This article begins by showing that, according to Aristotle, the paradox of movement lies in the fact that, in order to account for movement, something per- manent should be assumed. The author intends to show that Aristotle gets the concept of substratum out of the clarification of the different kinds of change, and that such a concept of substratum cannot be understood univocally. Aristotle ... [Show full abstract] argues that the substratum is necessary for keeping the indispensable continuity in change; so he maintains that the matter of change is a constitutive part of the product, the matter being a potential substratum. Mié wonders whether this theory of substratum leaves open the possibility of admitting an absolutely inde- terminate matter that is able to assure the continuity at the most basic level of bodies. The author's answer to this question is negative and he aims to show in what manner change can be explained without the guarantee of persistence, like that the prime matter attempted to preserve.