Search

In his discussion of prime matter in De rebus naturalibus, Jacob Zabarella (1533–1589) defends the position that prime matter is extended. However, it is less clear how he accounts for its extension. There is an important text where he apparently suggests that prime matter is extended in and of itself (the intrinsically extended view). However, there are two other texts apparently stating that matter is extended in virtue of a distinct accident in the category of quantity (the accidentally quantified view). Each interpretation has been represented by a contemporary commentator, based upon the corresponding texts. However, I argue that a decisive reading based solely upon any particular text(s) is not available. Nevertheless, examining Zabarella's writing on the topic as a whole, the trajectory of his overall argument is remarkably sympathetic to Averroes, who famously took the accidentally quantified position. Thus, from this systematic feature, the accidentally quantified reading is more reasonable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]