DICKEY. — ON DELAYS BEFORE RECOGNITIONS. 471 



In summarizing the results of my investigation it appears (1) that 

 there is sufficient evidence, in both epic and tragic poetry, for ' primary ' 

 and ' secondary ' delays before dvayi'wpto-ei? ; (2) tendency to lengthen 

 the 'secondary' delay, presumably for dramatic effect — a tendency 

 that is strikingly illustrated by Euripides in contrast with Aeschylus 

 and Sophocles ; (3) there is no reason to expect an abnormally short 

 ' secondary ' delay in the Electra of Euripides, but rather the contrary, 

 in order to give the old man an opportunity to satisfy the uatural 

 curiosity of Electra and the audience by giving them a detailed 

 account of his startling discoveries at the tomb of Agamemnon — 

 an opportunity that is met, in part, by the passage in question. In 

 conclusion, therefore, I have no hesitancy in accepting the disputed 

 passage (El. 518-5-44), considering it so much bombast (to delay the 

 recognition), wrongly employed by an indiscreet poet for critical pur- 

 poses — a passage that 'smacks ' *^ not ' of the age of Zoilus,' but of 

 the age and flavor of Socrates and Aristophanes, the latter of whom 

 might well have preferred charges against Euripides for encroaching 

 on his literary province. 



there is not a reference to the old man's statements in the disputed passage ? It 

 appears to me that the whole verse is a kind of reiteration and echo of Electra 's 

 reproacli in 524, ovk &^t avSpSs, Si y^pov ao(pov \eyeis. 

 ^ Tucker's Choephori, p. Ixxii. 



