Aristotle's Rhetoric remains an influential foundation in communication. You can pick up any public speaking text and find discussions on delivery, organization, and style. Students of public speaking have benefited greatly from the words of Aristotle, and for this reason, the theory is useful. The theory's value, however, transcends the communication discipline. Scholars in political science, medicine, English composition, and philosophy have studied rhetorical theory, incorporating several Aristotelian principles in their scholarship. The theory, therefore, is heuristic. In addition, it is apparent that this theory—more than any other in the discipline—has withstood the test of time.

Critics of Aristotle's theory are not so quick to endorse the entire theory, however. For instance, Aristotle has been criticized for contradiction and incoherence (Lord, 1994). Lord contends that in developing his theory, Aristotle blasts his contemporary rhetorical writers for focusing too much on the audience's emotions. Although Aristotle encourages speakers to avoid focusing on emotions when making their point, he proceeds to do just that when he stresses the importance of presenting emotions and invoking audience passions (pathos) during a speech.

John Cooper (1996) challenges Lord's critique. He argues that Aristotle was simply responding to the Sophists' messages of the day. Because most of the speeches in ancient Greece were directed to judges and rulers, Aristotle felt that speakers should try to elicit feelings of pity in the courtroom. To do that, Aristotle felt that speakers should try to view judges in congenial ways.

Another critique of Aristotle's work centers on its apparent incoherence. For instance, scholars agree that the Rhetoric is a rather unorganized undertaking; in fact, the theory is assembled from Aristotle's lecture notes (Kennedy, 1991; Lord, 1994). It is not surprising, then, that Aristotle seems to discuss topics in a random and arbitrary manner. At times, Aristotle introduces a topic and then drops it, only to return to it later. His terminology is especially unclear. For example, he advocates the use of enthymemes in public speaking and yet fails to clearly define the term. Scholars continue to differ about whether an enthymeme is a syllogism or whether it is like a syllogism. Much of this confusion is rooted in Aristotle's definitions, or lack of definitions. Arnhart (1981) concludes that Aristotle defined his terms in less than precise ways so that audiences (readers) would have a broader understanding of his words and ideas. Arnhart believes that this conscious decision to remain equivocal does not mean that Aristotle's thoughts should be discarded.

Finally, the Rhetoric tends to view the audience in a passive way. Critics charge Aristotle with ignoring the critical nature of many listeners. For instance, Jasper Neel (1994) states, "Aristotle makes clear that the introduction [of a speech] has nothing to do with the 'speech itself.' It exists only because of the hearer's weak-minded tendency to listen to what is beside the point" (p. 156). Eugene Ryan (1984) is more blunt: "Aristotle is thinking of listeners who have some difficulty keeping their minds on the speaker's business, are easily distracted, tend to forget what has gone on before, [and] are not absorbed with abstract ideas" (p. 47). From these writers, we get the impression that Aristotle perceived audiences to be incapable of being discriminating listeners or critical thinkers. It's important to note, though, that Aristotle was writing at a time when people were rather passive listeners; they did not watch the evening news and did not have access to information about world events. Further, when one considers that the Rhetoric is based on lecture notes and that students back then were not accustomed to openly challenging their mentors, Aristotle's view of the audience is not so implausible.

With over twenty centuries behind us, we are in a position to reflect on some of the greatest written works of all time. The Rhetoric is clearly such a work. Aristotle's words continue to resonate in a society that is far different from his day. Some people may reject his thoughts as outdated in an age where multiple ways of knowing are embraced. Nonetheless, a theory focusing on how speakers use and engender emotions, logic, and trustworthiness cannot be ignored.