They were themselves, however, but a corruption of what in its origin was good, and always continued in the opinion of the undiscerning to be confounded with the men they aped.[811] Whether we have sophists among us at the present day, I will not determine; but this is the way they arose in Greece. It was soon discovered by shrewd and calculating men, that since philosophy excited much admiration and rendered its teachers objects of mark and reverence, it might by a little ingenuity be converted into a source of profit.[812] But by what means?—The philosophers at the outset were in possession of the popular ear, more through the sanctity of their lives, of which all could judge, than through their doctrines, necessarily comprehended in their fullest extent by few. They despaired, therefore, of the people. There existed, however, in Greece, and will ever exist in free states, young men of immeasurable ambition, who, impatient of the restraint of laws, would gladly cast them off, seize the reins of government, and become the tyrants of their country. The mere conception of such a design implies the possession of wealth and powerful friends. Eager for any help they enthusiastically welcomed all who seemed capable of promoting their views, and when the sophists appeared, enriched with a variety of knowledge, specious, eloquent, unscrupulous, they eagerly threw themselves into their arms, became their pupils, and in conjunction with them framed the subjugation of Greece. Footnote 811: Plat. de Rep. t. vi. p. 286. seq. Cf. Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 331. Footnote 812: That money was the sole object of the sophists is observed by Isocrates, Hel. Encom. § 4. Elsewhere, with a stroke of sly humour not usual with him, he says, they would sell anything short of immortality for three or four minæ.—Cont. Sophist. § 3, p. 576. See on the whole subject of the Sophists, Hard. Dissert. v. Bibl. Acad. t. iii. p. 240. sqq. Muret. in Arist. Ethic. p. 533. Cressol. Theat. Rhet. v. iii. p. 447.