CHAPTER VII

Of the Basilisk

Many Opinions are passant concerning the Basilisk or little King of Serpents, commonly called the Cockatrice: some affirming, others denying, most doubting the relations made hereof. What therefore in these incertainties we may more safely determine: that such an Animal there is, if we evade not the testimony of Scripture and humane Writers, we cannot safely deny. So it is said _Psalm_ 91. _Super Aspidem et Basiliscum ambulabis_, wherein the Vulgar Translation retaineth the Word of the Septuagint, using in other places the Latine expression _Regulus_, as _Proverbs_ 23. _Mordebit ut coluber, et sicut Regulus venena diffundet_: and _Jeremy_ 8. _Ecce ego mittam vobis serpentes Regulos, etc._ That is, as ours translate it, _Behold I will send Serpents, Cockatrices among you which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you_. And as for humane Authors, or such as have discoursed of Animals, or Poisons, it is to be found almost in all: in _Dioscorides_, _Galen_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, _Ælian_, _Ætius_, _Avicen_, _Ardoynus_, _Grevinus_, and many more. In _Aristotle_ I confess we find no mention thereof, but _Scaliger_ in his Comment and enumeration of Serpents, hath made supply; and in his Exercitations delivereth that a Basilisk was found in _Rome_, in the days of _Leo_ the fourth. The like is reported by _Sigonius_; and some are so far from denying one, that they have made several kinds thereof: for such is the _Catoblepas_ of _Pliny_ conceived to be by some, and the _Dryinus_ of _Ætius_ by others.

But although we deny not the existence of the Basilisk, yet whether we do not commonly mistake in the conception hereof, and call that a Basilisk which is none at all, is surely to be questioned. For certainly that which from the conceit of its generation we vulgarly call a Cockatrice, and wherein (but under a different name) we intend a formal Identity and adequate conception with the Basilisk; is not the Basilisk of the Ancients, whereof such wonders are delivered. For this of ours is generally described with legs, wings, a Serpentine and winding tail, and a crist or comb somewhat like a Cock. But the Basilisk of elder times was a proper kind of Serpent, not above three palms long, as some account; and differenced from other Serpents by advancing his head, and some white marks or coronary spots upon the crown, as all authentick Writers have delivered.

Nor is this Cockatrice only unlike the Basilisk, but of no real shape in Nature; and rather an Hieroglyphical fansie, to express different intentions, set forth in different fashions. Sometimes with the head of a Man, sometime with the head of an Hawk, as _Pierius_ hath delivered; and as with addition of legs the Heralds and Painters still describe it. Nor was it only of old a symbolical and allowable invention, but is now become a manual contrivance of Art, and artificial imposure; whereof besides others, _Scaliger_ hath taken notice: _Basilici formam mentiti sunt vulgo Gallinacco similem, et pedibus binis; neque enim absimiles sunt cæteris serpentibus, nisi macula quasi in vertice candida, unde illi nomen Regium_; that is, men commonly counterfeit the form of a Basilisk with another like a Cock, and with two feet; whereas they differ not from other serpents, but in a white speck upon their Crown. Now although in some manner it might be counterfeited in _Indian_ Cocks, and flying Serpents, yet is it commonly contrived out of the skins of Thornbacks, Scaits, or Maids, as _Aldrovand_ hath observed, [SN: _By way of figure._] and also graphically described in his excellent Book of Fishes; and for satisfaction of my own curiosity I have caused some to be thus contrived out of the same Fishes.

Nor is onely the existency of this animal considerable, but many things delivered thereof, particularly its poison and its generation. Concerning the first, according to the doctrine of the Ancients, men still affirm, that it killeth at a distance, that it poisoneth by the eye, and by priority of vision. [SN: _Destructive._] Now that deleterious it may be at some distance, and destructive without corporal contaction, what uncertainty soever there be in the effect, there is no high improbability in the relation. For if Plagues or pestilential Atoms have been conveyed in the Air from different Regions, if men at a distance have infected each other, if the shadows of some trees be noxious, if _Torpedoes_ deliver their opium at a distance, and stupifie beyond themselves; we cannot reasonably deny, that (beside our gross and restrained poisons requiring contiguity unto their actions) there may proceed from subtiller seeds, more agile emanations, which contemn those Laws, and invade at distance unexpected.

That this venenation shooteth from the eye, and that this way a Basilisk may empoison, although thus much be not agreed upon by Authors, some imputing it unto the breath, others unto the bite, it is not a thing impossible. For eyes receive offensive impressions from their objects, and may have influences destructive to each other. [SN: _Effluxion of corporeal species._] For the visible species of things strike not our senses immaterially, but streaming in corporal raies, do carry with them the qualities of the object from whence they flow, and the medium through which they pass. [SN: _How the Basilisk kills at distance._] Thus through a green or red Glass all things we behold appear of the same colours; thus sore eyes affect those which are sound, and themselves also by reflection, as will happen to an inflamed eye that beholds it self long in a Glass; thus is fascination made out, and thus also it is not impossible, what is affirmed of this animal, the visible rayes of their eyes carrying forth the subtilest portion of their poison, which received by the eye of man or beast, infecteth first the brain, and is from thence communicated unto the heart.

But lastly, That this destruction should be the effect of the first beholder, or depend upon priority of aspection, is a point not easily to be granted, and very hardly to be made out upon the principles of _Aristotle_, _Alhazen_, _Vitello_, and others, who hold that sight is made by Reception, and not by extramission; by receiving the raies of the object into the eye, and not by sending any out. For hereby although he behold a man first, the Basilisk should rather be destroyed, in regard he first receiveth the rayes of his Antipathy, and venomous emissions which objectively move his sense; but how powerful soever his own poison be, it invadeth not the sense of man, in regard he beholdeth him not. And therefore this conceit was probably begot by such as held the opinion of sight by extramission; as did _Pythagoras_, _Plato_, _Empedocles_, _Hipparrchus_, _Galen_, _Macrobius_, _Proclus_, _Simplicius_, with most of the Ancients, and is the postulate of _Euclide_ in his Opticks, but now sufficiently convicted from observations of the Dark Chamber.

[Sidenote: _The generation of the Cocks egg._]

As for the generation of the Basilisk, that it proceedeth from a Cocks egg hatched under a Toad or Serpent, it is a conceit as monstrous as the brood it self. For if we should grant that Cocks growing old, and unable for emission, amass within themselves some seminal matter, which may after conglobate into the form of an egg, yet will this substance be unfruitful. As wanting one principle of generation, and a commixture of both sexes, which is required unto production, as may be observed in the eggs of Hens not trodden; and as we have made trial in some which are termed Cocks eggs. [SN: Ovum Centeninum, _or the last egg which is a very little one._] It is not indeed impossible that from the sperm of a Cock, Hen, or other Animal, being once in putrescence, either from incubation or otherwise, some generation may ensue, not univocal and of the same species, but some imperfect or monstrous production, even as in the body of man from putrid humours, and peculiar ways of corruption, there have succeeded strange and unseconded shapes of worms; whereof we have beheld some our selves, and read of others in medical observations. And so may strange and venomous Serpents be several ways engendered; but that this generation should be regular, and alway produce a Basilisk, is beyond our affirmation, and we have good reason to doubt.

Again, It is unreasonable to ascribe the equivocacy of this form unto the hatching of a Toad, or imagine that diversifies the production. For Incubation alters not the species, nor if we observe it, so much as concurs either to the sex or colour: as appears in the eggs of Ducks or Partridges hatched under a Hen, there being required unto their exclusion only a gentle and continued heat: and that not particular or confined unto the species or parent. So have I known the seed of Silk-worms hatched on the bodies of women: and _Pliny_ reports that _Livia_ the wife of _Augustus_ hatched an egg in her bosome. Nor is only an animal heat required hereto, but an elemental and artificial warmth will suffice: for as _Diodorus_ delivereth, the Ægyptians were wont to hatch their eggs in Ovens, and many eye-witnesses confirm that practice unto this day. And therefore this generation of the Basilisk, seems like that of _Castor_ and _Helena_; he that can credit the one, may easily believe the other: that is, that these two were hatched out of the egg which _Jupiter_ in the form of a Swan, begat on his Mistress _Leda_.

The occasion of this conceit might be an Ægyptian tradition concerning the Bird _Ibis_: which after became transferred unto Cocks. For an opinion it was of that Nation, that the _Ibis_ feeding upon Serpents, that venomous food so inquinated their oval conceptions, or eggs within their bodies, that they sometimes came forth in Serpentine shapes, and therefore they always brake their eggs, nor would they endure the Bird to sit upon them. But how causeless their fear was herein, the daily incubation of Ducks, Pea-hens, and many other testifie, and the Stork might have informed them; which Bird they honoured and cherished, to destroy their Serpents.

That which much promoted it, was a misapprehension of holy Scripture upon the Latine translation in _Esa._ 51, _Ova aspidum ruperunt et telas Arenearum texuerunt, qui comedent de ovis corum morietur, et quod confotum est, erumpet in Regulum_. From whence notwithstanding, beside the generation of Serpents from eggs, there can be nothing concluded; and what kind of Serpents are meant, not easie to be determined, for Translations are here very different: _Tremellius_ rendering the Asp Hæmorrhous, and the Regulus or Basilisk a Viper, and our translation for the Asp sets down a Cockatrice in the Text, and an Adder in the margin.

Another place of _Esay_ doth also seem to countenance it, Chap. 14. _Ne læteris Philistæa quoniam diminuta est virga percussoris tui, de radice enim colubri egredietur Regulus, et semen ejus absorbens volucrem_, which ours somewhat favourably rendereth: _Out of the Serpents Root shall come forth a Cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying Serpent_. But _Tremellius_, _è radice Serpentis prodit Hæmorrhous, et fructus illius præster volans_; wherein the words are different, but the sense is still the same; for therein are figuratively intended _Uzziah_ and _Ezechias_; for though the Philistines had escaped the minor Serpent _Uzziah_, yet from his stock a fiercer Snake should arise, that would more terribly sting them, and that was _Ezeckias_.

But the greatest promotion it hath received from a misunderstanding of the Hieroglyphical intention. For being conceived to be the Lord and King of Serpents, to aw all others, nor to be destroyed _by any_; the Ægyptians hereby implied Eternity, and the awful power of the supreme Deitie: and therefore described a crowned Asp or Basilisk upon the heads of their gods. As may be observed in the Bembine Table, and other Ægyptian Monuments.