 In II.xxxi.6, Locke refers to individual real essences: “The like ignorance I have of the real Essence of this particular Substance, I have also of the real Essence of all other natural ones”. In III.iii.15, as he is defining the concept of a real essence, he says: “Essentia, in its primary notation signifying properly Being. And in this sense it is still used, when we speak of the Essence of particular things, without giving them any Name”. One might argue that, if a substance can have an essence prior to being named--prior to having a nominal essence--then the only other kind of essence it could have is a real essence.