=The Sophists and Their Training.=--To meet these new demands, a set of teachers known as the _sophists_ came into prominence. They professed to train young men for a political career, and some of them even claimed to teach any subject whatsoever, or how to defend either side of an argument. These pretensions, together with their charging a fee for their services, contrary to Athenian custom, seriously offended the more conservative of the citizens of Athens. But many of the first sophists afforded an honest and careful training. The effect of their teaching was especially felt by the adolescents in the _gymnasium_ stage of education, since they were ambitious to distinguish themselves politically. The physical training that had hitherto dominated the gymnasium course gave way to a study of grammatical and rhetorical subtleties, and whenever a sophist appeared in the street, market-place, or house, the young men crowded about him to borrow from his store of experience and wisdom, and acquire his method of argument. To a less degree the same influence was felt in the lower schools and by the cadets and younger citizens. The exercises of the palaestra were no longer as rigorous, and existed for the sake of individual health and pleasure rather than for the making of citizens. The literary work of the didascaleum came to include, besides the Homeric epics, a wide range of didactic, reflective, and lyric poetry, with a superabundance of discussions. In music the old patriotic and religious songs sung to the simple Doric airs and accompanied upon the seven-stringed lyre, were replaced by rhythms of great difficulty, like the Lydian and Phrygian, and by complicated instruments of all sorts. [Sidenote: Reaction from the old subordination of the individual to the state.] =Their Extreme Individualism.=--All this inroad upon the time honored curriculum shows how fully the sophists embodied the individualism of the times. Although they held no body of doctrine common to them all, they were generally at one in their position of extreme individualism. They often went so far as to insist that there could not safely be any universal criteria in knowledge or morals; that no satisfactory interpretation of life could be made for all, but that every fact and situation should be subject to the judgment of the individual. No doubt the formula attributed to Protagoras, “Man (i. e. the individual) is the measure of all things, both of the seen and the unseen,” would have expressed the attitude common to most of them. They but carried to its legitimate conclusion the complete reaction from the old ideal of subordination of the individual to the state. [Sidenote: The attitude of Pythagoras and Aristophanes;] [Sidenote: and of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.]