The Texts · Corpus Hermeticum XVIII
On the Soul Hindered by the Body
(Corpus Hermeticum XVIII)
Corpus Hermeticum XVIII is not a Hermes dialogue but a fragment of a speech in praise of kings, probably from about AD 300 under Diocletian. Its title, “On the soul hindered by the passion of the body”, was added later and reads its opening image that way: God the musician never fails; a poor performance is the instrument’s fault. Free scans: Mead (1906) and Scott (1924).
On this page: what it is · the title · the sections · section map · translations compared · which kings · who left it out · where to read it
What Corpus Hermeticum XVIII is
It is the last piece of the Greek Corpus Hermeticum, and it is not a Hermetic dialogue. Nobody teaches anybody: an unnamed speaker addresses “most noble [Sirs]” (Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, II, 1906, p. 291), compares himself to a musician, praises God as the supreme King and then praises the ruling kings for the peace they have brought. Hermes, Tat and Asclepius are never named. Walter Scott listed it in square brackets as an “Oration by a rhetor” (Hermetica, I, 1924, p. 16) and wrote that it “has nothing to do with Hermes or any pupil of Hermes” (II, 1925, p. 461).
It is a fragment: an opening on musicians and instruments (§§1-7), the start of the praise (§§8-10), a gap, and a closing part (§§11-16) that praises God, turns back to the kings and breaks off. G.R.S. Mead noted “a lacuna after § 10” and called the text “evidently incomplete” (II, pp. 299, 301); Scott thought the compiler kept only the religious passages (II, p. 463).
Why it is called “the soul hindered by the body”
The author’s own title, if there was one, is lost (Mead, II, p. 298; Scott, II, p. 465). The manuscripts carry two headings added later: “On the soul hindered by the passion of the body” before §1, and “On the praise of the Better One, and encomium of the king” before §11 (Scott, II, p. 465, our translation of his Greek). Mead judged them “plainly added by a later redactor”, though in four manuscripts they are in the first hand (II, p. 298 and n. 2).
Scott called the first heading “inappropriate”: whoever added it “must have taken ‘the musician’ to mean the soul, and ‘the instrument’ to mean the body” (II, p. 465 and n. 1). The text gives that reading one hook, “the weakness that inheres in body” in §3 (Mead, II, p. 290), but the speech is about oratory and kings. Mead instead put “The Encomium of Kings” on top, in brackets (II, pp. 288, 299). This page keeps the manuscript heading, as Ménard did (1866, p. 293).
The sections, in plain words
Paraphrases of Mead’s sixteen sections, in manuscript order; quotations are marked.
§§1-5 · Blame the instrument, not the musician. When an instrument is out of tune or a string too slack or too tight, nobody fairly blames the player. God is the “Natural Musician” who never tires (Mead, II, pp. 288-290); if the speaker falls short, the fault is in the human instrument. The point is made five times over; Scott took some repeats for alternative drafts or explanatory notes (II, p. 465).
§§6-7 · The cicada and the speaker. A harper in a contest broke a string, and by the favour of the god of music a cicada settled on his lyre and supplied the missing note, so he won. Strabo, citing Timaeus, tells it of Eunomus of Locri, and Clement of Alexandria retells it (Scott, II, pp. 471-473; Mead, II, pp. 300-301). The speaker feels the same: a higher power makes up for his weakness, and his subject, the glory of kings, will make him sing better.
§§8-10 · From the highest King down. A song of praise for kings should begin with “the highest King”, God, and step down to those who hold the sceptre after his likeness. The kings are given victory by God before they fight; foreign enemies tremble before the kings even move. Here the text breaks off.
§§11-13 · Sun and plants, father and children. The closing returns to God. As the Sun draws the first fruits and scents from the plants, so those who have received God’s wisdom into their souls should send praise back to him. No praise is worthy of God, but small children who honour their father as best they can are forgiven, and the father is glad to be known by them. So too with the king.
§14 · Concord above. God is good, immortal and ever at work, and from his everlasting energy reaches down to this world. Among the beings “there” there is no discord: one mind, one feeling, and Love working one harmony of all.
§§15-16 · Practising praise on kings. Praising kings trains people for the praise of God. The king’s name alone brings peace; it has often held back an enemy; his statues are “peaceful harbours” for those most storm-tossed, and his image alone gives safety from fear (Mead, II, pp. 297-298). There the manuscripts end.
Section map: two English editions side by side
Mead keeps the manuscript order; Scott moves §15 after §9, §16 after §10 and §14b before §11 (II, pp. 464-465).
| Section | Mead 1906, vol. II, pp. | Scott 1924, vol. I, pp. |
|---|---|---|
| §§1-5 Musician and instrument | 288-291 | 275-277 (§5 bracketed) |
| §§6-7 Cicada; the speaker | 291-292 | 277-279 |
| §§8-10 God, then the kings | 292-294 | 279-281 |
| §§11-13 Sun; children | 294-296 | 281-283 |
| §14 God; concord above | 296-297 | 281 (§14b); 283-285 (§14a) |
| §§15-16 Praise of kings; peace | 297-298 | 279-281 |
Where the translations part company
Four places where the three free versions (Mead, Scott, Ménard’s French of 1866) differ; quotations checked against the scans.
1. Is the musician laughed at (§1)? The manuscripts say that a performance spoilt by bad instruments is ridiculous and the musician jeered. Scott judged that this contradicts the whole argument and printed it as “a note written by a dissentient reader” (I, p. 275 n. 2).
- Mead 1906: “the music-artist needs must be laughed at by the audience” (p. 288)
- Scott 1924: out of the text, as the reader’s note “The writer’s argument is absurd” (p. 275 n. 2)
- Ménard 1866: “il n’obtient qu’un résultat ridicule” (p. 293)
2. Who must not be blamed (§3)?
- Mead: let no one “blame impiously our Race”, which he glossed as “the Race of the Prophets, or Gnostics” (p. 290 and n. 1)
- Scott: let no one “find fault with my art by reason of my personal defects” (p. 275)
- Ménard: the weakness of our body must not be held against “(l’auteur de) notre race”, the maker of our race (p. 294)
3. Whose concord (§14)? Mead translates “With Him, therefore, is there no difference with one another” and reads it of the beings of the intelligible world, citing Plotinus (pp. 296, 302). Scott translates “Among those then who dwell in that world above there is no disagreement” (p. 281), takes them to be the star gods, and moves the passage into the praise of the kings, as a model for their unanimity (II, p. 477).
4. Why a king is called king (§16). The Greek takes basileus, king, to mean one who treads smoothly (Scott, I, p. 281 n. 2), a word-play Mead called “unreproducible in English” (p. 297 n. 4). Mead: the king “levelleth the summits of dissension with his smooth tread” (p. 297); Scott: “with smooth tread he plants his feet upon the topmost heights” (p. 281).
Which kings, and when
The speech names no ruler. Richard Reitzenstein (Poimandres, 1904) linked it to Diocletian and, after notes by Bruno Keil on its prose rhythm printed in his addenda, to the time of Diocletian’s triumph in AD 302 (Reitzenstein, pp. 370-374; Scott, II, p. 462 n. 2); Mead reported this and was not convinced (II, pp. 299-300). Scott agreed that the “kings” were most likely Diocletian and his three co-rulers (jointly 293-305) and dated the speech “in or about A.D. 300”, while finding Keil’s inference stated “somewhat too positively” (II, p. 462 and n.). Louis Ménard in 1866 had guessed differently: Valens, made co-emperor by his brother Valentinian (p. 299 n. 1).
Where it was given is unknown. Scott thought of Alexandria, but noted that such speeches were made in many cities, that God raining down wisdom sits oddly in Egypt, and that it may never have been delivered (II, pp. 463 and n. 1, 481).
Why it stands in a Hermetic collection is open. Reitzenstein thought the collector added it to show the rulers that the Hermes religion taught loyalty, and Mead wrote that to this “Apology” “we owe the good fortune of the preservation of our Corpus” (II, p. 299). Scott: it is “Hermetic” only because it came down with the Corpus (II, p. 461).
Who printed it, and who left it out
Many early readers never met this piece. One main manuscript, A, stops after XIV, and Ficino’s Latin of 1471 covered only I-XIV (Scott, I, pp. 30-31). The first printed Greek (Turnèbe, Paris, 1554) had it, with XVI and XVII, under the title Aesculapii definitiones (Scott, I, p. 33); Foix de Candale (Flussas, 1574) dropped it, “probably because he saw that it could not rightly be ascribed to Asclepius”; Francesco Patrizi (1591) printed XVI-XVIII after the Asclepius as the work of a different author (Scott, I, pp. 35, 40).
John Everard’s English Divine Pymander (1650) does not contain it: his seventeen books stop with the treatise now numbered XIV (contents and p. 215 of the scan). Parthey (1854) and Chambers (1882) also stop at XIV (Scott, I, p. 44; Chambers, contents). On the piece that travelled with it under Asclepius’ name, see CH XVI.
Where to read Corpus Hermeticum XVIII free
Free scans at the Internet Archive, links checked 4 November 2026; full details under Sources.
- Mead, 1906, vol. II, pp. 288-298, commentary pp. 298-303: scan, opened at p. 288.
- Scott, 1924-1925, Greek and English, vol. I, pp. 274-285 (scan); notes, vol. II, pp. 461-482 (scan). An emended and rearranged text; the notes say what was changed.
- Reitzenstein, 1904, Poimandres, critical Greek text, pp. 355-360: scan.
- Ménard, 1866, French, pp. 293-300, as parts II and III of the definitions of Asclepius: scan.
- In copyright: Nock and Festugière, 1945, vol. II, critical Greek and French (library record); Copenhaver, 1992, pp. 63-66 (Cambridge Core).
| Position | Last of the 17 Greek treatises, after XVII (a fragment on images); in Scott, Nock-Festugière and Copenhaver the Latin Asclepius follows |
|---|---|
| Titles | Manuscript heading: On the soul hindered by the passion of the body; Mead 1906: The Encomium of Kings; Scott 1924: Libellus XVIII |
| Form | Fragment of a speech in praise of kings by an unnamed orator; no Hermes, no dialogue |
| Length | 16 sections (Mead 1906, vol. II, pp. 288-298); middle and end lost |
| Date | Scott: in or about AD 300, under Diocletian and his co-rulers (1925, II, p. 462) |
Fair questions
What is Corpus Hermeticum XVIII about?
It is a fragment of a speech in praise of kings. The speaker compares himself to a musician whose instrument may fail while the divine Musician never does, praises God as the highest King, then the ruling kings for victory and peace. It then returns to God as the Father of souls and to the peace the kings bring, and breaks off.
Why is it called “On the soul hindered by the body”?
That heading was added in the manuscripts, not by the author. Scott (1925) thought whoever added it took the musician to mean the soul and the instrument the body (II, p. 465 n. 1). The text has a hook for it in §3, “the weakness that inheres in body” (Mead, II, p. 290), but the speech is about oratory and kings.
Which kings does Corpus Hermeticum XVIII praise?
None is named. Reitzenstein (1904), with Bruno Keil’s notes, placed it at Diocletian’s triumph of 302; Scott (1925) dated it to about AD 300 under Diocletian and his co-rulers; Mead (1906) was not convinced by the arguments; Ménard (1866) guessed Valens. The part that described the kings’ deeds is lost.
Is Corpus Hermeticum XVIII in Everard’s Divine Pymander?
No. Everard’s seventeen books of 1650 end with the treatise now numbered XIV. Chambers (1882) and Parthey (1854) also stop at XIV.
Where can I read Corpus Hermeticum XVIII for free?
Mead’s Thrice-Greatest Hermes, vol. II (1906), pp. 288-298; Scott’s Hermetica, vol. I (1924), pp. 274-285, Greek and English; Reitzenstein’s Greek (1904), pp. 355-360; and Ménard’s French (1866), pp. 293-300. All are scanned at the Internet Archive. Copenhaver’s Hermetica (1992), pp. 63-66, is in copyright.
Sources & further reading
- G.R.S. Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, vol. II: Sermons (London and Benares: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1906), “Corpus Hermeticum (XVIII.) [The Encomium of Kings]”, pp. 288-298, commentary “The Apology of a Poemandrist”, pp. 298-303; scan at the Internet Archive.
- Walter Scott (ed. and tr.), Hermetica, vol. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), pp. 16-44 (list of writings, manuscripts, printed editions), Libellus XVIII, pp. 274-285; scan at the Internet Archive.
- Walter Scott, Hermetica, vol. II: Notes on the Corpus Hermeticum (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), Libellus XVIII, pp. 461-482; scan at the Internet Archive.
- R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), Greek text of CH XVIII pp. 355-360, Keil’s notes pp. 370-374 (302 on p. 374); scan at the Internet Archive.
- Louis Ménard (tr.), Hermès Trismégiste: traduction complète (Paris, 1866), Livre IV, parts II and III, pp. 293-300 (note p. 299 n. 1); scan at the Internet Archive.
- John Everard (tr.), The Divine Pymander of Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus, in XVII. Books (London, 1650), contents and p. 215 (end of the 17th book); copy filmed for Early English Books and Wellcome Collection copy, Internet Archive. CH XVIII not included.
- John David Chambers (tr.), The Theological and Philosophical Works of Hermes Trismegistus, Christian Neoplatonist (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1882), contents; scan at the Internet Archive. CH XVIII not included.
- A. D. Nock (ed.) and A.-J. Festugière (tr.), Corpus Hermeticum, vol. II: Traités XIII-XVIII, Asclepius (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1945); contents in the DAI library catalogue, read 4 November 2026.
- Brian P. Copenhaver, Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), “Corpus Hermeticum XVIII”, pp. 63-66; chapter page and opening on Cambridge Core, read 4 November 2026.