[87] Jerem. chap. viii. ver. 17.
[88] Psalm ix. ver. 13.
[89] It is to be observed here, it is the Greek text that calls it Basilisc. The Hebrew for the most part calls it Tsepha, which are a species of serpents real and known. Our English translation, very improperly, renders it Cockatrice; a fabulous animal, that never did exist. I shall only further observe, that the basilisc, in scripture, would seem to be a snake, not a viper, as there are frequent mention made of their eggs, as in Isaiah, chap. lix. ver. 5. whereas, it is known to be the characteristic of the viper to bring forth living young.
[90] Elian. Hist. lib. i. cap. 25. Horia. hieroglyph. lib. ii. chap. 65.
[91] Lucan. lib. ix.
[92] Mart. lib. xii. and lxvii. epig.
[93] Juv. sat. xi.
[94] Vell. Pat. lib. ii. cap. 56.
[95] See Proverbs, chap. xxxi. verse 10. But in Job, where all the variety of precious stones are mentioned, the translator is forced, as it were unwillingly, to render Peninim pearls, as he ought indeed to have done in many other places where it occurs. Job, chap. xxviii. verse 18.
[96] Bochart reads this Lala falsely, mistaking the vowel point a for u, but there is no such word in Arabic.