rucianism. Since the Parable, which shall still be the
center of our study, belongs to rosicrucian literature (and indeed is
probably a later development of it), it is fitting here to examine who and
what the Rosicrucians really were. We cannot, of course, go into a
thorough discussion of this unusually complex subject. We shall mention
only what is necessary to our purpose. I shall not, however, be partial,
but treat of both the parties which are diametrically opposed in their
views of the problems of rosicrucian history. It will be shown that this
disagreement fortunately has but small influence upon our problem and that
therefore we are relieved of the difficult task of reaching a conclusion
and of bringing historical proof for a decision which experienced
specialists--of whom I am not one--have so signally failed to reach.

Rosicrucians are divided into those of three periods, the old, who are
connected by the two chief writings, "Fama" and "Confessio," that appeared
at the beginning of the 17th century; the middle, which apparently
represents a degeneration of the original idealistic league, and finally,
the gold crossers and rose crossers, who for a time during the 18th
century developed greater power. The last Rosicrucians broke into
freemasonry for a while (in the second half of the eighteenth century) in
a manner almost catastrophic for continental masonry, yet I observe in
anticipation that this kind of rosicrucian expansion is not immediately
concerned with the question as to the original relation of freemasonry and
rosicrucianism. We must know how to distinguish the excrescence from the
real idea. Rosicrucianism died out at the beginning of the 19th century.
The rosicrucian degrees that still exist in many systems of freemasonry
(as Knight of the Red Cross, etc.) are historical relics. Those who now
parade as rosicrucians are imposters or imposed on, or societies that have
used rosicrucian names as a label.

Many serious scholars doubt that the old Rosicrucians ever existed as an
organized fraternity. I refer to the article Rosenkreuz in the "Handbuch
der Freimaurerei" (Lenning), where this skeptical view is dominant. Other
authors, on the contrary, believe in the existence of the old order and
think that the freemasons who appeared in their present form in 1717 are
the rosicrucians persisting, but with changed name. Joh. Gottl. Buhle, a
contemporary of Nicolai, had already assumed that the rosicrucian Michae