[12,47] καὶ μὴν {δίχα γε} τῆς ἁπλῆς καὶ πρεσβυτάτης ἐννοίας περὶ θεῶν καὶ ξυγγενῶς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἅμα τῷ λόγῳ φυομένης πρὸς τοῖς τρισὶ τούτοις ἑρμηνεῦσι καὶ διδασκάλοις {ποιητικῆς καὶ νομοθετικῆς καὶ δημιουργικῆς} τέταρτον ἀνάγκη παραλαβεῖν, οὐδαμῇ ῥᾴθυμον οὐδὲ ἀπείρως ἡγούμενον ἔχειν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, λέγω δὲ τὸν φιλόσοφον ἄνδρα, {ἢ} λόγῳ ἐξηγητὴν καὶ προφήτην τῆς ἀθανάτου φύσεως ἀληθέστατον ἴσως καὶ τελειότατον.

[12,47] And furthermore, quite apart from that simple and earliest notion of the gods, which develops in the hearts of all men along with their reasoning power, in addition to those three interpreters and teachers, the poets, the lawgivers, and creative artists, we must take on a fourth one, who is by no means indifferent nor believes himself unacquainted with the gods, I mean the philosopher, the one who by means of reason interprets and proclaims the divine nature, most truly, perhaps, and most perfectly.

[12,48] τὸν μὲν οὖν νομοθέτην ἐάσωμεν τὰ νῦν εἰς εὐθύνας ἄγειν, ἄνδρα αὐστηρὸν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους αὐτὸν εὐθύνοντα· δέοι γὰρ ἂν αὐτὸν αὑτοῦ φείδεσθαι καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀσχολίας. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἑκάστου γένους προχειρισάμενοι τὸν ἄκρον σκοπῶμεν, εἴ τινα ὠφέλειαν ἢ καὶ βλάβην φανήσονται πεποιηκότες πρὸς εὐσέβειαν τοῖς αὑτῶν ἔργοις ἢ λόγοις, ὅπως τε ἔχουσιν ὁμολογίας ἢ τοῦ διαφέρεσθαι ἀλλήλοις, καὶ τίς αὐτῶν ξυνέπεται τῷ ἀληθεῖ μάλιστα, τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ ἀδόλῳ γνώμῃ σύμφωνος ὤν. πάντες {τοιγαροῦν} οὗτοι ξυνᾴδουσιν, ὥσπερ ἑνὸς ἴχνους λαβόμενοι, καὶ τοῦτο σῴζοντες, οἱ μὲν σαφῶς, οἱ δὲ ἀδηλότερον. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἴσως δέοιτο παραμυθίας ὁ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ φιλόσοφος, εἰ μὴ πρὸς σύγκρισιν ἄγοιτο ποιηταῖς ἀγαλμάτων ἢ μέτρων, καὶ ταῦτα ἐν ὄχλῳ πανηγύρεως ἐκείνοις φίλων δικαστῶν.

[12,48] As to the lawgiver, let us omit for the present to hale him here for an accounting ; a stern man is he and himself accustomed to hold all others to an accounting. Indeed, we ought to have consideration for ourselves and for our own preoccupation. But as for the rest, let us select the foremost man of each class, and consider whether they will be found to have dope by their acts or words any good or harm to piety, and how they stand as to agreement with each other or divergence from one another, and which one of them adheres to the truth most closely, being in harmony with that primary and guileless view. Now in fact all these men speak with one voice, just as if they had taken the one track and were keeping to it, some clearly and others less plainly. Would the true philosopher, perhaps, not stand in need of consolation if he should be brought into comparison with the makers of statues or of poetic measures, and that too, before the throng of a national festive-gathering where the judges are predisposed in their favour ?