Markup View

Author: Theriocephalus

Nov 10th 2017 at 10:16:22 AM

^ If we want to split hairs, cockatrices and basilisks started as separate creatures. Pliny's description of the basilisk in the first century A.D. was pretty unambiguously of a snakelike animal:
-->''"There is the same power ''[[to kill with a glance]]'' also in the serpent called the basilisk. It is produced in the province of Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle. It destroys all shrubs, not only by its contact, but those even that it has breathed upon; it burns up all the grass, too, and breaks the stones, so tremendous is its noxious influence."''
It's also mentioned a couple of times in the Bible, always in conjunction with regular snakes.
-->''"for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a basilisk, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent."''
And
-->''"You will tread on the lion and the dragon,\\
the asp and the basilisk you will trample under foot"''

The conflation of the basilisk and the more chimeric cockatrice first appeared in the middle ages, which is when they factually started being treated as the same creature -- before that, no mention is made of basilisks having a petrifying (as opposed to just deadly) glance, hatching from chicken eggs or having avian features.

Leaving that aside aside, I do think that it might be useful to mention it -- regardless of what confusion happened, happen it did.