[Footnote 45: To this extent I go along with the opinion expressed by Weisse in his translation of the Physica of Aristotle, p. 517: "Dass dieser Gegensatz kein absoluter von zwei durchaus getrennten Bücherclassen ist, sondern dass ein und dasselbe Werk zugleich _exoterisch_ und _esoterisch_ sein konnte; und zweitens, dass _exoterisch_ überhaupt dasjenige heisst, was nicht in den positiv-dogmatischen Zusammenhang der Lehre des Philosophen unmittelbar als Glied eintritt." But Weisse goes on afterwards to give a different opinion (about the meaning of _exoteric_ books), conformable to what I have cited in a previous note from Sepulveda; and in that I do not concur. However, he remarks that the manner in which Aristotle handled the Abstracta, _Place_ and _Infinite_, is just the same as that which he declares to be _exoteric_ in the case of _Time_. The distinction drawn by Aulus Gellius (xx. 5) is not accurate: "[Greek: E)xôterika\] dicebantur, quæ ad rhetoricas meditationes, facultatem argutiarum, civiliumque rerum notitiam conducebant. [Greek: A)kroatika\] autem vocabantur, in quibus philosophia remotior subtiliorque agitabatur; quæque ad naturæ contemplationes, disceptationesque dialecticas pertinebant." It appears to me that _disceptationes dialecticæ_ ought to be transferred to the department [Greek: e)xôterika/], and that _civilium rerum notitia_ belongs as much to [Greek: a)kroatika\] as to [Greek: e)xôterika/]. M. Ravaisson has discussed this question very ably and instructively, Essai sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote, pp. 224-244. He professes indeed to defend the opinion which I have cited from Sepulveda, and which I think erroneous; but his reasonings go really to the support of the opinion given in my text. He remarks, justly, that the dialogues of Plato (at least all the dialogues of Search) are specimens of exoteric handling; of which attribute Forchhammer speaks as if it were peculiar to the Charmides (Aristot. Exot. Reden. p. 22). Brandis (Aristoteles, p. 105) thinks that when Aristotle says in the Politica, vii. 1, p. 1323, a. 21: [Greek: nomi/santas ou)=n i(kanô=s polla\ le/gesthai kai\ tô=n e)n toi=s e)xôterikoi=s lo/gois peri\ tê=s a)ri/stês zô/ês, kai\ nu=n chrêste/on au)toi=s], he intends to designate the Ethica. It may be so; yet the Politica seems a continuation of the Ethica: moreover, even in the Ethica, we find reference made to previous discussions, [Greek: e)n toi=s e)xôterikô=s lo/gois] (Eth. N. I. 13).]