Talk:Cupid and Psyche

Roman or Greek

Is this myth Roman or Greek? First there are Roman gods and goddesses like Venus, Cupid and Juno. They are followed by Greek gods and goddesses like Hades and Zeus. --24.71.223.140 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the first written version of this story is the Latin one by Apuleius, although he may very well have been working off an oral fairy tale. Eros was originally a Greek God but the Roman version is called Cupid. Following Rome's invasion of Greece in the 2nd century BCE large sections of Greek mythology were lifted wholesale and imported into Roman mythology by finding correspondances with the existing Roman pantheon and conflating stories together. There's a history of the myth in the Introduction of this translation: Apuleius, Cupid & Psyche, (ed.E.J. Kenney), Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN: 05212603880521278139 (pbk.) Stephanie pegg 23:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to change the name From Aphrodity to Venus at the begging becasue it seems as im not the only one who was confused by the origin of the story.

Parody?

In the opening description: Read on its own, it is for the most part a mixture of straightforward fairy tale and parody.

I'll admit that I'm not seeing the parody part, either in the story itself or in the article. Anyone willing to shed some light on the subject? -Fuzzy 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not sure what it's a parody *of* either. Although I read on another Roman mythology page that "the council of the gods was a parody of the Roman council" so maybe the author meant something like this. —EatMyShortz 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full story

It seems on the 11th of January User:Tclphz replaced the summary story with the full story (The version of the story was not full, added new version.) — presumably from The Golden Ass. I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate to have that here - Wikipedia is not a place for entire texts. Also the new version lacks wikilinks which the old summary had. I would recommend that the version of the story Tclphz placed here be verified, and if it's the original text, moved to Wikisource, and the old summary be reinstated. Awaiting approval. —EatMyShortz 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the exact text here elsewhere and deemed this Wikisource material, not Wikipedia. So I've put the entire text on wikisource:Cupid and Psyche, and reverted to the November 30 version of the Wikipedia article, with a link to Wikisource. —EatMyShortz 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC) WP:BB![reply]
Tclphz - Don't include copies of primary sources. You've replaced the summary with the full story for a second time, with only the description: "the story didn't start correctly, used the wikisource version which seemed to be okay". On Wikipedia we don't just print primary sources - we summarize. This is an encyclopedia. That is why the first time you put it here, I explicitly created the Wikisource article and restored the summary. If you have a problem with the summary, fix it. Do not paste original sources here. —EatMyShortz 12:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanovich's Dushenka

As every Russian child knows, the finest version of the story is Bogdanovich's Dushenka, which is a retelling of La Fontaine's version. It was the most popular poem in late 18th-century Russia and was a pillow book of young Pushkin at the Imperial Lyceum. I'm scandalized to find no mention of it in the article. For shame! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]