[12,45] οἷος ἦν Φειδίας τε καὶ Ἀλκαμένης καὶ Πολύκλειτος, ἔτι δὲ Ἀγλαοφῶν καὶ Πολύγνωτος καὶ Ζεῦξις καὶ πρότερος αὐτῶν ὁ Δαίδαλος. οὐ γὰρ ἀπέχρη τούτοις περὶ τἄλλα ἐπιδείκνυσθαι τὴν αὑτῶν δεινότητα καὶ σοφίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεῶν εἰκόνας καὶ διαθέσεις παντοδαπὰς ἐπιδεικνύντες, ἰδίᾳ τε καὶ δημοσίᾳ χορηγοὺς τὰς πόλεις λαμβάνοντες, πολλῆς ἐνέπλησαν ὑπονοίας καὶ ποικίλης περὶ τοῦ δαιμονίου, οὐ παντελῶς διαφερόμενοι τοῖς ποιηταῖς καὶ νομοθέταις, τὸ μὲν ὅπως μὴ δοκῶσι παράνομοι καὶ ταῖς ἐπικειμέναις ἐνέχωνται ζημίαις, τὸ δὲ ὁρῶντες προκατειλημμένους αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τῶν ποιητῶν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν οὖσαν τὴν ἐκείνων εἰδωλοποιίαν.

[12,45] To this class belong not only Pheidias but also Alcamenes and Polycleitus andfurther, Aglaophon and Polygnotus and Zeuxis and, earlier than all these, Daedalus. For these men were not satisfied to display their cleverness and skill on commonplace subjects, but by exhibiting all sorts of likenesses and representations of gods they secured for their patrons both private persons and the states, whose people they filled with an ample and varied conception of the divine ; and here they did not differ altogether from the poets and lawgivers, in the one case that they might not be considered violators of the laws and thus make themselves liable to the penalties imposed upon such, and in the other case because they saw that they had been anticipated by the poets and that the poets image-making was the earlier.

[12,46] οὔκουν ἐβούλοντο φαίνεσθαι τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀπίθανοι καὶ ἀηδεῖς καινοποιοῦντες. τὰ μὲν οὖν πολλὰ τοῖς μύθοις ἑπόμενοι καὶ συνηγοροῦντες ἔπλαττον, τὰ δὲ καὶ παρ´ αὑτῶν εἰσέφερον, ἀντίτεχνοι καὶ ὁμότεχνοι τρόπον τινὰ γιγνόμενοι τοῖς ποιηταῖς, ὡς ἐκεῖνοι δι´ ἀκοῆς ἐπιδεικνύντες, ἀτεχνῶς καὶ αὐτοὶ δι´ ὄψεως ἐξηγούμενοι τὰ θεῖα τοῖς πλείοσι καὶ ἀπειροτέροις θεαταῖς. πάντα δὲ ταῦτα τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔσχεν ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἀρχῆς ἐκείνης, ὡς ἐπὶ τιμῇ καὶ χάριτι ποιούμενα τοῦ δαιμονίου.

[12,46] Consequently they preferred not to appear to the many as untrustworthy and to be disliked for making innovations. In most matters, accordingly, they adhered to the myths and maintained agreement with them in their representations, but in some few cases they contributed their own ideas, becoming in a sense the rivals as well as fellow-craftsmen of the poets, since the latter appealed to the ear alone, whereas it was simply through the eye that they, for their part, interpreted the divine attributes to their more numerous and less cultivated spectators. And all these influences won strength from that primary impulse, as having originated with the honouring of the divine being and winning his favour.