure actuality is thought to be compatible with a conception of God as omnipotent. Although the main preoccupations of the previous chapters take a back seat here, this compact section does a good job elucidating Aquinas's conception of the first being and how the latter can shed light on Aquinas's ontology of created beings. Not surprisingly, the chapter on Duns Scotus takes up his novel account of the will and contingency, which has major implications for how Duns Scotus conceives of divine omnipotence; for it is here, as the author argues, that we can find contingency transferred from what is in potency to the omnipotence of the first cause.

Unlike other books covering ambitious topics over a period of almost nine hundred years, Aubry's study avoids hopping from one canonical figure to the next. In this very erudite book, she gives voice not only to Augustine, Aquinas...