 The commentary tradition that found its culmination in Simplicius consisted in a sincere attempt to arrive at a better understanding of the Categories. By reading Simplicius’ commentary one still gets a sense of the extraordinary ingenuity that this tradition employed in explicating this short yet elusive treatise. But one also gets the impression that this tradition had no privileged access to this text. Quite the opposite: from the beginning of the revival of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle and into Late Antiquity, the Categories remained a tantalizing puzzle. Not only its title, but also its unity, structure, and place in the Aristotelian corpus were intensely discussed. For instance, various titles are attested in the commentary tradition: Introduction to the Topics, On the Genera of Being, On the Ten Genera, The Ten Categories, Categories (Simplicius, In Cat. 15.  26–30). Each of these titles reflected a certain interpretation of what the treatise is about. Andronicus is the first interpreter who is known to have preferred the title Categories. He rejected the title Introduction to the Topics and considered the final chapters of the Categories—the so-called Postpraedicamenta—a later addition contrary to the purpose of the book. He held that the people who added those chapters also inscribed the book with the title Introduction to the Topics (Simplicius, In Cat. 279. 8–10). By contrast, Adrastus of Aphrodisias defended the relationship between the Categories and the Topics in a work entitled Concerning the Order of Aristotle’s Treatises (Simplicius, In Cat. 16. 1–4). The dispute was not confined to the organization Aristotle’s works, but it extended to the philosophical significance of the treatise. The title Categories eventually prevailed and, along with the title, a certain interpretation of the treatise imposed itself.