EXTRAVAGANTES
715
EXTRAVAGANTES
Continuous extension is an objective property of
matter, not a mere mental form moulding the sensuous
impression produced in the sensory organs by some
sort of physical motion. What it is that extension
immediately atTects — whether the ultimate atoms, the
constituent molecules, or the gross mass of matter —
we are unable in the present stage of physical science
to decide. Even should it turn out, however, as many
conjecture, that the densest solid — to say nothing of
a liquid or a gas — is but what might be called an
"infinitely" complex arrangement of infinitesimal
corpuscles — atoms or electrons — gyTating in a matrix
of ether, continuous extension would still remain real
(objective), though it would then be the immediate
property of the constituent corpuscles and the ether
instead of a property of the gross mass. It is experi-
mentally demonstrable that sensuous impressions are
aroused in us by bodies as extended and resistent.
Now if bodies were constituted of simple, unextended
points — monads or forces — these could not stimulate
the sensory organs, since such elements, apart from
the fact that they W'Ould all coalesce and copenetrate,
could not be the subjects of material activity (etherial
or aerial vibrations, chemical reactions, i. e. the im-
mediate sense-stimuli). Nor could the organs evoke
the sensation, since in the hj^pothesis they, too, being
made up of une.xtended elements, would be incapable
of material action. Neither wUl it do to say that the
motion of the supposed "points" might evoke sensa-
tion, since being unextended thej' would be impercep-
tible whether in motion or at rest.
Extension is an "absolute accident", that is not a mere mode in which substance exists, as, for instance, are motion and rest. It seems to have a certain dis- tinct entity of its own. This, of course, would most probably never have been suspected by the human mind unaided by Revelation. But given the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, wherein the extensional dimensions and sensible qualities of bread and wine persist after the conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, reason, speculating on the doc- trine, discerns some grounds for the possibility of the real distinction and even severance between substance and local extension. In the first place there are mo- tives for inferring a real distinction between substance andextension (actual and local), or, inotherwords, that extension does not constitute the essence of material substance (as Descartes maintained that it does): (a) substance is the root principle of action; extension as such is either inactive or at most a proximate principle ; (b) substance is the ground of specification; extension as such is indifferent to any species, since shape or fig- ure which is the dimensional termination of extension depends upon the specific form ; (c) substance is iden- tical in the entire mass and in each of its parts (e. g. in gold), while extension is not the same in the whole and in each of its parts; (d) substance is the principle of unity ; extension is the formal principle of plurality; (e) suljstance essentially demands three dimensions; extension may be realized in one or two ; (f ) substance remaining the same, extension may increase or de- crease.
Given a real distinction between extension and sub- stance, no intrinsic impossibility can be proven to exist in the separation of one from the other, for although internal extension naturally demands exter- nal, there is no evidence that the demand is so essen- tially imperative that Omnipotence cannot super- naturally suspend its realization and by other means afford the accidents — extension and the rest — the support which the substance naturally supplies. Since material substance owes the distribution of its integral parts to extension, the question arises whether, inde- pendently of extension, it possesses any such parts (it, of course, possesses parts essential to corporeal sub- stance, matter and form), or is simple, indivisible. St.
Thomas and many others maintain that substance as
such is indivisible. Suarez and others hold that it is
divisible. For this and the other questions concerning
the divisibility of extension, and the psychology of the
subject, the reader is referred to the works mentioned
below.
Balmes. Fundamental Philosophy (New York, 1S64); Far- oes. L'Ideedu Cantinu (Paris, 1894); Nys, Cosmotogie (Louyain, 1906);Ladd, Psychology Descriptive and Explanatory (New York, 1895); Idem, Theory of Reality (New York, 1899); Gutberlet, Naturphilosophie (Miinster, 1894); Maher, Psychology (New York, 1903); Willems, Institutiones Philosophia: (Trier. 1906); HuGON, Philosophia Naturalis (Paris, 1907); Pecsi, Cutsus brems PhilosophicB (Esztergom, Hungary, 1906).
F. P. Siegfried.
Extravagantes (extra, outside; vagari, to wan- der). — This word is employed to designate some papal decretals not contained in certain canonical collections which possess a special authority, i. e. they are not found in the Decree of Gratian or the three official collec- tions of the "Corpus Juris" (the Decretals of Gregory IX, the Sixth Book of the Decretals, and the Clemen- tines). The term was first applied to those papal documents which Gratian had not inserted in his "Decree" (about 1140), but which, however, were obligatory upon the whole Church, also to other decre- tals of a later date, and possessed of the same author- ity. Bernard of Pavia designated under the name of "Breviarium Extravagantium ", or Digest of the "Extravagantes", the collection of papal documents which he compiled between 1187 and 1191. Eventhe Decretals of Gregory IX (published 1234) were long known as the "Liber" or "Collectio Extra", i. e. the collection of the canonical laws not contained in the " Decree ' ' of Gratian. This term is now applied to the collections known as the "Extravagantes Joannis XXII " and the " Extravagantes communes", both of which are found in all editions of the "Corpus Juris Canonici". When John XXII (1316-1334) pub- lished the decretals known as the Clementines, there already existed some pontifical documents, obligatory upon the whole Church but not included in the "Corpus Juris". This is why these Decretals were called "Extravagantes". Their number was in- creased by the inclusion of all the pontifical laws of later date, added to the manuscripts of the " Cor- pus Juris", or gathered into separate collections. In 1325 Zenselinus de Cassanis added a gloss to twenty constitutions of Pope John XXII, and named this collection " Viginti Extravagantes papa3 Joannis XXII". The others were known as "Extravagantes communes", a title given to the collection by Jean Chappuis in the Paris edition of the "Corpus Juris" (1499-1505). He adopted the systematic order of the official collections of canon law, and classified in a similar way the "Extravagantes" commonly met with (hence "Extravagantes communes") in the manuscripts and editions of the "Corpus Juris". This collection contains decretals of the following popes: Martin IV, Boniface VIII (notably the celebrated Bull "Unam Sanctam"), Benedict XI, Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII, Clement VI, Urban V, Martin V, Eugene IV, Callistus III, Paul II, Sixtus IV (1281-1484). Chappuis also classified the "Extrava- gantes" of John XXII under fourteen titles, contain- ing in all twenty chapters. These two collections are of lesser value than the three others which form the "Corpus Juris Canonici"; they possess no official value, nor has custom bestowed such on them. On the other hand, many of the decretals comprised in them contain legislation obligatory upon tlie whole Church, e. g. the Constitution of Paul II, "Ambitio- sx", which forbade the alienation of ecclesiastical goods. This, however, is not true of all of themr some had even been formally abrogated at the time when Chappuis made his collection; three decretals of John XXII, are reproduced in both collections. Both the collections were printed in the official (1852.
