 Della Rocca (1996a) thinks of essentialism in this way, and so counts “maximal essentialism” but not “minimal essentialism” as a form of essentialism. (It is natural to suppose that Della Rocca thinks that essential properties are non-trivial necessary properties, so that he can say things like, “Essentialism is the view that some objects have some essential properties.” If this is what Della Rocca thinks, then on his view, either the essential/accidental distinction is not exhaustive—since trivial necessary properties, like being such that there are infinitely many primes, are neither accidental nor essential—or the distinction is exhaustive but being such that there are infinitely many primes is counted an accidental property, contrary to intuition.)