The order of arrangement among the four was considered as fixed and peremptory. They were not co-ordinate species under one and the same genus, but superordinate and subordinate,[134] the second presupposing and attaching to the first; the third, presupposing and attaching to the first, _plus_ the second; the fourth, presupposing and attaching to the first, _plus_ the second and third. The first proposition to be made is, in answer to the question _Quale Quid_? You answer _Tale Aliquid_, declaring the essential attributes. Upon this, the next question is put, _Quali Modo se habens_? You answer by a term of the third Category, declaring one or more of the accidental attributes non-relative, _Tale Aliquid, tali Modo se habens_. Upon this, the fourth and last question follows, _Quali Modo se habens ad alia_? Answer is made by the predicate of the fourth Category, _i.e._ a Relative. _Hic Aliquis--homo_ (1), _niger_ (2), _servus_ (3). [Footnote 134: Prantl, Geschichte der Logik, vol. i. pp. 428, 429; Simplikius ad Categor. fol. 43, A: [Greek: ka)kei=no a)/topon to\ su/ntheta poiei=n ta\ ge/nê e)k prote/rôn tinô=n kai\ deute/rôn ô(s to\ pro/s ti e)k poiou= kai\ pro/s ti.] Cf. Plotinus, Ennead. vi. 1, 25-29. Porphyry appears to include all [Greek: sumbebêko/ta] under [Greek: poio\n] and [Greek: pô\s e)/chon]: he gives as examples of the latter, what Aristotle would have assigned to the Category [Greek: kei=sthai] (Eisagoge, cc. 2, 10; Schol. Br. p. 1, b. 32, p. 5, a. 30).] In comparing the ten Aristotelian with the four Stoic Categories we see that the first great difference is in the extent and comprehension of _Quale_, which Aristotle restricts on one side (by distinguishing from it _Essentia Secunda_), and enlarges on the other (by including in it many attributes accidental and foreign to the Essence). The second difference is, that the Stoics did not subdivide their third Category, but included therein all the matter of six Aristotelian Categories,[135] and much of the matter of the Aristotelian _Quale_. Both schemes agree on two points:--1. In taking as the point of departure the concrete, particular, individual, Substance. 2. In the narrow, restricted, inadequate conception formed of the Relative--_Ad Aliquid_. [Footnote 135: Plotinus (Ennead. vi. 1. 80) disapproves greatly the number of disparates ranked under [Greek: to\ pô\s e)/chon], which has (he contends) no discoverable unity as a generic term. It is curious to see how he cites the Aristotelian Categories, as if the decuple distinction which they marked out were indefeasible. Simplikius says that the Stoics distinguished between [Greek: to\ pro/s ti] and [Greek: to\ pro/s ti pô\s e)/chon]; and Trendelenburg, (pp. 228, 229) explains and illustrate this distinction, which, however, appears to be very obscure.]