[Footnote 98: Categor. p. 7, a. 31. [Greek: e)/ti d' e)a\n me/n ti oi)kei/ôs a)podido/menon ê)=| pro\s o(\ le/getai, pa/ntôn periairoume/nôn tô=n a)/llôn o(/sa _sumbebêko/ta_ e)sti/, kataleipome/nou de\ mo/nou tou/tou pro\s o(\ a)pedo/thê oi)kei/ôs, a)ei\ pro\s au)to\ r(êthê/setai, oi(=on o( dou=los e)a\n pro\s despo/tên le/gêtai, periairoume/nôn tô=n _a)/llôn a(pa/ntôn o(/sa sumbebêko/ta_ e)sti\ _tô=| despo/tê|_ oi(=on to\ di/podi ei)=nai kai\ to\ e)pistê/mês dektikô=| kai\ _to\ a)nthrô/pô|_, kataleipome/nou de\ mo/nou tou= despo/tên ei)=nai, a)ei\ o( dou=los pro\s au)to\ r(êthêsetai.] This is not only just and useful in regard to accuracy of predication, but deserves attention also in another point of view. In general, it would be said that _man_ and _biped_ belonged to the Essence ([Greek: ou)si/a]); and the being a master to the Accidents or Accompaniments ([Greek: sumbebêko/ta]). Here the case is reversed; man and biped are the accidents or accompaniments; master is the Essence. What is connoted by the term _master_ is here the essential idea, that which is bound up with the idea connoted by _servant_; while the connotation of _man_ or _biped_ sinks into the character of an accessory or accompaniment. The master might possibly not be a man, but a god; the Delphian Apollo (Euripid. Ion, 132), and the Corinthian Aphrodité, had each many slaves belonging to them. Moreover, even if every master were a man, the qualities connoted by _man_ are here accidental, as not being included in those connoted by the term master. Compare Metaphysica, [Greek: D]. p. 1025, a. 32; Topica, i. p. 102, a. 18.] [Footnote 99: That Plato was fully sensible to the necessity of precision and appropriateness in designating the _Correlatum_ belonging to each _Relatum_, may be seen by the ingenious reasoning in the Platonic Parmenides, pp. 133-134, where [Greek: despo/tês] and [Greek: dou=los] are also the illustrative examples employed.] [Footnote 100: Categor. p. 8, a. 35, b. 20.]] [Footnote 101: See Politica, i. p. 1253, a. 18: [Greek: kai\ pro/tero dê\ tê=| phu/sei po/lis ê)\ oi)ki/a kai\ e(/kastos ê(mô=n e)sti/n; to\ ga\r o(/lon pro/teron a)nagkai=on ei)=nai tou= me/rous; a)nairoume/nou ga\r tou= o(/lou ou)k e)/stai pou=s ou)de\ chei\r, ei) mê\ o(mônu/môs, ô(/sper ei)/ tis le/gei **tê\n lithi/nên; diaphtharei=sa ga\r e)/stai toiau/tê. pa/nta de\tô=| e)/rgô| ô(/ristai kai\ tê=| duna/mei, ô/ste _mêke/ti toiau=ta o)/nta ou) lekte/on ta\ au)ta ei)=nai_ a)ll' o(mô/numa]; also p. 1254, a. 9: [Greek: to/ te ga\r mo/rion ou) mo/non a)/llou e)sti\ mo/rion, a)lla\ kai\ a)/llou]. Compare De Animâ, ii. 1, p. 412, b. 20; Meteorologic. iv. p. 390, a. 12. The doctrine enunciated in these passages is a very important one, in the Aristotelian philosophy. Trendelenburg (Kategorienlehre, p. 182) touches upon this confusion of the Categories, but faintly and partially.]