I am amazed at the advocates who are going to defend him.
 Whatever justification, I wonder, will they find for his acquittal? Will it be his
 friendship with themselves? In my own view they are not entitled to indulgence but deserve
 to die for daring to be intimate with him. Though their attitude was not obvious, before
 Leocrates acted as he did, it is clear to everyone now, since they maintain their
 friendship with him, that they uphold the same principles as he does and should therefore
 far rather be required to plead their own defence than be allowed to win your pardon for
 him. I believe myself that if the dead really do have any
 knowledge of earthly affairs, his own father, now no more, would be a sterner judge than
 any other; since he it was whose bronze statue Leocrates left behind him in the temple of
 Zeus the Savior, abandoned to the enemy for them to steal or mutilate. He turned that
 statue, which his father erected as a memorial of his own uprightness, into an object of
 reproach, since it commemorates a man now famed as father of a son like this. It is with this in mind, gentlemen, that many have approached me and asked why I did not
 include in the indictment the charge that he had betrayed his father’s statue, dedicated
 in the temple of Zeus the Savior. Gentlemen, I fully realized that this offence called for
 the most severe punishment, but I did not think it right, when prosecuting the defendant
 for treason, to add the name of Zeus the Savior to the bill of indictment. What astounds me most of all is, that though you are
 dealing with men who have no ties of blood or friendship with him but who always champion
 defendants for a fee, you do not realize that they deserve to feel your anger in its
 fullest violence. If they and their kind defend the criminals it is proof that they would
 associate themselves with the actual crimes. It is to defend you, in the interests of
 democracy and law, not to oppose you, that a speaker should have acquired his skill. Some of them indeed are no longer using arguments to try
 to deceive you; they will even cite their own public services in favor of the defendants.
 These I particularly resent. For having performed the services for the advancement of
 their own families, they are now asking you for public token of thanks.
 Horsebreeding, On horsebreeding see note to Hyp. 1.16 . The public service of equipping a chorus was imposed
 on richer citizens who were nominated from each tribe in turn. The trierarch had to
 contribute towards the equipment and maintenance of a ship, of which the state supplied
 the hull and usually the oars and rigging. He was also responsible for the command of
 it. For further details see note on Hyp. Fr. 43 . a
 handsome payment for a chorus, and other expensive gestures, do not entitle a man to any
 such recognition from you, since for these acts he alone is crowned, conferring no benefit
 on others. To earn your gratitude he must, instead, have been distinguished as a
 trierarch, or built walls to protect his city, or subscribed generously from his own
 property for the public safety. These are services to the state: