52 A Tbilological Efjay concerning 



vmga Tail. Where you may obfervethat Phllojiorgiufzud Paufanras both 

 agree, that they have a red Face, which may be fome mark , by which 

 to know them again. And (e) Galen hath given us another , viz. that 

 their Rojlrum or Chin is longer than an A^es^ but not fo long as that of 

 the Cynocephalus^ as appears in that Paffage I have already quoted (/), 

 VIZ. That a Man in proportion to hk Body hath theporteB Chin of any Ani- 

 mal f, next to a Man, an Ape 5 then the Lynx and Satyrs ; and after thefe 

 the Cynocephali. Now none of thefe Marks agree to the Orang-Outang ^ 

 for it had no Tail^ it had not a red Face^ and his Chin was JJjorter than 

 any other fort of Apes. So that Bontius was miftaken in calling it a Sa- 

 tyr. And Tulpim was too hafty in laying down this Coriclufion, Infum- 

 rf7a (faith (^) he) vel NuUus eff in Rerum Naiura Satyrus : autjtquk cjl^ 

 erit proculdubio illud Animal^ quod in Tabel/a hie a nobk depi&um. Had 

 Tulpim a mind to have made his Orang-Outang a Satyr, he fhould not 

 have compared him to a Courtier, nor inftanced in fuch Niceties as he ob- 

 ferves, of his drinking, and going to bed : For, Efferatior Cynocephalk 

 Natura.ficut Satyrk, faith (/j) VlJny.knA in another place he tells us.Satyrk 

 pr£ter Jigur am nihil morkhumantQi). But the Orang-Outang )\2iA very 

 tender Paffions,and was very gentle and loving. Another very remarka- 

 ble difference that I find between the Satyrs and the Orang-Outang, is, that 

 the Satyrs have Pouches in their Chops as Monkeyshz\t 5 but the Orang- 

 Outang, as I have (hewn in the Anatomy, had none, Condit (faith ( 4) 

 J liny) in tThefauros Maxillarum Cihum Sphingiorum ^ Satyrorum genus : 

 tnox inde jenfim ad mandendam, manihus expromit : & qitod formicis in 

 annum folenne e/?, hk in dies vel horas. The Orang-Outang therefore 

 cannot be the Satyrs of the Ancients, as Tidpim^ and Bonfire, and Dap- 

 perimigined. 



By what has been faid,I think it fully appears that there were fuch^«7- 

 ffjals as the Ancients called Satyrs ; and that they were a fort of Monkeys 

 or Apes with Tails : And this Account that I have given of them, will 

 very well make out thofe Texts in Ifaiah-^ as Chapter i^. verfe 7i. But 

 wild Beafls of the Defart fial/ lye there, and their Hotifes fiiall be full of dole- 

 ful Creatures, and Owls jhall dvf>eU there, and Satyrs fliall dance there. And 

 Chapter 34. verf. 14. The wild Beafls of the Defart Jhall alfo meet with the 

 wild Beafis of the Jfland ; and the Satyr fi all cry to hk Fellow^ the Schrich- 

 Owl alfo fiiall refl there, andfndfor her felfa place- of reU. For fince the 

 Text calls them wild Beafls, I lee no reafon why we (bould fancy the Sa- 

 tyrs here to ht Daemons, as the Learned StJc/wr/^i- and others feem to do. 

 I agree with Bochart, that what is told us in the Life of St. Paul the Her- 

 mitQby St. Jerome , and in that of St. Anthony by St. Anaftafus of a 

 Satyr meeting St. Anthony in the Defart,and difcourfing with him, may be 



(e) Galen. Admmftr. Anat. lib. 4. cap. 3. p. m. 94. ( f ) Vid. Anat. of the Orang.Outatig , pag, 94. 

 (g) Nk. Tulpij Obferv. Med. lib. 4. cap. 56. p. m. 274. (b) Pliny Nat. Hift. lib. 8. cap. 54. p. 243. 

 (i ) Pirn} ibid. lib. 5. cap, 8. p. m. 549. (k) Flini] Nat. Hijl. lib, lo- cap. 72. p. Hi. 46^. 



fabulous 



