Throughout the Middle Ages, the three-dimensional void space rejected by Aristotle as a candidate for place was regularly described as the “common” or “vulgar” opinion. Not only did Aristotle himself suggest this in the Physics, but ironically, the characterization of three-dimensional void space as common or vulgar was invoked in the Middle Ages in order to save Aristotle from the charge that he himself had advocated the rejected opinion. For it was generally acknowledged that in the Categories, or Predicamenta, as it was known in the Middle Ages, Aristotle had actually assigned the properties of tridimensionality and divisibility to place and body. According to one scholastic interpretation, Aristotle was believed to have declared in the Predicamenta that “as are the dimensions of a body so are the dimensions of its place and conversely; and that the parts of a body are joined (copulantur) to the parts of its place.” No exegesis, however subtle, could explicate the passage in the Predicamenta as suggestive of place as a two-dimensional surface, the position upheld by Aristotle in the Physics and known to be his true opinion. The dilemma was resolved by appeal to Averroes, who, in his Commentary on the Metaphysics, explained that in the Predicamenta Aristotle had frequently described common, or vulgar, opinions, whereas he sought to determine the truth in other parts of philosophy.