Abstract

The Latin language is uncharacteristically rich when it comes to describing witches. A witch may be called acantatrixorpraecantrix, asacerdosorvates. She may bedocta,divina,saga, andmaga, avenefica,malefica,lamia,lupula,strix, orstriga. She may be simplyquaedam anus. The available terms are copious and diverse, and the presence of such an abundant differential vocabulary might suggest that Latin made clear linguistic distinctions between various witch types. It would seem a reasonable expectation thatpraecantrices, a word evocative of those who sing of events before they happen, would be concerned with divinatory practices, whileveneficae, given the term's close relationship to the word for poison, would deal in potions or philtres, leaving thelamiae orstriges to function as quasi-demonic bogeys posing threats to the lives of small children. However, this expectation of semantic and morphological concordance remains unfulfilled following any concerted attempt to correlate a witch's title with her function. Because of this disjuncture, this paper proposes to demonstrate not only the inaccuracy of the Latin vocabulary in articulating the functional differences between various witches, but also to assert the essential uniformity of witch characters in so far as each witch is, in essence, a blank canvas onto which a myriad of fears and anxieties may be mapped.