Abstract
This chapter argues that the lack of interesting theoretical accounts of Aristotle’s Rhetoric reflects the limitations of the questions that we bring to the text, rather than the limitations of Aristotle’s arguments. In particular, it suggests that we are bound to miss the Rhetoric’s most important insights as long as we expect it to provide us with a response to Plato’s devastating critique of rhetorical skill. Once one stops asking what Aristotle does to defend rhetoric against Plato’s assault, interesting substantive arguments emerge from this text, arguments about the place of rhetoric in moral and political life rather than its value.