medieval philosophers would have been familiar with; this reductive summary cannot give justice to the complexity of Aristotle's account or to the extensive literature devoted to it. Recent discussions are provided by Frede (2004) and by Cooper (2004). I also rely on Joachim (1904; 1922), Sorabji (1988, 60–78) and Rashed's (2005) exhaustive commentary from his Budé edition of Aristotle. 7 Zabarella (1604, 240a–241a) ("Confirmatio eiusdem sententiae authoritate graecorum interpretum"). 8 See Sorabji (2005, 290–315) for a fast and useful presentation of the ancient commentators' views on mixture, with texts and references to bibliography. Very few Greek commentaries on De Gen. have survived: Philoponus's, and through it, fragments of Alexander's, and Alexander's De mixtione, mostly concerned with refuting the Stoic position. See Todd (1976), Hahm (1985), Lewis (1988) andDe Haas (1999). 318 Lucian Petrescu We can use the exegesis of the sixteenth century philosopher Giacomo Zabarella as a historical guide into the positions known and developed by Latin Aristotelianism. Zabarella wrote a Liber de mistione toward the end of the philosophical lifespan of the Aristotelian theory of mixts. He divided the positions available to him between the four authors mentioned: Avicenna, Averroes, Saint Thomas together with "the rest of the Latins," and Duns Scotus. These authors provided for him a complete panorama of possible solutions.9 The technical question posed by the commentators, according to Zabarella, was: are the elements kept in the mixt at the level of their (substantial) form, or are they kept at the level of their qualities?10 Zabarella recited Avicenna's position (1), who