Zell remarks (ad Ethica Nikom. i. 13), after referring to the passage in Aristotle's Physica, iv. 10 (to which I have called attention in a previous note), "quo loco, à Buhlio neglecto, [Greek: e)xôterikoi\ lo/goi] idem significant quod alibi [Greek: koinai\ do/xai, ei)ôtho/tes lo/goi], vel [Greek: ta\ lego/mena]: quæ semper, priusquam suas rationes in disputando proponat, disquirere solet Aristoteles. Vide supra, ad cap. viii. 1." I find also in Weisse (Translation of and Comment on the Physica of Aristotle, p. 517) a fair explanation of what Aristotle really means by _exoteric_; an explanation, however, which Ritter sets aside, in my judgment erroneously (Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. iii. p. 23).] [Footnote 44: Thus, for example, the passage in the Ethica Nikom. i. 13, p. 1102, a. 26. [Greek: le/getai de\ peri\ au)tô=n kai\ e)n toi=s e)xôterikoi=s lo/gois a)rkou/ntôs e)/nia, kai\ chrêste/on au)toi=s], is explained in the Paraphrase of the Pseudo-Andronikus as referring to oral colloquy of Aristotle himself with pupils or interlocutors; and this _may_ possibly be a correct explanation.] From the time of Cicero downward, a distinction has been drawn between some books of Aristotle which were exoteric, and others that were not so; these last being occasionally designated as _akroamatic_. Some modern critics have farther tried to point out which, among the preserved works of Aristotle, belonged to each of these heads. Now there existed, doubtless, in the days of Cicero, Strabo, Plutarch, and Gellius, books of Aristotle properly called _exoteric_, _i.e._ consisting almost entirely of exoteric discourse and debate; though whether Aristotle himself would have spoken of an exoteric _book_, I have some doubt. Of such a character were his Dialogues. But all the works designated as akroamatic (or non-exoteric) must probably have contained a certain admixture of "exoteric discourse"; as the Physica ([Greek: Phusikê\ A)kro/asis]) and the Metaphysica are seen to contain now. The distinction indicated by Cicero would thus be really between one class of works, wherein "exoteric discourse" was exclusive or paramount,--and another, in which it was partially introduced, subordinate to some specified didactic purpose.[45] To this last class belong all the works of Aristotle that we possess at present. Cicero would have found none of them corresponding to his notion of an exoteric book.