The confusion attendant upon such occasions, the fears of his followers, the exhortations
 of their leader—why need I take the time to describe Cf. Isoc. 4.97 for a similar passage in reference to the sea-fight at Salamis . In Isoc. 5.93-94 Isocrates justifies such “autoplagiarism.” ? When the supporters of the tyrant opposed him and the citizens generally were observers (for they held their peace because they feared either the authority of the one party or the valor of
 the other), he did not cease from fighting, whether alone against many or with few opposing all the
 foe, until, having captured the palace, he had taken vengeance upon the enemy and had
 succoured his friends: furthermore, he restored its ancestral honors to his family Cf. Isoc. 3.28 . and
 established himself as ruler of the city. I think that even if I should mention nothing more, but should discontinue my discourse
 at this point, from what I have said the valor of Evagoras and the greatness of his deeds
 would be readily manifest: nevertheless, I consider that both will be yet more clearly
 revealed from what remains to be said. For of all the many sovereigns since time began, none will be found to have won this
 honor more gloriously than Evagoras. If we were to compare the deeds of Evagoras with
 those of each one, such an account would perhaps be inappropriate to the occasion, and the
 time would not suffice for the telling. But if we select the most illustrious of these
 rulers and examine their exploits in the light of his, our investigation will lose nothing
 thereby and our discussion will be much more brief. Who then, would not choose the perilous deeds of Evagoras before the fortunes of those
 who inherited their kingdoms from their fathers? For surely there is no one so mean of
 spirit that he would prefer to receive that power from his ancestors than first to acquire
 it, as he did, and then to bequeath it to his children.