From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Power NPOV[edit]

The Cinderella story is much criticised for its negativetraditionalistic, approach to women.

while the first part certainly is true we don't need the author sticking in his own opinion here. Whdrilled into us as the ideal type of women for many decades now...that doesn't mean a modest quietly kind girl like Cinderella can't get her fair shake and come out on top too... Jarwulf 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

in the second cinderella moive her step mother broke the glass sliper in to pisis. CENICIENTA: MUERTA MALAMENT Y DOLOROSAMENTE ASESINADA POR LA MISMISIMA BLANCA NIEVES POR AVERLE ROBADO EL NOVIO

ARA TE ENTERAS????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC) Miz Gyrusin likes cool whip — Preceding unsigned comment Insert non-formatted text hereadded by (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot hole?[edit]

I've always wondered why the glass slipper stayed in glass and didn't transform back to whatever she had on her feet before. --Stereo 12:38, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Forgot to mention in my edit summary that I added "see also artistamp" under the philatelic usage of the word "cinderella."

It is inaccurate to say that Cinderella's name was "Cinderella." This is the abusive nickname given to her by her stepsisters as she was dirty and forced to sleep in cinders. Her true name is never given in the story. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the arabic/Persian version I just came across while reading the Thousand Nights and One Night, none of the characters have names, either. The girl doesn't have any nicknames, either, though.

Evil step mother is my siter ( S.G —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how common it is in fairy tales, that the central/title character is the only one with a name (compare Rumpelstiltskin, Mossycoat), and how often it's an acquired name rather than a real one. -- Smjg 17:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

mentioned ---- I've also heard the verre/vair confusion myth before, and also the theory that it could've been vert (green).

But I've also come across a version where the stepmonster knocks the glass slipper and smashes it to pieces, after the stepsisters have tried it. Cinderella then gets the matching slipper out to prove her identity.

It must have taken some care to dance and to run in a hurry in slippers that really were made of glass….

By the way, what descriptions are there (as opposed to pictures in specific editions) of what Cinderella's dress actually looked like? And did she necessarily have gloves reaching 3/4 of the way up the arm?

-- Smjg 17:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does the slipper - not necessarily glass, but certainly small - remain? Well, because she accidentally lost it, of course. The version of Cinderella taking out the second one (where from, we might ask again...) seems to be Disney's own invention. (Ah, yes. Count me among the incurable ones for whom neither a pumpkin nor a fairy, nor mice for that matter, plays any role in that tale - but, instead, a swarm of doves, a mother's grave, and a hazelnut tree. Also I doubt the Brothers Grimm mentioned the material the slipper was made from. ;-) )--2001:A60:1507:8C01:848C:92ED:8772:3CD (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
They do mention it, but they're normal shoes (doubtlessly valuable ones) decorated with gold and silver, or only gold for the last evening.--2001:A60:1507:8C01:848C:92ED:8772:3CD (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

what about discussing the philosophcal aspects of the character of cinderella[edit]

What about discussing the philosophcal aspects of the character of cinderella, please take a look at sites like [1] to see what i mean and then integrating into the main article.

Moreover on verre/vair confusion[edit]

Last Friday, QI featured the question "What were Cinderella's slippers made of?" I'm inclined to believe QI got something wrong again.

There was no mention of the original gold mentioned here, but the answer referred to vair, which apparently refers specifically to squirrel fur (it was the "squirrel" answer that the panel were supposed to find). The corruption was attributed to Charles Perrault. However, if Perrault really was French, would he have confused the two words? -- Smjg 14:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who remembers the discovery a few years ago, of one chopine (an Italian platform shoe of the Renaissance) that was made entirely of blown glass? I wanted to put this in the article as definitive final proof that the slippers were, indeed, made of glass & that scholars are wrong when they say otherwise, but I did not want to do so without some sort of corroboration. And no, I do not believe Perrault was an idiot when it came to writing his own language. FlaviaR FlaviaR 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Perrault wrote "verre", and it means "glass". Confusion with "vair" is impossible. The critic of Perrault was made in XIXth century, by prestigious authors like Honoré de Balzac, Émile Littré and others, in the name of the Reason (the French Reason, the Logic and the Cartesianism !). but in French folklore, you have lots of nonsense and strange things like glass shoes. Morburre (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Most people associate glass with crystal, so presumably that is why in a recent production by Kingswood Players, it was crystal slippers that Cinderella wore following her magical transformation, by her Fairy Godmother.

Regarding her name, my understanding was that the ugly sisters abbreviated from Cinderella to Cinders because she was forced to reside by the fire in the kitchen.

Richard C Bond Feb 2006

Disney vs Brothers Grimm[edit]

Despite the article's former claims, the Disney version is NOT universally the standard version of the tale.

Unless my generation has bigger problems than I am aware of, the predominent version of the tale in Germany is Grimms' Aschenputtel, which is only vaguely similar to the Disney version. In fact, until I bumped into the Disney movie on pay-TV, I wasn't even aware of Disney's Cinderella being based on the same tale.

Disney movies HAVE been quite good at sanitising various fairy tales and stories beyond recognition, but at least in the German speaking countries, Grimms' Fairy Tales are still well-known and thus their versions are still popular.

Sorry if I sound a bit irritated, but I have a serious grudge against Disney -- a therapist would probably blame the Mary Poppins movie for that, but if someone says that out loud, Jack Thompson might start crusading against cartoons, too. =P -- Ashmodai 23:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither Disney nor the brother's Grimm are the universal tale, in fact there are hundreds of Cinderella tales in the world, those two are just most popular.

From my own research, Walt Disney Pictures based their feature-length film musical on the Giambattista Basile-Charles Perrault version out of France, one of the variants of this tale. I have not found a film interpretation of Aschenputtel, as told to the Grimms, to date--in that variant, the wicked stepsisters cut off their toes in order to shoehorn their massive feet into the mystery pump, and birds perched over the carriageway call the bluff--"Blut in dem Schuh" was the quote the birds are alleged to have used. - B.C.Schmerker 23:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The "fur slipper" rumor[edit]

One thing I've noticed is that there is a slightly dirtier version of the rumor about the glass/fur slipper that suggests that not only was there a confusion about whether the slipper was glass or fur, but also that the "fur slipper" which was supposedly mistranslated was in fact a euphemism for something a bit more womanly and earthy than it's literal meaning. Apparently, in this version, instead of the women lining up to try on the slipper, they line up and the Prince tries out their slippers. Maybe this is a reaction to the sanitised Disney version (and sorry, Ashmodai, but at least in the UK, and by extention, I assume, the English speaking Western World, that is the standard version, even if it's local to Angloland rather than universal), or something. Reveilled 22:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

And then they all live happily ever after!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 
Wow ! I didn't know this one. I like it ! Morburre (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New, interesting, I appreciate an old fairy tale! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney (talkcontribs) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


The anachronism of a supposed skin-color sensitivity in Egypt itself is revealing.

What's so anachronistic about that? Poor girls worked outside and got their skins darkened; rich girls stayed inside and were paler. Very like the ashes and rags of the Cinderella tradition. Goldfritha 22:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Text[edit]

It seems useful to post the Chinese text here. I will add the translation... when I have time, though there must be more capable translators around here.

南人相傳,秦漢前有洞主吳氏,土人呼為吳洞。娶兩妻,一妻卒。有女名葉限,少惠,善陶金,父愛之。末歲父卒,為後母所苦,常令樵險汲深。時嘗得一鱗,二寸余,金目,遂潛養於盆水。日日長,易數器,大不能受,乃投於後池中。女所得余食,輒沉以食之。女至池,魚必露首枕岸,他人至不復出。其母知之,每伺之,魚未嘗見也。因詐女曰:"爾無勞乎?吾為爾新其襦。"乃易其弊衣,後令汲於他泉。計里數百也,母徐衣其女衣,袖利刃行向池,呼魚,魚即出首,因斤殺之。魚已長丈余,膳其肉,味倍常魚,藏其骨於鬱棲之下。逾日,女至向池,不復見魚矣,乃哭於野,忽有人被發粗衣,自天而降,慰女曰:"爾無哭,爾母殺爾魚矣,骨在糞下。爾歸,可取魚骨藏於室,所須第祈之,當隨爾也。"女用其言,金璣衣食隨欲而具。及洞節,母往,令女守庭果。女伺母行遠,亦往,衣翠紡上衣,躡金履。母所生女認之,謂母曰:"此甚似姊也。"母亦疑之。女覺,遽反,遂遺一隻履,為洞人所得。母歸,但見女抱庭樹眠,亦不之慮。其洞鄰海島,島中有國名陀汗,兵強,王數十島,水界數千里。洞人遂貨其履於陀汗國,國主得之,命其左右履之,足小者履減一寸。乃令一國婦人履之,竟無一稱者。其輕如毛,履石無聲。陀汗王意其洞人以非道得之,遂禁錮而栲掠之,竟不知所從來。乃以是履棄之於道旁,即遍歷人家捕之,若有女履者,捕之以告。<there seems to be a gap here???>陀汗王怪之,乃搜其室,得葉限,令履之而信。葉限因衣翠紡衣,躡履而進,色若天人也。始具事於王,載魚骨與葉限俱還國。其母及女即為飛石擊死,洞人哀之,埋於石坑,命曰懊女塚。洞人以為祀,求女必應。陀汗王至國,以葉限為上婦。一年,王貪求,祈於魚骨,寶玉無限。逾年,不復應。王乃葬魚骨於海岸,用珠百斛藏之,以金為際。至征卒叛時,將發以贍軍。一夕,為海潮所淪。成式舊家人李士元聽說。士元本邕州洞中人,多記得南中怪事。

--K.C. Tang 08:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this is what I got out of Babelfish by translating Traditional Chinese into English: (Hidden by me, as the "translation" occupies too much space and is distracting to readers--K.C. Tang 23:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)) It doesn't make sense to me. Is it accurate? Why sigh, cutie pie? 00:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation, rather free, to be completed: "According to the southerners, in their region, before the Qin and Han dynasties, there was a cave inhabited by the Wu families. The natives call it Cave Wu. The head of the family married twice. The daughter her first wife gave him was called Yexian. Wu was fond of Yexian, who was smart, and skillful at gold panning. After his father's death, Yexian was ill-treated by her stepmother. Her stepmother often ordered her to go to dangerous places to cut wood and draw water. Once Yexian, while drawing water, captured a tiny, golden-eyed fish. She bred the fish in a basin. The fish grew quickly, and outgrew one basin after another. Finally Yexian threw it into a pool, and fed it with the food she saved. The fish only showed itself when Yexian came to see it. Her stepmother soon came to discover the existence of the fish. Yexian and the fish did not know that the woman knew. The woman came up with a trick - she said to Yexian: 'You have been working so hard! Let me renew your coat as your reward.' Then she told Yexian to put off her old coat, and ordered her to draw water at a distant place. When the woman calculated that Yexian had gone for a long distance, she put on Yexian’s coat, hiding a sharp knife underneath her sleeves, and walked towards the pool where the fish dwelled. She called the fish, the fish showed itself, and she killed it with the knife. The woman ate the fish, which had grown to a considerable size, and proved more delicious than usual fishes. She buried the bones of the fish under the soil. Next day, Yexian came to the pool to find that the fish was missing. She wept. All of a sudden someone disheveled and badly-clad descended from heaven, consoling the girl: 'Don’t cry, girl. Your mother killed your fish and buried its bones under the soil. Take the bones and hide them in your room. Pray to them whenever you need something.' The girl did what she was told, and got whatever she wanted by praying to the bones..."--K.C. Tang 08:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a translation that I found in a Norton Critical Edition fairy tale anthology:
"The Chinese Cinerella Story" from Folk-lore, vol. 58 (London: The Folklore Society, 1947), 18-20. Narrated by Li Shih-yüan and recorded by Tuan Ch'eng-shih (c. 850 AD); Translated by Arthur Waley (1947).

Among the people of the south, there is a tradition that before the Ch'in and Han dynasties there was a cave-master called Wu. The aborigines called the place the Wu cave. He married two wives. One wife died. She had a daughter called Yeh-hsien, who from childhood was intellegent and good at making pottery on the wheel. Her father loved her. After some years the father died, and she was ill-treated by her step-mother, who always made her collect firewood in dangerous places and draw water from deep pools. She once caught a fish about two inches long, with red fins and golden eyes. She put it into a bowl of water. It grew bigger every day, and after she had changed the bowl several times she could find no bowl big enough for it, so she threw it into the back pond. Whatever food was left over from meals she put it into the water to feed it. When she came to the pond, the fish always exposed its head and pillowed it on the bank; but when anyone else came, it did not come out. The step-mother knew about this, but when she watched for it, it did not once appear. So she tricked the girl, saying, "Haven't you worked hard! I am going to give you a new dress." She then made the girl change out of her tattered clothing. Afterwards she sent her to get water from another spring and reckoning that it was several hundred leagues, the step-mother at her leasure put on her daughter's clothes, hid a sharp blade up her sleeve, and went out to the pond. She called to the fish. The fish at once put its head out, and she chopped it off and killed it. The fish was now more than ten feet long. She served it up and it tasted twice as good as an ordinary fish. She hid the bones under the dung-hill. Next day, when the girl came to the pond, no fish appeared. She howled with grief in the open countryside, and suddenly there appeared a man with his hair loose over his shoulders and coarse clothes. He came down from the sky. He consoled her saying, "Don't howl! Your step-mother has killed the fish and its bones are under the the dung. You go back, take the fish's bones and hide them in your room. Whatever you want, you have only to pray to them for it. It is bound to be granted." The girl followed his advice and was able to provide herself with gold, pearls, dresses, and food whenever she wanted them.

When the time came for the cave-festival, the step-mother went, leaving the girl to keep watch over the fruit-trees in the garden. She waited till the step-mother was some way off, and then went herself, wearing a cloak of stuff spun from kingfisher feathers and shoes made of gold. Her step-sister recognized her and said to the step-mother, "That's very like my sister." The step-mother suspected the same thing. The girl was aware of this and went away in such a hurry that she lost one shoe. It was picked up by one of the people of the cave. When the step-mother got home, she found the girl asleep, with her arms round one of the trees in the garden, and thought no more about it.

This cave was near to an island in the sea. On this island was a kingdom called T'o-han. Its soldiers had subdued twenty or thirty other islands and it had a coast-line of several thousand leagues. The cave-man sold the shoe in T'o-han, and the ruler of T'o-han got it. He told those about him to put it on; but it was an inch too small even for the one among them who had the smallest foot. He ordered all the women in his kingdom to try it on; but there was not one that it fitted. It was light as down and made no noise even when treading on stone. The king of T'o-han thought the cave-man had got it unlawfully. He put him in prison and tortured him, but did not end by finding out where it had come from. So he threw it down at the wayside. Then they went everywhere through the all the people's houses and arrested them. If there was a woman's shoe, they arrested them and told the king of T'o-han. He thought it strange, searched the inner-rooms and found Yeh-hsien. He made her put on the shoe, and it was true.

Yeh-hsien then came forward, wearing her cloak spun from halcyon feathers and her shoes. She was as beautiful as a heavenly being. She now began to render service to the king, and he took the fish-bones and Yeh-hsien, and brought them back to his country.

The step-mother and step-sister were shortly afterwards struck by flying stones and died. The cave people were very sorry for them and buried them in a stone-pit, which was called the Tomb of the Distressed Women. The men of the cave made mating-offerings there; any girl they prayed for there, they got. The king of T'o-han, when he got back to his kingdom made Yeh-hsien his chief wife. The first year the king was very greedy and by his prayers to the fish-bones got treasures and jade without limit. Next year, there was no response, so the king buried the fish-bones on the sea-shore. He covered them with a hundred bushels of pearls and bordered them with gold. Later there was a mutiny of some soldiers who had been conscripted and their general opened (the hiding-place) in order to make better provision for his army. One night they (the bones) were washed away by the tide.

---aikisenshi 04:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

it's amazing, i don't even know there is a translation! but as I said above, the original seems to have some problem: can you understand these sentences? "So he threw it down at the wayside. Then they went everywhere through the all the people's houses and arrested them. If there was a woman's shoe, they arrested them and told the king of T'o-han. He thought it strange, searched the inner-rooms and found Yeh-hsien. He made her put on the shoe, and it was true." they're confusing to me.--K.C. Tang 08:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is more appropriate for Wikisource than for this discussion page.Goldfritha 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I know...I have a Chinese text from "Chinese Cinderella" (Adeline Yen Mah) and I don't know how to post it on wikisource... Maybe a little help from anyone??? Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The proper translation of below:


Should be:

..The dealer said he just picked that shoe on the side of road and thought it's thrown by someone.So the king asked to search every families.If the another shoe was found,arrest the family and meet the king.

Fls81245 (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Standard version[edit]

The lede says:

the animated film from Walt Disney Productions, (see Cinderella (1950 film)) has become the standard contemporary version despite the fact that it somewhat sanitises the original plotline.

The "despite" is loaded. Why is it "despite" and not, say, "because of"? Is there any reason to believe that this "sanitising" was an obstacle to its being the standard version? Goldfritha 04:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Out it goes. Goldfritha 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

what about the mice? nobody ever mentions the namesof the mice!

Plot vs. variations[edit]

These two sections contain duplicate information. Either the variations should all be put in the plot section, or -- probably better -- all the variations should be dealt with separately. Goldfritha 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The plot section is pretty confusing with description of numerous variations. Maybe better to have one of the versions chosen to put in the plot section, and all the variations in a separate section. Roy2005 12:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, there was a separate section. But with editors refusing to avoid putting stuff in the "synopsis" section there was no reason to segegrate some of it. (I collapsed the two some time after that.) Goldfritha 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Goldfirtha, the Variations is just too confusing. I added a brief summary of the plot (using Perrault's version which is the most common in English speaking countries), and will work on deleting duplicate information in the variations.Cbradshaw 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an Implausible Version of the Tale[edit]

"The poor girl bore it patiently, but she dared not tell her father, who would have scolded her; his wife controlled him entirely." In all of the versions of this story I have read, the father is dead, and it was not until his death that the true nature of the stepmother and stepsisters became known (they had inherited the old man's money). It seems implausible that the situation could have existed while he was alive.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you check the link at the end of the story, this is a summary of Perrault's version. That line is almost verbatim. Doubtless, other retellings change that because it's hard to take. But this version, as said at the top, is from Perrault. Cbradshaw (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Origins?[edit]

Cinderella is mentioned in ST VI Undiscovered Country if I recall. Chekov said it was a Russian story. Is there any truth to this? An error, an intentional mistake? JohnathanZX4 18:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

      The reference in ST6 is an "inside joke", if you will, from the original series, where Chekov is *always* saying that whatever     
      is being discussed at that monent is actually a Russian invention. FlaviaR 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

cinderella can also be used to describe a person of great potentials what i mean by that is a person who have been able to move from rags to reaches. example you can say that a person has a cinderella spirit. by kelechi ibe


i think it is a scandal how this article tries to make "Cinderella" a global thing, mentioning the Grimm Brothers only in a few words. Bravo Wikipedians! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

That's all well and fine but Cinderella is a pretty much global story. Although not all of the girls are called Cinderella, the story or stories existed as folk tales long before the Grimm Brothers wrote a story on it. Look it up, you'd be surprised on the amount of Cinderella tales there are.

Television Adaptations[edit]

I have seen a number of cartoons (beyond the short list) that feature some kind of adapration. The only one that really sticks out is an Alvin and the Chipmunks cartoon, where the entire episode was on the Chipettes, namely the red one who didn't do her fair share of the chores, and then enacted a Cinderella story in her mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

The Roman version of Aelian (2nd-3rd centuries AD)[edit]

Who has the Cinderella version by the ancient Roman writer Aelian? Unfortunately, there appears to be no translation online. Source: Aelian's "Varia historia", XIII, 33. I would appreciate it if someone could post his version. Regards Gun Powder Ma 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aelian told two Cinderella stories. The first was Aspasia of Phocaea; Historical Miscellany (XII.1): Aspasia was a Greek girl who's mother dies at birth, she is brought up by her father, she was disfigured but Aphrodite gives her the gift of beauty, she attends a dance given by Cyrus the Younger with three other girls who didn't have noble characters, Cyrus is bewitched by Aspasia's beauty and her kindness, he offers her a necklace fit for a Queen, but Aspasia instead offers the necklace to the King's mother instead. Cinderella Story in Antiquity Aelian writes: "This woman was unreservedly admired both for her physical beauty and even more for her nobility of character." The aesthetic of that beauty can be gained from Aelian's description of her as having blond hair, large eyes, an aquiline nose, and small ears, as well as pretty ankles, fair skin, and a pleasant voice." Aspasia of Miletus Aelian then retold a slightly different version of Strabos Rhodopis story in the next book "Varia historia", XIII, 33. He is the only ancient historian to have included two Cinderella characters in a single work. (Angar432 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

"Discussion" section.[edit]

I reverted a deletion of text by Seraphimblade. I understand why he deleted the text, but it seems to me there is some valuable information there—the relationship between fair tales and human psychology is a subject that has been thoroughly studied. Can we edit/find citations for this material, rather than scrap the whole load of it? Fixer1234 04:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that some of it already had referecnes. Goldfritha 00:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirley Climo[edit]

This work appears to be an adaptation. Moving it. Goldfritha 22:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Statement ?[edit]

Hi. I noticed in the article that it said One can argue that this is undoubtedly one of the greatest stories in the history of story-telling times. I don't think anyone can prove that, so does that statement belong in the article? Blackcat52 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion section[edit]

I've removed the discussion section for a rethink.

Cinderella - Project Gutenberg etext 19993.jpg Caption was "The Fairy Godmother appears to Cinderella, illustrated in a 1927 story anthology"
The Cinderella tale is sometimes portrayed as a "rags-to-riches" tale. However, in fact, it is a "riches-to-rags-to-riches" tale; Cinderella, being the daughter of a rich merchant, is at first driven from her rightful patrimony, and the course of the fairy tale restores her to it. (ref Jane Yolen, p 33, Touch Magic ISBN 0-87483-591-7)
The tale has been interpreted as a psychological "splitting": by having both a dead mother and the all good benefactor, any feelings of resentment can be put onto the evil stepmother. (ref Maria Tatar, p 29, The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales, ISBN 0-393-05163-3)
The idea that "Cinderella" embodies myth elements was explored in The Uses of Enchantment (1989) by Bruno Bettelheim, who made many connections to the principles of Freudian psychology.
As Freudian analyses have come to be viewed as less scientific, Fact tag date=February 2007) mythographers have turned to trying to disentangle different cultural elements from different versions of the Cinderella tale. (Fact tag date=February 2007) Each social group, in re-telling "Cinderella", has emphasized or suppressed individual elements and has given them interpretations that are especially relevant within each society. Mythography return to Cinderella for hints of the social ethos embodied in it, and the familiar story proves to be a useful case example for young students beginning to understand how myth works. Thus serious uses come from what appears on the surface to be a trivial wish-fulfilment narrative.
Earlier, less self-consciously instructive Cinderellas have more revealing mythic content. (Fact tag date=April 2007)
The term Cinderella has originated from its storybook beginnings to become the name for a variety of female personalities. Some girls are described as a Cinderella if they are meek and immediately submissive to stern orders. Others are called Cinderella if they tend to complain quietly. For example, a girl from a wealthy household who has been ordered to wash the dishes as a fulfilment of her once-a-month chores would be deemed a Cinderella; a fallen princess who has finally met with tough reality. (Fact tag date=April 2007)
Cinderella, along with the more general "princess", are shorthand for a particular approach to wedding and Western wedding attire, especially the white dress. (Fact tag date=April 2007) A bride with the Cinderella mindset believes that the dress and the occasion exist in order that she may be transformed for the day into a beautiful princess. Detractors of such princess brides argue that the wedding is not solely about the bride; nevertheless, many wedding gown retailers appeal, directly or indirectly, to the Cinderella ideal.
The Cinderella story is much criticised for what many perceive to be a negative, traditionalistic approach to women. (ref Linda M. Scott, Fresh Lipstick: Redressing Fashion and Feminism p 165 ISBN 1-4039-6686-9) From the point of view of these critics Cinderella is oppressed, and does nothing about it; a magical event takes her to a powerful prince who is so taken with her appearance that he chooses her as his consort (it is assumed that she will accede), decorative, but existing only as an adjunct to him. They believe that she has no personality or character of her own; she is simply pretty and good-natured and mindlessly obedient, and advances because of this. Little girls in Western society are told the story: they can infer that if they are obedient and take care of their appearance they will live Happily Ever After. In J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows we learn that children brought up in wizarding households are totally ignorant of the Cinderella story. Presumably this is because witches are independent and strong-minded women, and do not want their daughters believing the way to solve their problems is to marry the right man.
On the other hand, others claim that the story should be taken on its own merit, to them Cinderella is not meant to be read into and critiqued as some complex academic social manifesto, but to be enjoyed as a fairy tale and its simple powerful message that good can come to decent people.
Going even further, many do not see Cinderella's personality or actions in a negative light. Simply that she has come under criticism because more confrontational headstrong heroines have become perceived as the new ideal of what a women is expected to be in Disney and American culture in general. To them, Cinderella has many admirable qualities, taking a more calm and discreet approach in fulfilling her wishes, and chooses to be kind even to those who mistreat her. Fact tag date=April 2007) In Perrault's own moral, he notes it is not enough to be pretty, but graciousness is what earned Cinderella her happy ending. He goes on to say that her intelligence, kindness, good breeding were not enough alone to assist Cinderella; the Godmother assisted her and the Prince was won over by her because of her graciousness. The reader is to take this lesson when applying the tale.

There's some good stuff here, but there are problems. Here's how I see it:

  • The title of the section, "Discussion", invites people to add their own opinions
  • I think there's evidence that some people have done just that, dressing them up in weasel words like "others claim...", "many do not see...", "the Cinderella mindset...", "each social group...has...", "Some girls are described as...", "what many perceive..." and so on.
  • There are some longstanding demands for citation that haven't been addressed either by removing the unsourced statement or providing a source.

On the other hand some statements in the early paragraphs are well sourced and refer to actual, concrete, commentary on the matter. There is more that could be added. Angela Carter's comments are nowhere to be seen in this section. For instance, she covered Cinderella in considerable depth in Ashputtle. And that's only one feminist commentator among many who have approached the story (if I dug deep enough in my bookshelves I'm sure I'd find commentaries by Susan Griffin and Andrea Dworkin).

But the point is that if we cover interpretations we do so properly, with sources and not vague handwaving. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Glass or fur : the ultimate answer[edit]

Firstly, I am French and French is my first language. I am dwelling on this point to avoid in advance any dispute of my understanding of that wonderful language. Most French kids (well, I at least) were told the story of Cendrillon while growing up. And our parents almost always unmistakably insisted that Cinderella's slippers were made of "vair" (which is the fur of a small animal similar to squirrels) and not of "verre" (i.e. glass). In fact, this is the ONLY instance in modern French where this very old word appears. This word is in fact so old, that it has long vanished from the common French vocabulary. It is well-known that the word was already obsolete when Perrault wrote his tale. Nevertheless, people insisted that the slippers were made of fur. Yet, Perrault's original version uses the word "verre". So... what happened? It's rather simple. Decades after Perrault wrote his version of the tale, several French intellectuals decided that glass slippers made no sense, thus assuming that Perrault had made a spelling error (for those of you who don't know French, the words "vair" and "verre" sound exactly the same in French), they changed Perrault's original wording. And so the error was born. If all one cares to know is the original word chosen by the author, then one need not look further: the slippers were crafted out of glass, whether or not this seems realistic. Beyond that, however, it is now widely believed that Perrault made NO error and that he did indeed intend to use the word "verre". Many reasons substantiate this reasoning. First off, the word "vair" was no longer used in Perrault's contemporary times. His readers would have most likely not understood the word "vair" any more than todays French kids do. Next, why should Perrault have made a spelling error? He was, after all, a confirmed writer and an educated scholar. There is absolutely no reason to a priori assume that he would fall into such a basic spelling trap. Finally, and more importantly, Perrault was writing a *fairy tale*, not a newspaper article. His imagination had pumpkins turn into horse carriages, mice into men, so why not common shoes into glass slippers? Especially since glass slippers are in perfect agreement with the story line stating that Cinderella is the *only* girl whom the slippers should fit. Plain fur slippers could easily be fitted to adapt to the feet of many girls. But glass slippers could only be crafted for a unique pair of feet. In conclusion, Perrault never wrote nor meant to bring fur slippers in his tale. He wrote, spelled, and meant "verre". The subsequent change to "vair" is nothing more than an imposed correction invented by some intellectuals who were lacking the necessary imagination to fully understand and appreciate this wonderful tale.

I hope my English is fluent enough to be read and understood by native anglophones. If not, please accept my apologies. I normally do not "pollute" the English Wikipedia with my bad English. I just felt compelled to share with you the above information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your English is fine, and thankyou for clearing this up, I've been searching for the truth on this for a long time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very fluent English. And it does seem to clear up that point about the slipper that interests people. Thanks. The original by Perrault must be the one in Histoires ou Contes du temps passé, Édition de 1697 in Wikisource which has the alternative title "la petite pantoufle de verre". I see the article on fr:Controverse sur la composition des pantoufles de Cendrillon which gives additional detail that could be included in the main article. --Annielogue (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at comment seven, you'll see that "fur" would be a euphisms for "vagina".

Edits, changes, cleanup[edit]

1. Added fact tag to "medieval Indo-Malay" version, as I'm not sure that "Anne de Fernandez" sounds medievally Indo-Malay in origin. Truthfully, each version of the story needs a reliable source documenting its historicity.

2. Moved the Aarne-Thompson classification to the plot section; it seemed to have less to do with "Origins and history" and more with what type of plot the story features.

3. Moved the Garner adaptation from "Origins and history" to the "Adaptations" section, where it belongs. Is his version "original"? Sure, but not in the sense of being the "origins" of the classic tale.

Probably more to come... Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

4. I removed one item from the "Books" list which was clearly an ad.

5. I did a copyedit on the Adaptations section; where I Americanized the spelling it was because I had already noted American spellings earlier in the article. Per WP Guidelines, I don't care which spelling system is used, as long as it's consistent within an article. Where I removed periods at the end of various list items, it was because those list items were not complete sentences. Feel free to re-add them if you think they should end with periods regardless.

6. Cite the assertion that Cinderella has the most adaptations, please. That's a huge claim to make.

7. Cite the assertion that Disney's version is the most popular or best-known or whatever. Another huge claim (believable in America, but perhaps questionable internationally).

8. Are all these adaptations really notable? See, for example, the YouTube listing, or the versions for which the editors couldn't be bothered to add any information beyond the title.

9. Downgraded "Films" section to the same heading level as all the other adaptation genres.

10. I trimmed the Coronation Street list item; I didn't think explaining the episode's ending was necessary here.

11. I deleted Bella at Midnight from the Books list, as no author was listed and the page was redlinked.

12. The Cinderella Project looks like a useful resource; the link should probably be posted in External Links and the Archive section deleted from the article.

13. I'm not convinced that the Archive section (while it exists at all) should be hierarchically under Adaptations; I compromised and moved it to be the last section.

14. Although I probably wasn't consistent about it (SO MANY edits to look for), I tried to remove the words "a song" under "Songs," "a film" under "Films," and so on.

But wait, there's more. I'm probably not going to come back and do this myself, but there are redundant wikilinks, inconsistencies in punctuation, missing relevant information (directors, artists, etc.) from several adaptations entries, non-notable adaptations, tons of citations needed... I hope my edits help. If I did something you didn't like (and I probably did), consider editing to fix that specific error rather than reverting the entire multi-hour session that I put into this. I really do think the article is stronger now; had I thought otherwise, I wouldn't have done all this work. Good luck. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 02:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision to plot section[edit]

I reverted a recent edit to the plot section which greatly expanded the moral of the story. The reasoning behind this is that the moral comes from the cited source, which does not include the material I reverted. A source should be cited for anything as subjective as the "moral" of a story. Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

quite right. I adapted the whole plot summary from Perrault's tale, and it really should not be changed unless someone goes back to the original tale. Thanks, good work!Cbradshaw (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

expanded article lead[edit]

I read somewhere that article leads should essentially summarize the body of an article. I expanded the lead here to include a brief summary of the plot and a mention of its continuing influence on popular culture. I believe that all information I added is supported by the remainder of the article; still, a little voice in my head is whispering that I'm flirting with original research or at least unsourced claims. Please check and see if my revision can be improved. Thanks! Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My last edit, which was rescinded[edit]

I received another message from another user telling me that they have removed my last edit because it contained incorrect information. FYI, I was not signed in at the time, so it's an anonymous edit.

I'm sorry, I don't understand how I added any information, let alone incorrect information. It was a style edit, and labeled as such.

The reason for the first part of the change is that the fairy godmother is generally portrayed as WARNING C. not to stay past midnight, not FORCING her (otherwise she wouldn't almost miss the deadline, and the subsequent slipper-losing and happy-ending wouldn't happen). Thus it seemed likely that the sentence originally read "The fairy godmother *B*ade Cinderella return..." not "*M*ade Cinderella return..." I did not want to change it to that since "bade" is archaic, so I found what I thought was an appropriate substitute.

As to the changing of "broken" to "wear off", I was under the impression that the purpose of the plot summary was to give a quick, but accurate, overview of the story. It seems to me that there is a difference between a spell being ended by force (like another spell), and a spell ending due to the passage of time. The former spell would normally be said to have been broken, while the latter would be said to have worn off.

I would appreciate other users' input on this matter. I don't want to fight over this, but I really don't think that I did anything wrong, and, if not, I would like to reinstate my edit.

- Peach (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cinderella • [singing] A dream is a wish your heart makes When you're fast asleep. In dreams you will lose your heartaches. Whatever you wish for, you keep. Have faith in your dreams, and someday Your rainbow will come smiling through. No matter how your heart is grieving, If you keep on believing, The dreams that you wish will come true. • What? In a trap? Then why didn't you say so? [edit] Dialogue Cinderella: Oh please you don't think that I would— Lady Tremaine: Hold your tongue! Now, it seems we have time on our hands. Cinderella: But I was only trying to— Lady Tremaine: Silence! Time for vicious practical jokes. Perhaps we can put it to better use. Now let me see… There's the large carpet in the main hall; clean it! And the windows—upstairs and down—wash them! Oh yes, and the tapestries and the draperies— Cinderella: But I just finished— Lady Tremaine: Do them again! And don't forget the garden. Then scrub the terrace, sweep the halls and the stairs, clean the chimneys. And of course there's the mending and the sewing and the laundry… Oh yes, and one more thing, see that Lucifer gets his bath. ________________________________________ Lady Tremaine: And, by royal command, every eligible maiden is to attend! Drizella: Why, that's us! Anastasia: And I'm so eligible! Cinderella: Why that means I can go too. Drizella: Hah! Her, dancing with the Prince. [laughing] Anastasia: I'd be honored, Your Highness. [holds out her flute] Would you mind holding my broom? [both waltz in place, laughing derisively] ________________________________________ Jaq: Poor Cinderelly. Ev'ry time she find a minute, that's the time when they begin it. "Cinderelly! Cinderelly!" Drizella: & :Anastasia: [echoing offstage] Cinderella! Jaq: [singing] Cinderelly, Cinderelly. Night and day it's Cinderelly. Make the fire! Fix the breakfast! Wash the dishes! Do the moppin'! Mice: [singing] And the sweepin', and the dustin' They always keep her hoppin'. Jaq: She go around in circles 'till she very, very dizzy Still they holler... Mice: Keep-a busy, Cinderelly! ________________________________________ Gus: [singing] I could cut it with the scissors! Jaq:: [singing] And I can help with the sewing. Perla: [singing] Leave the sewing to the women. You go get some trimmin'. ________________________________________ Fairy Godmother: Well, hop in my dear. We can't waste time. Cinderella: Oh, but— Fairy Godmother: Now, now, don't try to thank me. Cinderella: Oh, I wasn't… I mean, I do, but don't you think my dress.— Fairy Godmother: Yes, it's lovely, dear, lov… [actually sees it] Good heavens, child! You can't go in that. ________________________________________ Cinderella: Why, it's like a dream. A wonderful dream come true. Fairy Godmother: Yes, my child, but like all dreams, well, I'm afraid this can't last forever. You have only until midnight, and— Cinderella: Midnight? Oh, thank you— Fairy Godmother: Oh, now, just a minute. You must understand, my dear: On the stroke of twelve, the spell will be broken, and everything will be as it was before. Cinderella: Oh, I understand, but... it's more than I ever hoped for. ________________________________________ The King: I give up. Even I couldn't expect the boy to— Grand Duke: Well, if I may say so, Your Majesty, I did try to warn you; but you, Sire, are incurably romantic. No doubt you saw the whole pretty picture in detail. The young prince bowing to the assembly. Suddenly he stops. He looks up. For, lo, there she stands. The girl of his dreams. Who she is or whence she came, he knows not, nor does he care for his heart tells him that here, here is the maid he is predestined to be his bride. A pretty plot for fairy tales, Sire. But in real life…oh, no. No, it was foredoomed to failure. [unbeknownst to him, everything he described has just happened] The King: Failure, eh? Ha-ha! Take a look at that, you pompous windbag! ________________________________________ Cinderella: It's midnight. Prince Charming: Yes, so it is. Cinderella: Goodbye. Prince Charming: No, no wait, you can't go now. Cinderella: Oh, I must. Please, please, I must! Prince Charming: But why? Cinderella: Uh, well, uh... the Prince. I haven't met the Prince. Prince Charming: The Prince? But didn't you know— [clock strikes] ________________________________________ Grand Duke: But, Sire, this slipper may fit any number of girls. The King: That's his problem. He's given his word; we'll hold him to it. Grand Duke: No, no, your Highness. I'll have nothing to do with it. The King: You'll try this on EVERY MAID in my kingdom. And, if the shoe fits... Bring her in. Grand Duke: [gulps] Yes, your Majesty. ________________________________________ Lady Tremaine: Drizella? Drizella. Drizella: Mmm? What? Lady Tremaine: Get up. Quick, this instant. We haven't a moment to lose. [goes into Anastasia's room] Anastasia? Anastasia. Get up, Anastasia. Anastasia: [yawning] Huh? What for? Why? Lady Tremaine: Oh, everyone's talking about it. The whole kingdom. Oh, hurry now. He'll be here any minute. Drizella: [yawning] Who will? Lady Tremaine: The Grand Duke. He's been hunting all night. Drizella: Hunting? Lady Tremaine: For that girl. The one who lost her slipper at the ball last night. They say he's madly in love with her. Anastasia: The Duke is? Lady Tremaine: Oh, no, no, no. The Prince. ________________________________________ Jaq: He's here! He's here, the Duke-Duke! Gus: Who? Jaq: The Grand Duke, with the slipper! Gotta get that key quick! Gus: Duke-Duke! Key-key! Quick-quick! ________________________________________ Grand Duke: You are the only ladies of the household I hope—I—I presume. Lady Tremaine: There's no-one else, your Grace. Grand Duke: Quite so. Good day, good day. Cinderella: Your Grace! Your Grace! Please, wait. May I try it on? Lady Tremaine: Oh. Pay no attention to her. Anastasia: It's only Cinderella. Drizella: Our scullery maid. Anastasia: From the kitchen. Lady Tremaine: Absolutely ridiculous. Anastasia: She's out of her mind. Lady Tremaine: Yes, just an imaginitive child! Grand Duke: Madam, my orders were every maiden! ________________________________________ [the slipper has just shattered] Grand Duke: Oh, no! Oh, no, no, no, no. Oh, this is terrible. [gasps] The King! What will he say? [clutches his throat] What will he do? Cinderella: But, perhaps, if it would help— Grand Duke: No, no, nothing can help now. Nothing! Cinderella: But, you see, I have the other slipper. [overjoyed, he kisses it several times before placing it on her foot] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in the article, and even in the Disney film's article. Wikipedia is not even a script depository.Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The clock strikes 12?[edit]

Why does Cinderella still have her glass slipers after 12? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Maguire[edit]

More detail should be added about Maquire's book, since it isn't the common Cinderella story at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rodgers & Hammerstein's Cinderella[edit]

The one with Brandy is a remake. There was one in the 80s or 90s. I remember Cinderella having a squeaky voice & a Cinderella look to her & the Prince was Latino. Exact same songs too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Cinderella Story for Children[edit]

Another line of thought on the Cinderella story is one that is elaborated on in a New York Times magazine article (but that is not a unique line of thinking to this article). The title is What's Wrong with Cinderella?

Some of the ideas elaborated on in this article are

it's connection with Disney Princess culture
it's affect on children - "Some psychologists say that until permanency sets in kids embrace whatever stereotypes our culture presents,"
mental health issues are raised with Cinderella and the princess persona for girls

From same author: Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the New Girlie-Girl Culture

Quote - "Pink and pretty or predatory and hardened, sexualized girlhood influences our daughters from infancy onward, telling them that how a girl looks matters more than who she is."

Am Removing this link at the request of BlackCab. Natural (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Natural Natural (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately a conflict of interest here, Scott. You appear to be citing a document you wrote yourself on your own website. You were warned about promoting your business when you first started editing Wikipedia. BlackCab (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not promoting a website, I'm promoting the idea stated here. The site page has different links on the subject. The secondary source you objected to was removed earlier.Natural (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Natural
Quite honestly this article needs a lot of work, but plenty of good scholarly sources exist to be used. Certainly Bruno Bettelheim's work might also be relevant here as well.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Clarified threading and restored comments and user sig removed after a subsequent reply. --Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Giambattista Basile[edit]

How did he write a book in 1634 when he died in 1632? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia page on Basile, "He is chiefly remembered for writing the collection of Neapolitan fairy tales titled Lo cunto de li cunti overo lo trattenemiento de peccerille (Neapolitan for "The Tale of Tales, or Entertainment for Little Ones"), also known as Il Pentamerone published posthumously in two volumes by his sister Adriana in Naples, Italy in 1634 and 1636 under the pseudonym Gian Alesio Abbatutis." Nightkey (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

New book reworking[edit]

One possible addition to the list of books is Sunny Ella, by Sally Zybert, which is a dark adult take in which Ella, suffering from harsh abuse by her stepfamily, snaps mentally. I will not add this myself due to a WP:COI, as I prepared this book for publication. Information on this book can be found at the Combustoica website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


The infobox contains a AKA list full of translations. This would be better off elsewhere. JIMp talk·cont 12:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


How could Seneca have written something called "'On the Pumpkinification of Claudius', playing on a pun for the word for deification and the word for pumpkin" when pumpkins are native to North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure on this, but the word "pumpkin" originates from the Greek pepon (πέπων)which means "large melon." So if that statement is true, and I have no idea if it is, it's probably not referring to a pumpkin as we know it (the ones that originated in NA) but simply a large melon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

TONY BLAIRE published Cindrella?![edit]

Is this an error? The article's author "Tony Blaire" links to the politician's page. Please correct it. UnconsciousInferno (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it was some recent vandalism that I just reverted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I see. Sorry for not realising it was vandalism myself. I assumed it was a different Tony Blaire that was not linked properly; didn't realise someone had messed with the text. UnconsciousInferno (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Age of Eastern Asian versions[edit]

I think it is a bit odd, not to say misleading, to include some Eastern Asian versions (Vietnamese, Korean and Philippine) without mentioning their age. It is not clear whether they first occurred long ago or are modern adaptions, something I regard as highly relevant. ✎ HannesP · talk 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's not a good practice to mix chronologinal data with undated data. It's confusing and can easily mislead the reader, which goes against the basic purpose of an encyclopedia. Dates need to be added or it should be removed IMHO. One other possibility might be to separate these undated versions of the story into a new section called "Variations in different countries" or "Variations of the Cinderella theme". This would keep the information on the Vietnamese, Korean and Philippino versions but separate it from the history/origins section, so as to not give any unintended hints on the dates of these versions. Abvgd (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Welsh Gypsy?[edit]

The article refers to "the Welsh gypsy version" but I'm unclear at what is Welsh about this at all. The reference at appears to be a quote from Gypsy Folk Tales, by Francis Hindes Groome, [1899] and the only location mentioned at all is Oxford, which is not in Wales. I suppose it could be a version specific to British gypsies but I think, under the circumstances, I'd identify this as a Roma version and not a Welsh gypsy. Posting the question here first in case there's an additional reference that I've missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkaSylvia (talkcontribs) 13:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Order of sections[edit]

In my opinion, last section, called "Cinderella Theme", should be the first one, and under a different name, such as "Origins". Cinderella is a tale older than dirt, present throughout the history of Eurasia. Versions in Spanish and French are arranged in a chronological order.

Engranaje (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


There's a (likely false) epitaph in Franciscus Swertius' Epitaphia joco-seria latina, gallica, italica, hispanica, lusicanica, belgica (1623:21):

In lapide est titulus VIRIDELLA, sed ipsa sepulcro
Devirui: heu tumulus nomina falsa gerit.
Tabuit in cineres VIRIDELLA, colorque decorque
Nullus adest, heu quid nomina vana iuvant?
Quin potius CINERELLA legar, CINERELLA sepulcro
Inscribar, periit nam viror atque vigor.
Nec titulo est VIRIDELLA, nec est VIRIDELLA sepulcro
Nomen, forma, vigor, denique nil superest.

For the girl VIRIDELLA (=green, youthful little girl)
On the stone is the title VIRIDELLA, but I myself have lost my greenness in the tomb: alas, the tomb bears a false name.
VIRIDELLA wasted way into ashes, there is no color or beauty left, alas what good are empty names?
Why should I not be read as CINERELLA, I should be inscribed as CINERELLA on the tomb, for greenness and vigor have perished.
Nor is VIRIDELLA fit for a title, nor is VIRIDELLA a name for a tomb: form, vigor, finally nothing is left.

This predates the other mentions of the name on the page and gives the earliest mention of the name that I've seen. (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot style inconsistencies[edit]

The first is written in the present tense, as is the norm for fiction, the other two in the past. One capitalizes Prince, another doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


A "myth" element of unjust oppression? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C001:FFB0:B504:54C1:DF5F:5E53 (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Earliest example?[edit]

Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but would the old testament story of Joseph not be the earliest example of a Cinderella character? Significantly predating Rhodopis.

Anonymous, other than a fact of Joseph being male and not bedding the Pharaoh, there is the matter of what you mean by predating. Rhodopis lived in the 6th century BC. The Book of Genesis is considered to have been written during the Babylonian captivity of the 6th century BC or at (the latest) the 5th century BC. It is unclear which of the two rags to riches stories is the earlier one. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Character Type 510A[edit]

Under: "Plot variations and alternative tellings" "Although many variants of Cinderella feature the wicked stepmother, the defining trait of type 510A is a female persecutor:[...]"

The '510A' has a hyperlink to the wikipedia article (which is just a stub and doesn't talk about character trait types. I suggest linking the '510A' to instead.

(Later, under "Folkloristics", The words, "The Aarne–Thompson system classifies Cinderella as type 510A, "the persecuted heroine"", 'Aarne-Thompson" links to the second wikipedia article as mentioned above.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Coatrack tag[edit]

@Francis Schonken: Honestly, I didn't understand the tag, I thought it meant that the info written is from outside the reference. What does it mean ? Also, sorry if you were offended by me removing the tag. (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There's too much Shakuntala stuff in this article that *does not relate to the Cinderella story at all*, e.g. "Dushyanta then fights and defeats an army of Asuras, and is rewarded by Indra, the king of devas, with a journey through heaven" has not even an oblique connection to Cinderella. In fact the whole Kalidasa paragraph should be removed: it is a later version of the story (several centuries after the "oldest" version), a version that has no claim whatsoever to being the "oldest" Cinderella-like storyline. There are thousands of Cinderella versions: Kalidasa's expansions on the older material is not one of these thousands of variants. The whole "India" section should be no more than a short paragraph: the whole Shakuntala-Cinderella connection can be explained in two, or at most three, shortish sentences: Cinderella is the topic of this article, not ten-thousands of things that have a vague resemblance with it but with most details completely different (especially those details that "differ" from the Cinderella storyline have not place in an article about Cinderella). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


I do not think the story of Shakuntala counts as a true variant of the "Cinderella" story; there are a few noticeable similarities, but nothing strong enough to suggest that they are in any way etymologically related. I checked out all of the sources cited in the section, but two of the three websites cited appear to be nothing more than random online blogs and the third website is an online store for buying dolls made in India. Clearly, none of these qualify as reliable sources. I think that the "India" section should be removed because the story of Shakuntala is clearly not a "Cinderella" story, or at least not in any recognizable western sense. "Shakuntala" bears about as much resemblance to "Cinderella" as the plot of Longus's Daphnis and Chloe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it need to have an etymological connection ? From what I read in the article, it seems that "variants" mean stories from different parts of the world that have notable similarities. Also, isn't a blog, it is owned by The Hindu Business Line, who are also the publishers of the notable Indian newspaper The Hindu. The Dolls website probably isn't necessary as it used as a reference for Kalidasa's ending, which as stated above probably shouldn't be included as the connection is noted between the original versions. is run by Karen Carr. Surely these are reliable ? (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a few similarities between the stories, but only extremely vague ones. If we were to include every story that bears even the remotest similarity to "Cinderella," this article would be over 400,000,000,000 kilobytes long and would discuss everything from the Sumerian legends of Inanna to Charles Dickens's David Copperfield to "The Girl Without Hands." It simply would not be at all practical. We need to limit our focus to stories that are clearly directly related to the "Cinderella" tale.
In regards to your sources, reliability often depends on the context; Stephen Hawking is unquestionably an expert on theoretical physics, but he has repeatedly shown himself to be surprisingly ignorant of subjects in the humanities, such as history and philosophy. The Hindu is a newspaper, not a scholarly publication, and Karen Carr is an artist who specializes in depicting prehistoric animals; she is not an expert on ancient folklore or mythology. If this article were about politics in present-day India, The Hindu might be a reliable source; likewise, if we were discussing what Megalodon looked like, perhaps Karen Carr would be a reliable reference. As it is, however, we are not discussing either of those things; we are talking about a Eurasian folk tale, which means we should only use sources written by people who are experts on folklore.
Just for the record, the "India" section is not the only section in this article that contains these problems; many of the other sections rely on sub-par sources and stretch the definition of "Cinderella" also. The "India" section is just the one that has received the most recent attention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
India section has been shortened and only includes parts that are similar to other versions. The article needs some shortening. I propose shortening the section Indonesia and Malaysia as they seem extended. (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The sections on "Indonesia and Malaysia," "Vietnam," "Korea," "Britain," and the "Middle East" are all completely uncited. The "India" section is effectively uncited, since none of the sources used in it are actually reliable sources pertaining to the study of ancient folklore. Furthermore, many of these "Ancient and international versions" seem to based on unclear sources, including possibly modern literary sources, which often facetiously claim to be ancient for the sake of storytelling. Unless someone can find the actual ancient sources in which these stories supposedly appear, as well as modern scholarly sources directly linking them to the story of "Cinderella," I think all of the sections I have listed can safely be deleted, which will leave behind only the "Ancient Greece," "China," "Finland," "Philippines," and "West Asia" subsections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Should Britain be deleted ? Isn't Britain the birthplace of the common version known ? (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
The most popular version actually comes from Charles Perrault, who was French, not English. I believe Joseph Jacobs does have an English version of the story in his English Fairy Tales, but the current "Britain" section talks about the story of Cordelia from Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae and Charles Dickens's David Copperfield, both which bear some similarities to "Cinderella," but neither of which really qualify as variants. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Theres Cinder Maid by Joseph Jacobs (ref). Also, before we remove anything, here's a list of stories under Aarne Thompson's 510 A. (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We can possibly mention Jacob's version in the "Literary versions" section. There is also an Old French version of "Cinderella" from the late twelfth century entitled Le Fresne, which I think we can add to the "Ancient and international versions" section; it follows a similar vein to "Shakuntala," but contains far more features in common with "Cinderella." We do not have enough space to mention every tale that falls into the AT 510 A classification, but I think that historically or culturally significant variants deserve to be mentioned. We also need to be careful to support everything with reliable, scholarly sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


Katolophyromai, regarding this, you have a point with your edit summary, but how can we judge which ones to include and exclude? Your removals are not subjective. Seems like what we need is for those sections to be replaced with prose, per WP:Prose, and include some examples instead of listing every example. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: That is what my plan is. Unfortunately, I do not have time to rewrite the section in prose tonight, so I will have to do it at a later date. I know that my removals were not subjective, but I was just clearing out the section as a temporary solution. What I ultimately intend to do is find reliable sources talking about modern adaptations of the Cinderella legend and use those to rewrite the section entirely, only mentioning those adaptations which are mentioned in the reliable sources on the subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Katolophyromai, I fixed my comment above. I meant "are subjective" because, unless reliable sources don't or barely mention some of them, there is no way to state that the ones you removed should not be included. On a side note: I've added this page to my watchlist; so there's no need to ping me to it. I won't ping you to it again either since it seems you are watching it too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
As much as I am all for citations and reference; this page looks ridiculous without notable adaptation mentions. Why not just let the adaptations listing be as it and add a refimprove tag in the section instead of just removing it altogether? JayB91 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
All of the adaptations in the section were cited to, which I have recently learned is not a reliable source and is not supposed to be cited to support the sort of content that it was being cited to support. I have now removed the section entirely, since it contained no reliable sources. A new "Adaptations" section will have to be written at some point using reliable sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is bothered to find reference for every single adaptation in long term. Why don't you do it? Removing the most worldwide known adaptations from the list makes the page look bare and stub. JayB91 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If a work is published or released it is a reliable primary source as to its own existence. IMDb is a convenience to check against but it is not the ultimate source, the work itself is that source. We don't need additional references as long as we have a strong reason to expect that the work exists and can be verified as to existence. A listing on IMDb gives credence that existence can be verified for those willing to do so. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Katolophyromai, please do not wholesale remove this section from the article. With lists of this nature, here's the general guidelines for inclusion (ie, showing that the adaptation is notable enough to list):
  1. There is an article establishing notability for the adaptation and/or its creator(s).
  2. There is a reliable source (or more) showing where the adaptation has received coverage in independent and reliable sources.
The section needed work, but it should not have been removed without something to immediately replace it. Not every adaptation should be listed and if the list does grow too long a spinoff article akin to List of adaptations of The Prince and the Pauper or similar. But wholesale removal is inappropriate. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've re-added the material to the article. If anyone wants to add or adapt it to prose (a student has expressed interest and full disclosure, I monitor their class, however the reason I re-added this was because it should not have been removed wholesale in the first place), that's perfectly fine - I do think that a list may be easier, but I'm happy as long as it's listed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 15:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Just so everyone here knows, when I removed the "Adaptations" section, I was originally planning on writing a replacement section, but I did not have time to write it right away, then I forgot about it and never got around to writing it. I apologize if I caused any trouble. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Glass slipper or fur slipper[edit]

It is misleading for the first sentence to have the alternative title of "Cinderella" as "The Little Glass Slipper", as in the original, Cinderella never wore a glass slipper but fur slippers - glass slippers was a mistranslation. Vorbee (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a folk tale. There is no "original version." Her name is not "Cinderella" in most versions either; she is also known as "Aschenputtel," "Cenerentola," "Cendrillion," etc. Only English versions call her "Cinderella." In the oldest known recorded version (the Greek story of Rhodopis), the shoe is not a slipper at all, but a leather sandal. In many versions, the token used to identify her is not even a shoe. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


Why is the translations section relevant? Nearly all classic fairy tales have been translated into all languages. Carnival Honey (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Carnival Honey: It is not really relevant. I honestly was not really sure why we had it to begin with and it was uncited anyway, so I have now removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
a big thankyou to Katolophyromai for removing something that is not relevant to this article. i have "Cinderella" on my watchlist (but had not actually read this article!), and saw the apparent wholesale removal of translations, "why would a list of notable translations be removed" i initially thought, not realising it was just a list of the name in various languages, but on seeing what has actually been removed wholeheartedly agree with this course of action. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's recreate the Adaptation section[edit]

I think everyone can agree that having an adaptation section is extremely crucial to the context of the cinderella Wikipedia page. I propose recreating the adaptation section with credible sources so that the adaptation section remains valid and isn't deleted once again (See previous comments on why the adaptation section was entirely removed) I will be working on this in my sandbox in order to improve it before adding it back to the page. If anyone would like to join or has any suggestions feel free to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddomi1 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)