book the end of rhetoric is supposed to be "The leading of men wherever
one pleases by the faculty of speaking." But this definition is not
sufficiently comprehensive. Many others besides the orator persuade by
their words and lead minds in whatever direction they please.

Some, therefore, as Aristotle, setting aside the consideration of the
end, have defined rhetoric to be "The power of inventing whatever is
persuasive in a discourse." This definition is equally as faulty as that
just mentioned, and is likewise defective in another respect, as
including only invention, which, separate from elocution, can not
constitute a speech.

It appears from Plato's Gorgias that he was far from regarding rhetoric
as an art of ill tendency, but that, rather it is, or ought to be, if
we were to conceive an adequate idea of it inseparable from virtue. This
he explains more clearly in his Phædrus, where he says that "The art can
never be perfect without an exact knowledge and strict observance of
justice." I join him in this opinion, and if these were not his real
sentiments, would he have written an apology for Socrates and the
eulogium of those brave citizens who lost their lives in the defense of
their country? This is certainly acting the part of an orator, and if in
any respect he attacks the profession, it is on account of those who
make ill use of eloquence. Socrates, animated with the same spirit,
thought it unworthy of him to pronounce the speech Lysias had composed
for his defense, it being the custom of the orators of those times to
write speeches for arraigned criminals, which the latter pronounced in
their own defense; thus eluding the law that prohibited pleading for
another. Plato, likewise, in his Phædrus, condemns the masters that
separated rhetoric from justice, and preferred probabilities to truth.