The previous chapter has shown that there was a higher alchemy—it was furthermore regarded as the true alchemy—which has the same relation to practical chemistry that freemasonry has to practical masonry. A prominent chemist who had entered into the history of chemistry and that of freemasonry once wrote to me: “Whoever desires to make a chemical preparation according to a hermetic recipe seems to me like a person who undertakes to build a house according to the ritual of Freemasonry.” The similarity is not a chance one. Both external and internal relations between alchemy and freemasonry are worthy of notice. The connection is partly through rosicrucianism. 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.