As applies Prometheus – everybody knows the main ‘pop-culture’ narrative.

But what if there was an additional reason that Prometheus deserved the outcome – and for Prometheus to have wanted to interfere with setting down the formulaic metaphysics of sacrifice to begin with…

Now, here is the key detail – a fragment transmitted via Hesychius (and which the great Carl Kerényi asserted likely to have come from the now-lost “Titanomachia”), in which we find Prometheus is also known as “Ithax” – and that he is the κῆρυξ of the Titans.

Ἴθας· ὁ τῶν Τιτήνων κῆρυξ, Προμηθεύς. τινὲς Ἴθαξ.

“Ithas: the herald of the Titans, Prometheus. Some write Ithax.”
[Tsagalis translation]

(And, for those who are interested in the full citation – “Fr. *5 Hesych. ι 387 (II 354 Latte) [= *5 GEF]” )

The meaning for the name – Ithas / Ithax – is the subject of some conjecture; Muellner handily proffers that “it should be related to the root of αἴθω ‘burn’ (see Chantraine 1968-79, s.v., for its relation to ἰθαρός ‘pure’ and ἰθαίνω), which is contextually appropriate to Prometheus […]”, going on to underscore the “sight of fire and smoke” (‘Hearth’?) saliency of ‘Ithaka’ in within the Odyssey. Tsagalis likewise arrives at the αἴθω => ἰθαρός skein, in the course of proffering “the stem ith- may indicate brightness (αἴθω), directness (εὐθύς, ἰθύς), and finally speed (ἴθας).”

Why this specifically ‘incendiary’ presumptive naming for the ‘Herald of the Titans’ is exactly as we should anticipate, shall become apparent shortly.

Now what does this κῆρυξ mean ? Well, Liddell & Scott give us terms like “herald” and “envoy”, “crier”, “messenger”, etc.. And as it happens, it gets utilized to render “Preacher” in Christian phrasings, as well.

I suspect the term to have been employed with reference to this ‘Ithax’ in a rather particular sense – not exactly ‘Herald’, as we’d think of it … and we shall see why momentarily !

Here’s Shatapatha Brahmana III 5 1 21-22 (c.f. the strongly correlate SBr I 4 1 34-35) – one of those ‘Ritual Combat’ encounters, in which we encounter a Priest of the Gods (Agni) going up against a ‘priest’ of the Demons :

“21 Now Vāc was angry with Them [The Gods] […] Having become a Lioness She went on seizing upon (everything) between those two contending parties, the Gods and the Asuras. The Gods called Her to Them, and so did the Asuras. Agni was the Messenger [“dūta”] of the Gods, and one Saharakṣas for the Asura-Rakṣas.

22 Being willing to go over to the Gods, She said, ‘What would be Mine, if I were to come over to You?’–‘The offering shall reach Thee even before (it reaches) Agni.’ She then said to the Gods, ‘Whatsoever blessing Ye will invoke through Me, all that shall be accomplished unto You!’ So she went over to the Gods.”
[Eggeling translation]

This dimension of ‘propitiation’ – whereby the Goddess is ‘won over’ to the Side of the Gods as foundational effort to enable victory in the Divine campaign, through the honouring Her with First Share of the Offering – is resonant for both Hestia / Vesta, but also Hekate (ref. Zeus’ engagement with Her afore the Titanomachy, per Hesiod’s Theogony [411-452], with the boons thusly enabled being strongly correlate to those cited as attainable through the now-appeased Vāc-Aditi per SBr III 5 1-2, TS VI 2 7-8 etc.), as we have illuminated capaciously elsewhere.

The contest inherent to the Combat is not simply one of propitiation – but is also partially one of priestly invocation : hence why Vāc is being ‘called’ to go either to the Gods or to the Demons, as we observe at SBr III 2 1 18-24 (or, for that matter, the aforementioned SBr I 4 1 34-35). The SBr III 2 1 recounting also adds the interesting characterization of the contest as, effectively, one wherein the invoker (here victoriously the Priest of the Gods – Agni) is undertaking a matrimonial wooing of the Goddess through His Invocation (ref. “Óðs mey” – ‘Óðr’s Maid’ which we find at Völuspá XXI / XXV, seemingly contested by the Jötuns; c.f. “Óskmey”, or ‘Wish-Maid’, within the same verse from an apparent third Völuspá iteration, referenced by Sturluson at SnEUpp 26 of the Gylfaginning) … and, inferentially, the failure of the Demonic opposition upon this front, at least partially due to their ‘Mleccha’ speech (i.e. flawed ritual performance – again, c.f. SBr I 4 1 35). And, likewise, just as Vāc is initially found amidst the Demons but ‘won over’ by the Priest of the Divine – so, too, do we have Hekate as initially of the Titanes but successfully engaged by Zeus (per Theogony).

The ‘missing part’, of course, being the directly-attested presence of a ‘priest of the Demons’ to be acting as the opponent to Zeus as ‘Priest of the Gods’, and attempting to ‘counter’ His undertakings of Propitiation & Invocation – at least, within the span of those surviving recountings for the episodes which we have to hand. (Perhaps this has resulted from something akin to what we observe within several of the Vedic iterations for the contest – wherein following a brief initial referencing, the detailing for the efforts of the Priest of the Gods may proceed almost entirely without further mention for such a demonic ‘opposite number’ / opposition, to the point one could be forgiven for forgetting it’s a contest. That said, the positioning within the Theogony for the Prometheus episode immediately prior to the Titanomachy seemingly as functional ‘prequel’ means the active ‘contest’ of God against Titan should most certainly prove salient of mind)

Nevertheless, that which we do have is this fragment attesting Ithax (Prometheus) as κῆρυξ for the Titans. (The archaic underpinning to this title being observed by Mallory & Adams to be PIE *kāru-, “one who sings or praises, poet”, cognate with Sanskrit ‘Kāru-‘ – “one who sings or praises, poet”, and all from PIE “*kar – ‘praise’.” As we can see – quite the ‘Priestly’ foundations to the later saliency)

And as we have said – the prospective ‘fiery’ underpinnings to ‘Ithax’ would correlate to that which we encounter within the Vedic comparanda.

This is partially due to the ‘opposite number’ station to Agni of this ‘Herald of the Demons’ – rendering a ‘fire’ sort of figure in this ‘villainous counterpart’ positioning a ready anticipation.

Such is the case for the aforementioned Saharakṣas encountered as “Messenger of the Demons” opposite (and opposing) Agni in the course of those Priestly Duels described at SBr I 4 1 34-35 & III 5 1 21-22.

There, the ‘Fire’ saliency is effectively ‘hiding in plain sight’ – and, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, within the same place it was for that Hellenic ‘Herald of the Titans’, Ithax. That is – as his name.

‘Saharakṣas’, you see, is also (and considerably more prominently) the name for a particular (and particularly pertinent for these circumstances) style of Fire Rite. One whose intended beneficiaries are not the Gods – but instead those anti-Divine forces of the Demons.

That the designation for the rite should be used also for the name of the ritualist is, given the context, not entirely unanticipated, either. I shall save the more fulsome explication for another time – but suffice to say, it is likely that the rationale for the Priest of the Demons to be referred to in such a manner is correlate for the use of ‘Yajna’ to speak of Agni at SBr III 2 1 19. That is to say – it is in the context of seeking to ‘Call’ the relevant Goddess-Aspect (whether ‘Gāyatrī’ or ‘Vāc’) to be within the requisite Rite and thusly ’empower’ same (the co-identification with the Earth being of both correlation to Classical observation and of direct salience viz. the Fire-Altar itself, as explored elsewhere); both the SBr encounters featuring the Priest of the Demons as ‘Saharakṣas’, and this immediately aforementioned occurrence featuring Agni as ‘Yajna’, being recensions of the same underpinning mythic episode (which we also encounter, as noted above, in Hellenic – viz. Hekate in particular) – as tailored to narratively present for the relevant ‘steps’ of ritual within the ritual manual context of the Brahmana.

(The situation viz. Agni as ‘Yajna’ and the requisite concept of the Goddess going to that ‘house’ of the Sky Father deific to make the Rite functional – finds further expression both a) through the situation of Hestia viz. Homeric Hymn XXIV, wherein the House is that of (W)Anax Apollo, and the Thumos shared with Zeus; but also b) the situation of the ‘House’ altar of the ‘Daedala’ rites attested from Euboea, in which Hera is ‘called’ likewise to come (back) to Her Husband therein, as we have explored in more depth elsewhere. The second of these would therefore inferentially suggest there is probative value in connexion for those Gigantomachy (etc.) recountings wherein Hera is illegitimately pursued by a leading Gigant, as potentially also having some bearing viz. Prometheus as Ithax in this context of ‘Priest of the Demons’.)

We would also note the direct attestation for ‘Saharakṣas’ as ‘an Agni’, via the triple schema of Sacrificial Fires encountered at Taittiriya Samhita II 5 8 6 & Brhaddevata VI 160-1 (c.f. Brahmanda Purana II 12) – wherein we find enumerated alongside this ‘Saharakṣas’ for the Demons (A’Suras), the “havyavāhana” for the Gods (“Havya-” referring to ‘oblations’, particularly of Ghee; as it happens ‘God’ is from the same PIE root as ‘Havya’, ‘Hotṛ’, etc. – ref. ‘That Which Is Poured’) and “kavyavāhana” for the Pitṛs (Ancestors – lit. (Fore)Fathers; referred to here via ‘Kavi’ – and thus ‘Kavya’ to designate via destination the offerings destined thereto).

Those last two, of course, being the ones that are actually for (pious) human use – the “-vāhana” (‘vehicle’, ‘conveyance’, ‘bearer’) in each labelling referring to those properly constituted ritual fires (‘Agni’) through which the relevant offerings are enabled to reach their intended destinations & recipients. Thus, as labellings, “havyavāhana” and “kavyavāhana” should effectively work out as “Oblation-Conveyer” and “Conveyer-to-the-Kavis” – with the quintessence of actually giving something, actually sending something … something going from the offerer to the recipient that is elsewhere rather than remaining with one.

‘Saharakṣas’, meanwhile, balefully declares through its components that it is what we might not unreasonably shorthand as the ‘Power of the Demons’ / ‘Demon Power’ (assuming that the “Saha-” here is the one meaning ‘Strength’ / ‘Power’ ( सह ); on the other hand, if it is the homophonic ‘Saha’ ( सह ) which indicates ‘With / Among / United with / [etc.]’, then it would be the Rite ‘Among (the) Demon(s)’).

However, such a rendering – whilst not incorrect – would nevertheless be somewhat incomplete. ‘Rakṣas’ does not ‘only’ mean ‘Demon’ – but rather, “hurt, injury, damage”, as well as “the injurer” (to quote from Monier-Williams’ entry upon the subject); the ‘unifying characteristic’, I suppose you might say, being that all of these are (as Monier-Williams Cologne puts it) elements “to be guarded against or warded off”. The ‘Power of the Demons’, therefore, one could quite feasibly also understand to be that malign Power that can Harm or Injure (and must be warded against, of course). And as for what it may Harm or Injure – other than the obvious, concerning the people themselves … well, we would suggest that within the context of Ritual Combat, it is the Rite of the Gods and that direct Divine Linkage to which the threat would accrue.

In any case, there is a clear distinction right there in the labelling for this Saharakṣas style of rite from those other two classes of Fire-Ritual operation touched upon above (i.e. the “havyavāhana” and “kavyavāhana”). Namely, the fact that this Saharakṣas lacks the ‘-vāhana’ designator – a signifier which directly speaks toward the lack of ‘sending’ of the sort which characterizes the Offerings to the Gods and to the Ancestors which we have parsed above. In part, this is because the Saharakṣas, unlike those other two, is not intended as an offering which humanity Should undertake (for reasons that ought prove rather … patently apparent); but I also would infer that it is because when the Demons gather to undertake these ‘Power of the Demons’ ritual operations … it is not with the ‘altruistic’ or beneficent intent of sending some empowerment, some energy on to another clade (i.e. the Gods, the Ancestors), as with the human-undertaken “havyavāhana” and “kavyavāhana”. But rather, only engaged in order to benefit (and thusly to ’empower’) themselves. Truly ‘demonic’ conduct – utterly self-centered, and with the more-expansive objective of thence wielding this potency toward the anti-Divine agenda.

It is not hard, I think, to see some not-so-subtle similarities begin to percolate between this notion of the ‘Rite of the Demons’ (sharing name with the ‘Herald of the Demons’), wherein that which is supposed to be offered and rendered over to the receiver is instead kept for one’s self in a ‘non-giving’ fashion, and what we find promulgated via Prometheus.

But let us bring this suite of Three ‘Agnis’ back more directly to the Hellenic sphere.

The Greeks certainly also had food-offerings to the Dead – with these, as Ekroth elucidates, often tending to be “destroyed by burning, judging from the usage of the terms enagizein and enagismata to describe the rituals” (with Hellenic Hero-offerings forming another potential shade of prospective correlate for the Vedic propitiations of the Remarkable Dead).

We also know very well that they conducted ‘food-salient’ sacrifices to the Gods, as well – such as the aforementioned ‘Holocaust’ variety, but also those along the lines of Eumaeus’ undertaking at Odyssey XIV 420-450. The latter, as brief point of interest, incorporating i) the rendering unto the Divine of entirely human-edible meat from the haunches of the sacrificed boar (one imagines, from some of the choicest cuts?) mixed with fat and sprinkled with barley, with these cast into the fire as ‘opening’ or ‘foundational’ (“ἀρχόμενος”) act of the ‘offering proper’; ii) the division, once the remaining boar had been roasted for human consumption, of this meat into seven portions – the first of these being set aside and presented with spoken prayer to Hermes and the Nymphs, before any of the six humans received his share. It is also not difficult to find a ready stream of various post-Homeric exemplars for meat offerings to the Gods, courtesy of academic analyses in this area (Ekroth, again, looming large; although see also Gill) – including instances of customary undertakings quite fairly describable as ‘feasting’ with the Gods, Their honour-shares rendered through ‘Trapezomata’ and ‘Theoxenia’ vectors.

This, obviously, leaves the prospect of offerings undertaken to the ‘Anti-Divine’ – and it is interesting to observe M.L. West’s reporting that at least one later rendition for the Prometheus episode had featured Prometheus himself devouring the ‘meat’ component of the resultant sacrifice…

But let us move forward.