6. Louis Nicolas et la doctrine des Signatures (suite 2.)

Il existe une grande ressemblance entre Granadillus Frutex Indicus Christi Passionis Imago de John Parkinson de 1629 qui est inversée par rapport à l'image de Wörle  et au dessin de Nicolas  . Parkinson la nomme The Jesuites Figures of the Maracoc (illustration) (page entière) . Il en trace l'histoire et en explique le nom:

"The last may be called in Latine, 'Clematis Virgiana': in English, The Virgin or Virginian Climer; of the Virginians, 'Maracoc': of the Spaniards in the West Indies 'Granadille', because the fruit (as before said) is in some fashion like a small Pomegranate on the outside; yet the seede within is flattish, round, and blackih. Some superstitions Jesuite would saine make men beleeve, that in the flower of this plant are to be seene all the markes of our Saviours Passion; and thefore call it 'Flos Passionis': and to that end have caused figures to be drawne, and printed, with all the parts proportioned out, as thornes, nailes, speare, whippe, pillar, &c. in it, and all as true as the Sea burnes, which you may well perceive by the true figure, taken to the life of the plant, compared with the figures set forth by the Jesuites, which I have placed here likewise for every one to see"* .

Il avance que la représentation de la Granadille des Jésuites est fausse et s'explique:

But these bee their advantagious lies (which with them are tolerable, or rather pious and meritorious) wherewith they use to instruct their people; but I dare say, God never willed his Priests to instruct his people with lyes: for they come from the Divell, the author of them."* .

Parkinson s'éloigne un peu de son propos en commentant cette représentation des Jésuites. Il fait peut-être état de son ignorance des nombreuse espèces de Passiflore. La Passiflora quadrangularis (Linné) ne lui semble pas connue. Voici comment il décrit la Maracoc :

"But you may say I am beside my text, and I am in doubt you will thinke, I am in this besides my selfe, and so nothing to be beleeved herein that I say. For, for the most part, it is an inherent errour in all of that side, to beleeve nothing, be it never so true, that any of our side shall affirme, that contrarieth the assertions of any of their Fathers, as they call them: but I must referre them to God, and hee knoweth the truth, and will reforme or deforme them in his time. In regard whereof. I could not but speake (the occasion being thus offered) against such an erroneous opinion (which even Dr. Aldine at Rome, before remembred, disproved, and contraried both the said figures and name) and seek to disprove it, as doth (I say not almost, but I am affraid altogether) leade many to adore the very picture of such things, as are but the fictions of superstitious brains: for the flower it selfe is farre differing from their figure, as both Aldine in the a fore said booke, and Robinus at Paris in his 'Theatrum Florae', doe set forth; the flowers and leaves being drawne to the life, and there exhibited, which I hope may satisfie all men, that will not be perpetually obstinate and contentious."*.