A short essay arguing that Aphra Behn's description of a "cousheree" in Oroonoko (1688) is evidence she actually visited Surinam in the 1660s. Following Derek Hughes (2007), the essay identifies the cousheree as a golden lion tamarin and asks why Behn's comparison of the animal to a lion lands so precisely when a biological lion looks almost nothing like a tamarin. The answer: Behn's mental archive of "lion" was the heraldic lion of East Kent parish churches, inn signs, embroidery, and royal arms — and that specific cultural image matches the tamarin almost feature-by-feature, where a biological lion does not. A writer working from secondhand sources (such as George Warren's 1667 Impartial Description of Surinam) would have inherited Warren's primate categorization; Behn doesn't, reaching instead for a feline-heraldic comparison that makes no zoological sense but perfect cultural-perceptual sense. The cousheree passage thus functions as a cultural-fingerprint diagnostic: textual evidence of the writer's perceptual provenance. The argument does not prove Behn went to Surinam; it shifts the balance of likelihood. The essay names the method the "Cousheree Diagnostic" and proposes it as a tool with reach beyond Behn, applicable to other contested cases in early modern travel writing where the question of authorial presence is in dispute.
Braun et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: