was from the start a failed project, and the two parallel descriptions of matter were never rendered fully integrated by Latin authors, according to Maier. She expressed this structural incompatibility as that between a metaphysical doctrine (hylomorphism) and a natural philosophical doctrine (theory of elements). Maier also thought that this failure paved the way for the seventeenthcentury rejection of hylomorphism and the success of corpuscularian and atomistic theories. Maier's assessment was reminiscent of Duhem's (1902) strong opposition between hylomorphism and atomism as the two irreducible alternatives for any theory of mixture.56 As Paul Needham has shown, one should add a third alternative theory of mixture to Duhem's and Maier's opposition between Aristotelianism and atomism: the Stoic one, which paralleled the development of Latin Aristotelianism and enjoyed a certainrevival in the Renaissance and in the seventeenth century. Additionally, recent literature has challenged Maier's view according to which an Aristotelian account of mixts was simply not possible. Rega Wood and Michael Weisberg have 53 Cf. on this point Gilson (1952, 434), who argues that, for Scotus, attributing a certain degree of actuality to matter is what makes generation and corruption possible. 54 Most of Peter's account is taken almost literally from the Lectura. 55 Quodl. III, q. 5: "Tertio dico quod sicut forma elementaris substantialis non manet in mixto, ita nec qualitates eorum manent in qualibet parte mixti . . . Quarto dico quod elementa dicuntur manere in mixto quia qualitates aequivalentes qualitatibus elementorum manent" (William Ockham 1967–1988, Vol. 9, 222). (I read Ockham's next explanation on