Simplicius, On Aristotle’s Categories 29.28–30.5

Responding to this difficulty [sc. that ‘account of the being/substance’ at Aristotle, Categories 1a2 implies that homonymy occurs only in the category of substance, an implication for which Aristotle had been criticised by Nicostratus] Porphyry first says that [‘of the being’] was not in all the copies. For Boethus did not know [this reading], [for] he says that Aristotle shows what [things] are homonymous by saying ‘those are said homonymously which have only the name the same, but the account that corresponds to the name is different’. Boethus, who interprets each expression, [thus] left out ‘of the being’ as not written [in his text]. And Andronicus, who paraphrases the book, says ‘of things which are said without combination those are called homonymous of which only the name is the same, while the account corresponding to the name is different’. (Sharples 2007a, 511)

In spite of Simplicius’ contrast, it is clear that Andronicus too engaged in critical discussion as well as paraphrase; see Moraux 1973, 98, and below, 9C, 12D. Simplicius’ contrast, in its context, is rather concerned with how closely each commentator followed the details of Aristotle’s precise wording, in the context of drawing inferences from their versions about the text of Aristotle that they read. On the particular omission mentioned here see below, discussion of 8A.