In Ipheginia Taurica the recognition is effected one step further than in Electra. Whereas in Electra Orestes knows that he is speaking to his sister from the start of their conversation while Electra does not know, in Ipheginia Taurica on the other hand, both of the speakers are ignorant of who the interlocutor is. Furthermore, Iphigenia who was brought to the country of the Taurians from the sacrificial altar by Artemis and is now serving as a priestess is going to send Orestes to death at any moment in her priestly duty. Orestes has come on a quest for the heaven-sent statue of the goddess, which Apollo commanded him to carry to Athens. At the prolonged sequence of their cross-exchange of words until the recognition (747-828) and the increasing crisis of bloodshed, the audience is made to feel intense fear for the siblings. However, their relationship is discovered a moment before an irreparable deed of kin-murder is done to their greatest joy. In fact the recognition is effected in two stages, the recognition of his sister by Orestes (771-89) and recognition of her brother by Iphigenia (828). Aristotle, who suggested that a recognition (anagnorisis) could produce the greatest tragic effect when combined with a reversal of fortune (peripeteia), appreciates the former as an example of the best type of anagnorisis, but counts the latter among the second worst in his classification of six kinds of anagnorisis. He gives the reason that in the first case the anagnorisis takes place with probability, because it is natural that Iphigenia should wish to send a letter to her brother (1455a19), whereas in the second case anagnorisis is achieved by letting Orestes speak "what the poet, not what the plot, requires" (1454b33). Nevertheless, we shall see later that such an anagnorisis, created by the author's hand, and not the plot itself, could function most effectively in a comic context.
The action of Ipheginia Taurica after the anagnorisis runs in the opposite direction from that of Electra. In Electra the sister and brother find themselves pressed by the horrible and unavoidable deed of homicide, while Iphigenia and Orestes in this play suddenly find a fortunate opportunity to escape from the barbarous country. The chance is slim, but they combine their wits, hurriedly make a deceitful plan of escape and give it a try, sink or swim. As the intrigue is executed, however, the audience becomes surer and surer of a happy ending. The barbarian king is made particularly naive (1180), credible (1194) and superstitious (1198, 1207) even to the extent of looking ridiculous (1214,1218,1222). The audience hopes and half believe that the Greek hero and heroine, with their sacred mission, are not going to be trapped by such an enemy. If the dramatist wants to gratify the audience' wish, all he has to do is to imperil the escape as much as possible and in the very nick of time to make the sister and brother victorious. One can expect an exertion of such dynamic power as to switch the action of the plot in any chosen direction at the last moment only from a divine character. I see Athena ex Machina who stops the barbarian king's pursuit of the Greeks greeted with loud cheers by the audience. The sequence is cleverly contrived: the barbarian king is neatly duped, the escape-plan is succeeding (1392), when the rowing boat is blown back to the shore by a sudden storm (1393) and Iphigenia and Orestes are almost captured by the king's followers (1408). Athena's intervention narrowly saves them from ruin. One can even suspect that the sudden adverse wave was invented by the playwright only to call for Athena.(11) That is, the deus in this play may be said to produce a dramaturgical salvation from deliberately created danger to make the happy ending more satisfactory. A hair-breadth escape from prolonged and imminent peril is one technique often used in comedy to give greater satisfaction to the audience.(12) The laughable king is easily persuaded by Athena's message that Apollo intended also to send Iphigenia back home with her brother's help (1440). The naivete and basic piety of the king makes him an "inferior but not wholly vicious" (1449a34) character fit for comedy as Aristotle remarks.
