![](https://images.ecency.com/DQmPHELQcCi8LEEyTgjhPY7W5EGioLZDdsgsGAhQmRzuqnn/5299ced5_d4d5_409d_a124_226e2c880970.jpeg)



the “witch” of classical literature is a fascinating figure: sometimes beautiful, sometimes horrible, but always compelling.**1** In this article, I shall show that an analysis of the classical literary representations of witches reveals interesting similarities and important differences between the Greek and Roman sources, and I shall suggest some possible interpretations of these correspondences and contrasts. For the purposes of this article, I am employing the commonly accepted usage of the term “witch” in contemporary English, that is, “a woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.”**2** This broad etic definition of the term allows me to consider under the category “witch” a variety of female magical practitioners from classical literature, although the an- cient terms for these practitioners divide them into different emic categories.**3** Thus, some of these women are distinguished by their methods, for example, those who used magical potions (pharmakis or pharmakeutria in Greek; venefica or trivenefica in Latin) or incantations (kēlēteira in Greek, cantatrix or praecantrix in Latin). Some are defined by other characteristics, such as their habit of lurking around graveyards (tumbas in Greek), or their ability to fly (volaticus in Latin). Others, particularly Roman witches, may be identified with animals (striga or strix in Latin, a term for a type of bird) or monsters (lamia in Latin, a mythologi- cal female monster who devoured children). Roman witches also may be iden- tified with pejorative terms, such as malefica, “evil-doer,” or lupula, “whore,” or they may be called by more euphemistic terms: saga, “wise-woman,” veteratrix, “wellpracticed, seasoned,” or anus, “old woman.” Credit - Barbette Stanley Spaeth