1. Donald J. Mastronarde, Euripides: Phoenissae (Cambridge 1994). ‘The simplistic opposition of ruling or being enslaved, with no admission of a middle ground, is typical of Greek political thought in the fifth century.” (296) Elizabeth Rawson, ‘Family and fatherland in Euripides’ Phoenissae’ Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 11 (1970) 109–127. “Eteocles’ definition of the condition [of slavery] is simply that of not ruling.” (112).
2. Jacqueline de Romilly, ‘Les Phéniciennes d’Euripide ou l’actualité dans la tragédie grecque’ Revue de Philologie 39 (1965) 28–47. “La thèse d’Étéocle, celle que combat Jocaste, c’est celle de la souveraineté à tout prix.” (35).
3. Mastronarde (note 1). “His assumptions about wealth, self-respect, and justice are disastrously inflexible.” (226) Hartmut Erbse, ‘Beiträge zum Verständnis der Euripideischen Phoinissen’ Philologus 110 (1966) 1–34. “Aber auch Polyneikes ist nicht edler oder nachgiebiger: er fordert sein Erbteil.” (2).
4. Nathan A. Greenberg, ‘Euripides’ Orestes: An interpretation’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 66 (1962) 157–192. “Orestes shows...philia to be inadequate.” (190).
5. Elizabeth Rawson, ‘Aspects of Euripides’ Orestes’ Arethusa 5 (1972) 155–167. “From this philia spring the most violent and atrocious actions of the play.” (157) Greenberg (note 10). “Vengeance, the mirror-image of philia, becomes the driving motive.” (184).