Talk:Between Scylla and Charybdis

Rarely used - incorrect

The phrase rarely used is actually incorrect, as media analysts and business reporters use it infrequently to outline "rock and hard place" concepts without the well used cliche. see here ->[]. Andmark (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

References

A doubtful insertion

An insertion made by User:Rogermcnally, 1 June 2008 with the edit summary "added information about the city of Scylla using Stuart Gilberts study of Ulysses as a source" has been deleted. Identical information was added at Scylla. See Talk:Scylla. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of the Radio section

Why was the "Radio" section deleted? This section was previously included beneath the "Music" section, and referenced a radio drama production of Homer's Odyssey that featured Scylla and Charybdis. This information is in keeping with the other cited television and music releases in which Scylla and Charybdis appear. Those citations were left untouched, but the "Radio" section, and specifically the radio drama version of the Scylla and Charybdis story from Homer's Odyssey, was deleted. Why was this section cut from the article? Soundout (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant with other articles

This seems redundant with the individual Scylla and Charybdis articles, and I suggest deleting this one and transferring any necessary information into the individual articles. Xargque (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another reference requested

Annonymous user wrote into the article: 'You should also note how Joyce references Scylla and Charybdis in the novel "Ulysses."', I am posting it here instead Xargque (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Messina?

In all fairness: No one knows where Scylla and Charybdis was located. The Strait of Messina is only one suggested location. I feel the article should mention that --Sparviere (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Devil and the deep sea

It is more or less synonymous with the phrase ‘between the devil and the deep sea’. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant reference

I took the liberty of removing the link to the band Trivium, as it is entirely irrelevant to the article, other than them having a song named Scylla and Charybdis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.3.165 (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Shift to idiomatic focus

Xargque quite correctly remarked nearly two years ago that the article, with its concentration on the mythical status of Scylla and Charybdis, was redundant; the two 'monsters' already have much more detailed articles referring to them. I have therefore restyled this article so that its main emphasis is on idiomatic uses that incorporate the two as a unit. In doing this, I have also reinstated some cultural references that illustrate such usage. That does not mean that every reference to them is relevant. Many of the other instances plainly were not and were rightly removed. Having read the Trivium lyric, however, I have reinstated it. It has curiosity value and is evidence either of how popular the idiom remains or else of a higher state of literacy in a heavy metal band than one would have suspected! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've identified the Latin tag and set the proverbial use into its own section. The former, less confident assertion of the Straits of Messina was more nuanced: I've reinstated it as "a later Greek tradition".--Wetman (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for riding to the rescue, Wetman. In bringing the language up to encyclopaedic standard, I finally decided that, since the mythical details are dealt with in separate articles, repetition of them here is irrelevant. This focuses the article much more on use of the idiom after Classical times. For that reason, I have left the incident of Odysseus' choice as an early instance of the kind of story from which the idiom and the proverb arise. What would you think of making the title 'Between Scylla and Charaybdis' so as to make the distinction clearer? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Suitable illustrations

I have removed the illustration inserted by User:Crasshopper for the following reasons:

1. The article is about the idiom based on the myth, not the myth itself.
2. The illustration only depicts Scylla. I have inserted a reference to the picture from the section of text that deals with it in the article dedicated to her.
3. In any case, the picture is so worn that it can scarcely be made out and is therefore unsuitable for non-specialist encyclopedic use.
4. It was badly placed, intruding into the reference section, and did not refer to anything in the text about it.

This action has been taken following WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE guidelines. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't see your comment on this Talk page the first time I reverted the change. Reason #3 (which you gave in the edit summary) is subjective. Reason #4 would just imply moving the image not deleting it. Reason #1 would imply deleting all images. Crasshopper (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of the frying pan...

The Myth and Proverb section here mentions the Latin incidit in Scyllam cupiēns vītāre Charybdem (he runs into Scylla, wishing to avoid Charybdis) and compares it to jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. This may be so, but as the lesson of the Scylla & Charybdis myth is to choose the lesser of two evils (viz. Homer), and the modern idiom implies going from a bad situation to worse one, the comparison is unhelpful. So I have taken it out: As it is, the Latin, with the translation, is self-explanatory. I trust everyone is OK with that, Moonraker12 (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's well attested for over two centuries. I'll provide references and reverse you. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: Thanks for replying, and for the expansion, but this still isn't clear.

The article states "The Latin line incidit in Scyllam cupiēns vītāre Charybdem (he runs into Scylla, wishing to avoid Charybdis) was recorded by Erasmus as an ancient proverb in his Adagia": So, where does it say that? The quote from the Prolegomena has Scyllam defugiens in Charybdim incidi (which the translator notes reverses S and C ); this version of the Adages has Evitata Charybdi in Scyllam incidi (avoiding C he falls into S). (We state, by the way, that the Prolegomena uses defugiens rather than cupiens, but fail to mention the reversal; that's probably quite important..) And, Bland's version has the line we quote, but renders it as "Attempting to escape the rocks of S we are engulfed in the whirlpool of C" (which again is the wrong way round).

OTOH Bland does attribute the line to Philip Gaultier's poem 'celebrating the conquests of Alexander', (which I assume refers to Walter of Chatillon's Alexandreis), while the source we have for this, Harington's Notes and Queries, doesn't mention it anywhere (if it does, I can't see it; a page number would be useful). What exactly are we trying to say? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Adagia went through several different editions, which explains variants. Differences in the word-order of English renditions are hardly significant. The N&Q page number (14, it follows the date) is stated in the footnote. Edward Arwaker also claimed equivalence in his verse fables of 1708. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the page number; I've clarified the reference.

I appreciate that Erasmus produced several editions of the Adages; what I'm saying is that if we are attributing a particular form of the adage to him, we should say where he said it.

And of course the differences in word order are significant; they change the whole meaning (to be clear, they aren't just in the English editions, they are there in the original Latin): Scyllam defugiens.. (Escaping S and encountering C) is "jumping out of the frying pan into the fire"; Evitata Charybdi... (Avoiding C and running into S) is "taking the lesser of two evils". Which is what Bland says; after mistranslating the proverb to give (roughly) the former (p95), he then makes a point of the latter ("better to lose the wool than the sheep": p96). Moonraker12 (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that there are two proverbs with different meanings, depending on which of the hazards is given primacy in the Latin? Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sweetpool50: To answer your question, not really, no: I just thought there were more versions of the saying, and more interpretations of its meaning, than were apparent in the article. But your re-writes have pretty much covered that now, so thank you for listening. I'm still minded that the meaning of the phrase has changed these days (viz. the recent quotes mentioned); more along the lines of 'taking the middle course', or even 'from this nettle, danger, we pluck the flower, safety': But I haven't any source to back that up, so... Anyway, my regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Another problem

Another problem is that the original dilemma (and the idiom drawn from it) suggest an inescapable choice, which is born out in the usage by Aneau, and by Monsarrat. OTOH, the Victorian examples suggest steering safely between two perils, which is something else again (I'm not familiar with the other references).
So I'm thinking we need to differentiate between the two uses (particularly as the latter interpretation seems to still be around... Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right, the allusion is used in different ways, depending on whether it expresses the dilemma or the consequence of making a choice in a difficult situation. The cartoons, I agree, suggest that there is the possibility of steering a middle course - although one could argue that the result there leads to the different dilemma of 'being damned if you do and damned if you don't'. I know of no reference that says as much in relation to the idiom/proverb here and suggest anyway that such a situation would be better discussed in the dilemma article. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The thesis for this article is that 'Being "between Scylla and Charybdis" ... is an idiom ... associated with the proverbial advice "to choose the lesser of two evils".'

It seems to me that this thesis is just plain wrong.

In the Odyssey, Scylla is a monster that will eat you if you get too close, and Charybdis is a monster that will drown you if you get too close.

Neither "between Scylla and Charybdis" nor "between the devil and the deep blue sea" refers to a choice between two evils. Both refer to a treacherous course between two dangers, usually both of them lethal. The challenge is not to choose between the less undesirable of two ways to die. The challenge is to steer a course that avoids getting killed.

It seems to me that the whole article needs to be recast to discuss the actual meaning of the idiom. A Quiet Empiricist (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You repeat "It seems to me" twice. Take a look at WP:RS first. That's one of the principles considered vital to Wikipedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, A few things.

"It seems to me" was intended as deference. I was making a bold claim, but I did not want to be a jerk about it.

I did check the first few footnotes. I found there no support for the "lesser of two evils" explanation. I also found there actual passages from the Odyssey that describe a perilous strait with two different monsters on the two sides. The story did not provide a full explanation, but did refer to the two monsters and the way each would kill you.

Other Wikipedia articles explain that the myth was that Scylla would eat you if you got to close, and Charybdis would drown you if you got too close. This is consistent with my prior knowledge of the myth.

I posted because the article about current usage is inconsistent with the myth, and because there seemed to be no citations that support the description of current usage.

I could have checked all of the footnotes in the article, but I got lazy and checked with Google's Gemini. Its answer was straight up consistent with the Wikipedia article. I challenged it, and it replied, in that annoying way that large language models have, that my challenge was deeply insightful and much nearer the implications from the ancient myth. But it went on to double down that modern usage is much closer to what the article says.

Praise from a large language model does not impress me. What does impress me is the plain fact that the image from ancient myth is of a narrow and perilous path,

with extreme danger on both sides.

My criticism stands as no longer as a correction (which was my intent) but as enriching context. The context would support discussions of the original myth and of the way language changes over time. The discussion could (should) include both the fact that the dominant usage has evolved to refer to a choice between two evils, but that this usage has not fully displaced the reference to the perilously narrow path. These extensions would improve the article and render it more informative to the readers.

A Quiet Empiricist (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The contextual meaning of certain peril is mentioned in the final sentence of the lead and was also discussed by Erasmus. Nothing needs adding. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Before/after

@Sweetpool50: You noticed that I made this edit, because the Alexandreis was earlier than the Adages: You reverted it, because, as you say, as it is more recent than Homer. So, how about we agree to simply remove the ambiguity? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

OK Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Joyce's Ulysses

Upon finding an incompleted and broken-link reference to Joyce's use of the idiom in Ulysses, I did just a bit of cleaning up. In addition, making use of the literary critical concept of "styles" as a component of Joyce's structuring of Ulysses, I suggested that Stephen Dedalus' character could be seen as struggling with "Scylla and Charybdis" with regard to creativity (e.g. the naming of something both births the idea yet also pins it down). This is all drawn from Marilyn French's critique of Ulysses, which I cited.

I'm early on in a journey to take my Wikipedia editing beyond typos and broken links. Feedback on this attempt would be most welcome. Nephets (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Some years back I had a falling out with a previous editor who was far more interested in the events of the episode (which properly belong in the article on the novel) than on how the idiom functions. In this case you seem to have privileged one critic's interpretation which runs foul of WP's article on the novel. The section on the episode there seems to imply that the idiom refers to Bloom's walking between Stephen Daedalus and Buck Mulligan. I've therefore slimmed down your edit AND rectified the link to the novel. Incidentally, you need a link that says Joyce intended that title; the novel was originally published without it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for the fixes to my edit AND for the explanation of reasons behind it! Nephets (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)