A return to f25v - the dragon is the key, obviously, but is it basil?

[david]

Even older authors like Pliny distinguish between dragons and basilisks.

They do, although both were considered to be "wyrms", a generalised category of animals that included serpents and reptiles. A brief overview may be useful to distinguish between the two in traditional bestiaries of the high middle ages.

Aldrovandus makes the point that dragon and serpent are interchangeable terms - a dragon was a type of snake with demonic overtones. The basilisk was a cross between a snake and a chicken (actually an egg laid by a Rooster - some Roosters do have vestigial eggs inside) and was considered to be the King of serpents, hence its name basilisk or Regulus in Latin. It has been suggested that the basilisk is actually based on the King Cobra - Europeans talked of the basilisk's only enemy being the weasel, and of course the Cobra was hunted using mongooses. A Cockatrice appears to be a later Renaissance invention based upon mistranslation of the earlier myths and can be ignored for our purposes.

Both are depicted from the 12th century onwards with front feet and wings, but the dragon tended to be longer in body whist the basilisk was more cock shaped.


15th century basilisk (source unknown) - note the "weasel" attacking, a common basilisk motif


Dragon - You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Français 377, fol. 164r.

Dragons are often symbolically linked to the Devil and have a crest (or crown) to symbolise that he is the King of Pride, an attribute missing in basilisks (who have no link to demonic overlords). Another importance difference in illustration is that dragons sting with their tails, whereas basilisks kill by looking (or sometimes their smell).

Even as I write this I realise it's of no use in helping to identify the beast - it has a body like a basilisk but a crown like a dragon (unless it's a rooster's crest). But the symbolism may have been ignored by the scribe, who was jotting this down for his own personal reference.

On the other hand - I return to an earlier question of mine. Is the beast an original creation by the scribe or drawn later? The penmarks and illustrative style look different to me.