[Footnote 133: Trendelenburg, Kategorienlehre p. 222; Plutarch, De Stoicor. Repugnantiis, p. 1054 a.; Simpl. ad Categor. Schol. p. 67. Br. [Greek: Poia\] were distributed by the Stoics into three varieties; and the abstract word [Greek: Poio/tês], in the Stoic sense, corresponded only to the highest and most complete of these three varieties, not to the second or third variety, so that [Geek: poio/tês] had a narrower extension than [Greek: poio/n]: there were [Greek: poia\] without any [Greek: poiotê\s] corresponding to them. To the third Category, [Greek: Pô\s e)/chonta], which was larger and more varied than the second, they had no abstract term corresponding; nor to the fourth Category, [Greek: Pro/s ti]. Hence, we may see one reason why the Stoics, confining the abstract term [Greek: poio/têtes] to durable attributes, were disposed to maintain that the [Greek: poio/têtes tô=n sôma/tôn] were themselves [Greek: sô/mata] or [Greek: sômatika/]: which Galen takes much pains to refute (vol. xix. p. 463, seq. ed. Kühn). The Stoics considered these qualities as [Greek: a)e/ras tina/s], or [Greek: pneu/mata], &c., spiritual or gaseous agents pervading and holding together the solid substance. It is difficult to make out these Stoic theories clearly from the evidence before us. From the statements of Simplikius in Scholia, pp. 67-69, I cannot understand the line of distinction between [Greek: poia\] and [Greek: pô\s e)/chonta]. The Stoics considered [Greek: poio/tês] to be [Greek: du/namis plei/stôn e)poistikê\ sumptôma/tôn, ô(s ê( phro/nêsis tou= te phroni/môs peripatei=n kai\ tou= phron/môs diale/gesthai] (p. 69, b. 2); and if all these [Greek: sumptô/mata] were included under [Greek: poio/n], so that [Greek: o( phroni/môs peripatô=n, o( pu\x protei/nôn] and [Greek: o( tre/chôn], were [Greek: poioi/ tines] (p. 67, b. 34). I hardly see what was left for the third Category [Greek: pô\s e)/chonta] to comprehend; although, according to the indications of Plotinus, it would be the most comprehensive. The Stoic writers seem both to have differed among themselves and to have written inconsistently. Neither Trendelenburg (Kategorienlehre, pp. 223-226), nor even Prantl, in his more elaborate account (Gesch. der Logik, pp. 429-437), clears up this obscurity.] The Third Stoic Category ([Greek: pô\s e)/chon]) comprised a portion of what Aristotle ranked under _Quale_, and all that he ranked under _Quantum_, _Ubi_, _Quando_, _Agere_, _Pati_, _Jacere_, _Habere_. The fourth Stoic Category coincided with the Aristotelian _Ad Aliquid_. The third was thus intended to cover what were understood as absolute or non-relative Accidents; the fourth included what were understood as Relative Accidents.