This paper re-examines what many scholars have seen as the problematic intrusion of the monstrous serpent into the narrative of Cupid and Psyche. Psyche seems far too easily convinced by her sisters that her unseen husband is a horrendous creature intent on devouring her. Psyche's extreme credulity, terror, and willingness to kill her husband are more understandable if her reaction is interpreted in the context of Lamia lore, with which Apuleius and his audience were clearly familiar. Relevant evidence includes Dio's fifth Oration and Philostratus' Life of Apollonius, as well as tales of anguipedal males such as Typhoeus and Cecrops.

In Apuleius' story of Cupid and Psyche (Met. 4.28-6.24), Psyche's envious sisters, wishing to destroy her marital relationship, tell her they know for certain that her husband is an immense serpent (immanent... serpentem) dripping deadly poison from its bloody jaws (5.17.3). (1) They report that people in the area have seen him returning from feeding and bathing in the nearby river, and they claim that he is only pampering her and feeding her such rich meals to fatten her and her unborn baby before devouring them both (5.17.4-18.1). Right after hearing this, Psyche, whom Apuleius describes at this point as simplex et animi tenella ("simple, and tender of mind," meaning not only "naive" but also possibly "immature" or even "feebleminded," 5.18.4), is terrified and completely taken in. But why is Apuleius' Psyche suddenly so willing to believe that her unseen but so far very loving husband is a monstrous serpent fattening her up to devour her? She has touched him frequently and often heard him speak. Even Apollo's oracle, which foretold Psyche's marriage to someone saeuum atque ferum uipereumque malum, "savage and fierce, snakelike and wicked," was intentionally ambiguous (4.33.1), signaling for the audience, at least, many of Love's traditional attributes--particularly when the oracle states that even Jove comes under the creature's control (4.33.2). (2) Psyche's credulity upon hearing her sisters' falsehoods really goes well beyond the simplicitas usually attributed to her character. Wright has argued that "the pedantic objection that she should be aware that she has not been sleeping with a serpent is irrelevant in the literary world either of Apuleius or of the folk-tale." (3) But such a dismissal is unsatisfactory. Winkler, for example, notes the "problematic intrusion" of the "demon serpent" into the story, and Kenney objects that Apuleius greatly compounds the improbabilities of the plot in this section of the narrative. (4) Zimmerman et al. note that it is difficult to understand how Psyche can possibly believe her sisters: "the question as to how this is possible has puzzled many. She should know better," since she has tactile knowledge of her husband, so the sisters' rhetoric must have been exceptionally effective. (5) Scholarly objection remains quite relevant given that a major plot point hinges on such an apparently ridiculous oversight. (6) This paper argues that Psyche's extreme credulity and terror are much more understandable if we interpret her reaction not simply via the general folkloric...