5. That space, by which word I here understand imaginary space, which is coincident with the magnitude of any body, is called the _place_ of that body; and the body itself is that which we call the _thing placed_. Now _place_, and the _magnitude_ of the thing placed, differ. First in this, that a body keeps always the same _magnitude_, both when it is at rest, and when it is moved; but when it is moved, it does not keep the same _place_. Secondly in this, that _place_ is a phantasm of any body of such and such quantity and figure; but _magnitude_ is the peculiar accident of every body; for one body may at several times have several places, but has always one and the same magnitude. Thirdly in this, that _place_ is nothing out of the mind, nor _magnitude_ any thing within it. And lastly, _place_ is feigned extension, but _magnitude_ true extension; and a placed body is not extension, but a thing extended. Besides, _place is immovable_; for, seeing that which is moved, is understood to be carried from place to place, if place were moved, it would also be carried from place to place, so that one place must have another place, and that place another place, and so on infinitely, which is ridiculous. And as for those, that, by making _place_ to be of the same nature with _real space_, would from thence maintain it to be immovable, they also make place, though they do not perceive they make it so, to be a mere phantasm. For whilst one affirms that place is therefore said to be immovable, because space in general is considered there; if he had remembered that nothing is general or universal besides names or signs, he would easily have seen that that space, which he says is considered in general, is nothing but a phantasm, in the mind or the memory, of a body of such magnitude and such figure. And whilst another says: real space is made immovable by the understanding; as when, under the superficies of running water, we imagine other and other water to come by continual succession, that superficies fixed there by the understanding, is the _immovable place_ of the river: what else does he make it to be but a phantasm, though he do it obscurely and in perplexed words? Lastly, the nature of _place_ does not consist in the _superficies of the ambient_, but in _solid space_; for the whole placed body is coextended with its whole place, and every part of it with every answering part of the same place; but seeing every placed body is a solid thing, it cannot be understood to be coextended with superficies. Besides, how can any whole body be moved, unless all its parts be moved together with it? Or how can the internal parts of it be moved, but by leaving their place? But the internal parts of a body cannot leave the superficies of an external part contiguous to it; and, therefore, it follows, that if place be the superficies of the ambient, then the parts of a body moved, that is, bodies moved, are not moved. [Sidenote: What is full and empty.]