Throughout Aristotle and Quintillian’s works, we are presented with various interpretations of rhetoric. For Aristotle, rhetoric is “defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. In his neatly packaged treatise on rhetoric, Aristotle almost mechanically delves into the definition of rhetoric and its various components. He breaks it down into logos, pathos, and ethos for the purpose of a “hearer”, a judge or observer who determines the speech’s end. Aristotle appears to focus highly on the practical use of rhetoric in courts and even states that litigants will admit to their actions but never to an injustice or else trials would be of no use; thus, orators use rhetoric purely for persuasion. As opposed to Gorgias and The Phaedrus, Aristotle bases the purpose of rhetoric on more legal ends rather than the purification of the soul. Moreover, he provides us with plenty of specifics such as the modes of persuasion, the definition of crimes, and the concept of happiness. The latter should be the aim of man and is considered to be, “prosperity combined with virtue; or as independence of life; or as the secure enjoyment of the maximum of pleasure; or as a good condition of property and body.” He also believes that which is chosen by all (the majority) to be the greater good. In other words, Aristotle roots his argument on democracy as opposed to Plato’s spiritual foundation. In Quintillian’s writing, he claims Aristotle’s definition of persuasion offers nothing but “invention”. Rhetoric for Quintillian then is not merely creating a convincing argument; instead, it is the art of “speaking well”. Furthermore, Quintillian maintains that rhetoric is not defined by its end or purpose but exists solely as a means for eloquent speaking. Just as the art of dancing does not produce anything physical so does the art of rhetoric. To aim at truth without Truth grounds the orator’s speech. Quintillian remarks, “Oratory is the art of speaking well, and the orator knows how to speak well. But it is said he does not know whether what he says is true”. This however does not infer that orators should persuade for selfish gain; rather, Quintillian suggests that true oratory is “attainable only by a good man” who seeks truth in his practice of rhetoric. Along with this righteous search, Quintillian also believes that our gift of speech separates us from beasts and therefore deserves cultivation. Ultimately, he makes the claim that man must use rhetoric for a higher purpose since we alone were endowed with such a talent. Where Aristotle relies on law and statutes, Quintillian establishes his argument using nature and virtue as a basis. By reading both pieces, definitely see the difference in Quintillian’s use of rhetoric as a means for trying to attain truth versus Aristotle’s judicial use of rhetoric and description of persuasive techniques.