ster," "servant," since we can say either "the master of the
servant," or "the servant of the master". In mediaeval logic the term
_Relata_ was confined to these perfect cases, but the Category had
a wider scope with Aristotle. And he expressly raised the question
whether a word might not have as much right to be put in another
Category as in this. Indeed, he went further than his critics in his
suggestions of what Relation might be made to include. Thus: "big"
signifies Quality; yet a thing is big with reference to something
else, and is so far a Relative. Knowledge must be knowledge of
something, and is a relative: why then should we put "knowing"
(_i.e._, learned) in the Category of Quality. "Hope" is a relative,
as being the hope _of_ a man and the hope of something. Yet we say,
"I have hope," and there hope would be in the category of Having,
Appurtenance. For the solution of all such difficulties, Aristotle
falls back upon the forms of common speech, and decides the place of
words in his categories according to them. This was hardly consistent
with his proposal to deal with separate words out of syntax, if by
this was meant anything more than dealing with them without reference
to truth or falsehood. He did not and could not succeed in dealing
with separate words otherwise than as parts of sentences, owing their
signification to their position as parts of a transient plexus of
thought. In so far as words have their being in common speech, and
it is their being in this sense that Aristotle considers in the
Categories, it is a transient being. What being they represent besides
is, in the words of Porphyry, a very deep affair, and one that needs
other and greater investigation.

[Footnote 1: [Greek: ton kata medemian symploken legomenon
hekaston etoi ousian semainei, e poson, e poion, e pros ti,
e pou, e pote, e keisthai, e echein, e poiein, e paschein.]
(Categ. ii. 5.)]

[Footnote 2: To describe the Categories as a grammatical
division, as Mansel does in his instructive Appendix C to
Aldrich, is a little misleading without a qualification.
They are non-logical inasmuch as they have no bearing on any
logical purpose. But they are grammatical only in so far as
they are concerned with words. They are not grammatical in
the sense of being concerned with the function of words
in predication. The unit of grammar in this sense is the
sentence, a combination of words in