Comments on: The Trickster, the Devil, and an Ambiguous World http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:16:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178163 Jason Godesky Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:20:00 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178163 Excellent point; I may have fallen into a trap I usually warn others about, and blamed Christianity for more than its fair share. And I agree, we can see a certain amount of Manichean thought among agriculturalists long before Mani! (Though, I suppose we should expect that; Christian thought predated Christ, Buddhist thought predated Buddha, etc., since none of these figures came out of a historical void, and all of them wove together elements of thought from their own time and place.) <blockquote><p>How likely would it be that the U.S., in a War with Iraq, would take on Islamic features in its religion? Or vice-versa? Not too likely.</p></blockquote> Well, actually, it seems <em>quite</em> likely. Entities at war frequently become more like their opponents. The seeds of the Renaissance fell in Europe in part from all of the Islamic influence the Crusaders brought home with them. Over the course of the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. and China both accepted more and more capitalistic programs, while the U.S. accepted more government-run social programs. In this particular case, sharpening Loki's character would simply help make their religion more competitive. "Dualism is sexy," you might say. Who would want an ambivalent Trickster, when you could have a titanic battle of good versus evil? But you make a good point about alternating hardening and softening of those dualistic themes in Indo-European mythology, and that Germanic myth would likely have seen a hardening of that theme dating all the way back to conflicts with Rome. It still seems to me that Loki's stories do show some indications of a Trickster turned into a Devil, but you've convinced me that if such a transformation occurred, it occurred much earlier than I had originally thought, less in the time period of Christianity pushing into Scandinavia, and perhaps as far back as the Roman Empire. Of course, going back that far, I don't know if any evidence even exists for that discussion, so that may well seem like an unfalsifiable claim. Excellent point; I may have fallen into a trap I usually warn others about, and blamed Christianity for more than its fair share. And I agree, we can see a certain amount of Manichean thought among agriculturalists long before Mani! (Though, I suppose we should expect that; Christian thought predated Christ, Buddhist thought predated Buddha, etc., since none of these figures came out of a historical void, and all of them wove together elements of thought from their own time and place.)

How likely would it be that the U.S., in a War with Iraq, would take on Islamic features in its religion? Or vice-versa? Not too likely.

Well, actually, it seems quite likely. Entities at war frequently become more like their opponents. The seeds of the Renaissance fell in Europe in part from all of the Islamic influence the Crusaders brought home with them. Over the course of the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. and China both accepted more and more capitalistic programs, while the U.S. accepted more government-run social programs. In this particular case, sharpening Loki’s character would simply help make their religion more competitive. “Dualism is sexy,” you might say. Who would want an ambivalent Trickster, when you could have a titanic battle of good versus evil?

But you make a good point about alternating hardening and softening of those dualistic themes in Indo-European mythology, and that Germanic myth would likely have seen a hardening of that theme dating all the way back to conflicts with Rome.

It still seems to me that Loki’s stories do show some indications of a Trickster turned into a Devil, but you’ve convinced me that if such a transformation occurred, it occurred much earlier than I had originally thought, less in the time period of Christianity pushing into Scandinavia, and perhaps as far back as the Roman Empire. Of course, going back that far, I don’t know if any evidence even exists for that discussion, so that may well seem like an unfalsifiable claim.

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178162 Ziggy Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:09:29 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178162 Well, consider, if we, for the moment, bracket any external religious influence, that the Germanic peoples were dealing with the problems of greed long before any encounter with Christianity. If we take the Greed figure of Gullveig here, she corresponds well enough to similar personifications in GrecoRoman antiquity to establish her grounding in an IndoEuropean figure, but the correspondence is not exact enough to establish a borrowing, either. I think it's obvious that any society has to tassle with Greed, but societies on the mainland in Europe, especially those struggling with Mediterranean empires, have had to deal with the effects of greed in especially potent forms. That these would become part of their teaching stories from an early time ought not to be doubted. My reason for giving these stories an early rather than a later date is precisely the correspondence with other Indo-European stories, some of which can be dated far earlier and do not admit of any diffusive influence. That suggests that at least core elements of these stories originates rather early. These core elements may have been adapted or expanded in a historical period where untrustworthiness (Loki) and greed (Gullveig) had suddenly taken on new prominence, but I wouldn't trace this to the encounter of the German people with Christianity. Far more significant was their encounter with the Roman Empire, which sent spies and exploitative merchants in. As Fredy Perlman pointed out, war over generations and generations, along with enslavement and involuntary drafting into the Roman army transformed these societies. These made Iron Age Germanic societies more militaristic than Bronze Age ones had been, whose emphasis was probably more on Nerthus. The stories of Loki and Gullveig at those times would have been warnings rather than present, out of control hazards. In the famous Bang and Bugge Vs. Rydberg debates, it has been almost universally conceded that Bang and Bugge, who were arguing for Christian influence on Norse myths, lost the debate, while much older Indo-European influences were conceded as well. How likely would it be that the U.S., in a War with Iraq, would take on Islamic features in its religion? Or vice-versa? Not too likely. I'd suggest that "manichean" elements of religion have been part of the Indo-European mindstate, at least in soft form, going back all the way to PIE times. These softer forms may become aggravated by military engagement. After several generations of militarism, they may sharpen and harden ; after all, there is an enemy to overcome, and one must overcome them. This explanation doesn't need any Christianization ; in fact, one could merely argue for "parallel evolution" between Christian forms and Germanic forms by noting the militarist orientation of some of the Essenes holed up in their desert formations, and of course the increasing militarism of the Germanic folk once they were assaulted by the Roman Empire. I think Fredy Perlman does an elegant job in accounting for manichean elements in Zoroastrianism by suggesting that it was originally a revolutionary movement attempting to overthrow leviathan, and thus there was an element of imbalance and out-of-controlness that could not be admitted into the circle of balance and thus needed to be conceived as being absolutely shut out and overcome. Once there is that kind of enemy, assuming that the revolutionary energy is coopted, it's easy for it to settle down into dogma. But all of that said, I think that the message behind the stories of Loki and Gullveig as they evolved are very good messages. As my friend Carla glossed it recently, when the lawyers (Loki) and the bankers (Gullveig) get together, watch out!! Well, consider, if we, for the moment, bracket any external religious influence, that the Germanic peoples were dealing with the problems of greed long before any encounter with Christianity. If we take the Greed figure of Gullveig here, she corresponds well enough to similar personifications in GrecoRoman antiquity to establish her grounding in an IndoEuropean figure, but the correspondence is not exact enough to establish a borrowing, either. I think it’s obvious that any society has to tassle with Greed, but societies on the mainland in Europe, especially those struggling with Mediterranean empires, have had to deal with the effects of greed in especially potent forms. That these would become part of their teaching stories from an early time ought not to be doubted.

My reason for giving these stories an early rather than a later date is precisely the correspondence with other Indo-European stories, some of which can be dated far earlier and do not admit of any diffusive influence. That suggests that at least core elements of these stories originates rather early.

These core elements may have been adapted or expanded in a historical period where untrustworthiness (Loki) and greed (Gullveig) had suddenly taken on new prominence, but I wouldn’t trace this to the encounter of the German people with Christianity. Far more significant was their encounter with the Roman Empire, which sent spies and exploitative merchants in. As Fredy Perlman pointed out, war over generations and generations, along with enslavement and involuntary drafting into the Roman army transformed these societies. These made Iron Age Germanic societies more militaristic than Bronze Age ones had been, whose emphasis was probably more on Nerthus. The stories of Loki and Gullveig at those times would have been warnings rather than present, out of control hazards.

In the famous Bang and Bugge Vs. Rydberg debates, it has been almost universally conceded that Bang and Bugge, who were arguing for Christian influence on Norse myths, lost the debate, while much older Indo-European influences were conceded as well. How likely would it be that the U.S., in a War with Iraq, would take on Islamic features in its religion? Or vice-versa? Not too likely.

I’d suggest that “manichean” elements of religion have been part of the Indo-European mindstate, at least in soft form, going back all the way to PIE times. These softer forms may become aggravated by military engagement. After several generations of militarism, they may sharpen and harden ; after all, there is an enemy to overcome, and one must overcome them. This explanation doesn’t need any Christianization ; in fact, one could merely argue for “parallel evolution” between Christian forms and Germanic forms by noting the militarist orientation of some of the Essenes holed up in their desert formations, and of course the increasing militarism of the Germanic folk once they were assaulted by the Roman Empire. I think Fredy Perlman does an elegant job in accounting for manichean elements in Zoroastrianism by suggesting that it was originally a revolutionary movement attempting to overthrow leviathan, and thus there was an element of imbalance and out-of-controlness that could not be admitted into the circle of balance and thus needed to be conceived as being absolutely shut out and overcome. Once there is that kind of enemy, assuming that the revolutionary energy is coopted, it’s easy for it to settle down into dogma.

But all of that said, I think that the message behind the stories of Loki and Gullveig as they evolved are very good messages. As my friend Carla glossed it recently, when the lawyers (Loki) and the bankers (Gullveig) get together, watch out!!

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178158 Jason Godesky Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:22:14 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178158 Ahhh, now <em>there's</em> the stuff! <em>Now</em> you've got a convincing argument on your hands! Given that, I have to cede the point that in early, heathen sources, Loki has some clearly Diabolical traits, yes. This raises an interesting question, which goes beyond my level of knowledge. As I mentioned before, "Neither am I claiming that it was necessarily Christians behind that change, at least directly; it could just as easily be more modern pagans, trying to keep the myths competitive with the rather seductive allure of a simple dichotomy of black and white. It certainly makes the world simple, if nothing else." Obviously, before Christianity won out, it first had to contend with the older beliefs. So how far back can we date something like the Lokasenna? I readily grant that that is a <em>bona fide</em> heathen source, and much more reliable than Snorri's Edda, but even the oldest poems in the Poetic Edda were still composed after some kingdoms began converting to Christianity. For example, <em>Atlamál hin groenlenzk</em> must have been composed after 985, at which time Sweden and Iceland were involved in quite a struggle over whether Iceland would convert to Christianity. Eyvindr skáldaspillir probably also dates to the second half of the tenth century. I readily grant that dating the Poetic Edda's various components has long been problematic, but that's rather my point. Saxo Grammaticus wrote well after even Iceland had converted to Christianity. I realize there's some difficulty getting <em>any</em> source old enough by those standards, so this might be something of an unfalsifiable proposition, but we also have carvings and depictions, if not texts, that reach well into the pre-Christian past. Are some of these old enough to prove that this was always Loki's story, or is it recent enough to suggest that before Christianity won out, heathens may have felt some pressure to adapt by adding a more starkly Manichaean element? I have to admit, you've marshaled a great deal of evidence here, more than enough for me to admit that you make a good case. Were it just me, I'd concede defeat; but I didn't come up with this idea myself, I got it from others who've studied this more than I have, so it makes me think that perhaps you have a good argument, and perhaps they have a good argument, too—perhaps there's simply not enough evidence to really prove which side is correct? Unless you know of still other evidence that's even older; that would really settle the score. <blockquote><p>It occurs to me that there IS a time when Loki fits more of the “Trickster” archetype you are invoking, but it is not an extra-mythic, pre-Christian time, but rather a specific time within the mythic chronology.</p></blockquote> That, I think, we're agreed, but very often the transformation of a mythic figure's character reflects some acknowledgment of their historical progression. For example, the Greek myths of Dionysus speak of his migration from the East and joining the gods on Olympus—and we know that he was originally a Persian god that the Greeks adopted. I think that, in the absence of any definitively pre-Christian evidence (by which I mean before Christianity was a real factor in Scandinavia), that very element provides the best suggestion for a historical transformation. The transformation of Loki's character throughout the story would be problematic for an original storyteller, unless he had essentially two Lokis that he needed to reconcile: an older, Trickster Loki with whom everyone was already familiar, and the new, Diabolical Loki, who brings the stark, Manichaean conflict to Norse mythology that will make it better able to compete with the new religion beginning to lure away converts. I do very much like your interpretation of the story as it stands, though, and you make a convincing argument on the historical case. I'm just still a little unsure about what the evidence really adds up to. Certainly, the texts you quoted leave no doubt about Loki's nature, as you said; but does this tell us about his original nature, or are they (admittedly early) evidence of his transformation? You make a good case, but I still see a question there. Ahhh, now there’s the stuff! Now you’ve got a convincing argument on your hands!

Given that, I have to cede the point that in early, heathen sources, Loki has some clearly Diabolical traits, yes. This raises an interesting question, which goes beyond my level of knowledge. As I mentioned before, “Neither am I claiming that it was necessarily Christians behind that change, at least directly; it could just as easily be more modern pagans, trying to keep the myths competitive with the rather seductive allure of a simple dichotomy of black and white. It certainly makes the world simple, if nothing else.” Obviously, before Christianity won out, it first had to contend with the older beliefs. So how far back can we date something like the Lokasenna? I readily grant that that is a bona fide heathen source, and much more reliable than Snorri’s Edda, but even the oldest poems in the Poetic Edda were still composed after some kingdoms began converting to Christianity. For example, Atlamál hin groenlenzk must have been composed after 985, at which time Sweden and Iceland were involved in quite a struggle over whether Iceland would convert to Christianity. Eyvindr skáldaspillir probably also dates to the second half of the tenth century. I readily grant that dating the Poetic Edda’s various components has long been problematic, but that’s rather my point. Saxo Grammaticus wrote well after even Iceland had converted to Christianity. I realize there’s some difficulty getting any source old enough by those standards, so this might be something of an unfalsifiable proposition, but we also have carvings and depictions, if not texts, that reach well into the pre-Christian past. Are some of these old enough to prove that this was always Loki’s story, or is it recent enough to suggest that before Christianity won out, heathens may have felt some pressure to adapt by adding a more starkly Manichaean element? I have to admit, you’ve marshaled a great deal of evidence here, more than enough for me to admit that you make a good case. Were it just me, I’d concede defeat; but I didn’t come up with this idea myself, I got it from others who’ve studied this more than I have, so it makes me think that perhaps you have a good argument, and perhaps they have a good argument, too—perhaps there’s simply not enough evidence to really prove which side is correct? Unless you know of still other evidence that’s even older; that would really settle the score.

It occurs to me that there IS a time when Loki fits more of the “Trickster” archetype you are invoking, but it is not an extra-mythic, pre-Christian time, but rather a specific time within the mythic chronology.

That, I think, we’re agreed, but very often the transformation of a mythic figure’s character reflects some acknowledgment of their historical progression. For example, the Greek myths of Dionysus speak of his migration from the East and joining the gods on Olympus—and we know that he was originally a Persian god that the Greeks adopted. I think that, in the absence of any definitively pre-Christian evidence (by which I mean before Christianity was a real factor in Scandinavia), that very element provides the best suggestion for a historical transformation. The transformation of Loki’s character throughout the story would be problematic for an original storyteller, unless he had essentially two Lokis that he needed to reconcile: an older, Trickster Loki with whom everyone was already familiar, and the new, Diabolical Loki, who brings the stark, Manichaean conflict to Norse mythology that will make it better able to compete with the new religion beginning to lure away converts.

I do very much like your interpretation of the story as it stands, though, and you make a convincing argument on the historical case. I’m just still a little unsure about what the evidence really adds up to. Certainly, the texts you quoted leave no doubt about Loki’s nature, as you said; but does this tell us about his original nature, or are they (admittedly early) evidence of his transformation? You make a good case, but I still see a question there.

]]> By: jhereg http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178138 jhereg Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:50:02 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178138 well, i'll happily concede that Ziggy has a far better grasp of the texts, than i. i'm still far from convinced of the conclusion, but perhaps i should let it lie. the conclusion itself doesn't seem as important to me as the method of arriving at it. there's much to be said for static reality, but i think it leads us astray here. Archetypes may be unchanging, but Gods are certainly not. and that very malleability over time and over space contributes to a great deal of confusion, especially when we have only a very ripped and torn tapestry to view. is our purpose to know the static reality of yesterday? or to know the dynamic reality of today? vicarious or direct? of course, this line of thinking inevitably leads us to futile discussions of objective & subjective, but surely we must find a way around that? looking at the past as an act of sankofa is quite right, but let's not forget to come back, eh? ah, well, i probably shouldn't even post this, but i will anyway. do with it what you will.... well, i’ll happily concede that Ziggy has a far better grasp of the texts, than i.

i’m still far from convinced of the conclusion, but perhaps i should let it lie. the conclusion itself doesn’t seem as important to me as the method of arriving at it. there’s much to be said for static reality, but i think it leads us astray here. Archetypes may be unchanging, but Gods are certainly not. and that very malleability over time and over space contributes to a great deal of confusion, especially when we have only a very ripped and torn tapestry to view. is our purpose to know the static reality of yesterday? or to know the dynamic reality of today? vicarious or direct?

of course, this line of thinking inevitably leads us to futile discussions of objective & subjective, but surely we must find a way around that? looking at the past as an act of sankofa is quite right, but let’s not forget to come back, eh?

ah, well, i probably shouldn’t even post this, but i will anyway. do with it what you will….

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178115 Ziggy Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:46:28 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178115 If one wanted to, one could see the whole mythic cycle as a tragedy : "The Fall of Loki", and when Trickster falls and is perverted, so goes the rest of everything else. Perhaps Loki should simply have been left alone by everyone. As it stands, the gods wanted him amongst themselves. (Well, at least Odin did!!) Perhaps amongst the Aesir the "good" side of his ambivalence began to develop and grow. But the Jotnar were possessive and jealous and wanted him back, so they sent an agent to bring him back for good : Gullveig. She succeeds in her mission, far beyond their expectations. For all the good Loki did, he rebounds back into chaotic mayhem like a rubber band. In the process, he himself is consumed. Since Loki is caught with a net he himself created, we have the old motif of the Trickster Tricked, caught in his own trap. Poor Loki must suffer and endure all this first so that we might learn, and would not have to. In a way he paints a picture of a strange, inverted Christ, taking on the world's sins (through literally enacting them), and then being crucified for them (as it were). Trickster as Christ? Only a Trickster could inspire such a bizarre, macabre, and funny image. If one wanted to, one could see the whole mythic cycle as a tragedy : “The Fall of Loki”, and when Trickster falls and is perverted, so goes the rest of everything else.

Perhaps Loki should simply have been left alone by everyone. As it stands, the gods wanted him amongst themselves. (Well, at least Odin did!!) Perhaps amongst the Aesir the “good” side of his ambivalence began to develop and grow.

But the Jotnar were possessive and jealous and wanted him back, so they sent an agent to bring him back for good : Gullveig. She succeeds in her mission, far beyond their expectations. For all the good Loki did, he rebounds back into chaotic mayhem like a rubber band. In the process, he himself is consumed. Since Loki is caught with a net he himself created, we have the old motif of the Trickster Tricked, caught in his own trap.

Poor Loki must suffer and endure all this first so that we might learn, and would not have to. In a way he paints a picture of a strange, inverted Christ, taking on the world’s sins (through literally enacting them), and then being crucified for them (as it were). Trickster as Christ? Only a Trickster could inspire such a bizarre, macabre, and funny image.

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178112 Ziggy Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:25:36 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178112 A couple quick points in support of this : In Lokasenna, Freya says to Loki, "29. Ærr ertu, Loki, er þú yðra telr ljóta leiðstafi;" "Mad/Frenzied are thou, Loki when you tally up your ugly, loathsome spells;" and Odin makes a similar accusation : "21. Ærr ertu, Loki, ok örviti, " "Mad/Frenzied are thou, Loki, and completely out of your wits," In 47, Heimdall too accuses him of the same thing : "svá at þú ert örviti," "so you are completely out of your wits," It is true that Loki is drunk in this scene, but I think that something a little more is being implied here. Mad/Frenzied is a little something more than drunk. "Overdrunk" would be the usual term. They're all implying that he really must have lost it and gone over the deep end, that he has actually gone mad. Perhaps this is precisely what the eating of Gullveig's heart does to him. A couple quick points in support of this :

In Lokasenna, Freya says to Loki,

“29.
Ærr ertu, Loki,
er þú yðra telr
ljóta leiðstafi;”

“Mad/Frenzied are thou, Loki
when you tally up
your ugly, loathsome spells;”

and Odin makes a similar accusation :

“21.
Ærr ertu, Loki,
ok örviti, ”

“Mad/Frenzied are thou, Loki,
and completely out of your wits,”

In 47, Heimdall too accuses him of the same thing :

“svá at þú ert örviti,”

“so you are completely out of your wits,”

It is true that Loki is drunk in this scene, but I think that something a little more is being implied here. Mad/Frenzied is a little something more than drunk. “Overdrunk” would be the usual term.

They’re all implying that he really must have lost it and gone over the deep end, that he has actually gone mad.

Perhaps this is precisely what the eating of Gullveig’s heart does to him.

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178111 Ziggy Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:13:45 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178111 Hey Jason, A couple things just occurred to me which may allow an interesting joiner between our two contrasting ideas. It occurs to me that there IS a time when Loki fits more of the "Trickster" archetype you are invoking, but it is not an extra-mythic, pre-Christian time, but rather a specific time within the mythic chronology. This is the time before he eats Gullveig's heart. Hyndluljod 39 tells us "39. Loki, scorched up in his heart's affections, had found a half_burnt woman's heart. Loki became guileful from that wicked woman..." The half-burnt woman's heart refers to some wicked woman who was burned. This mythologically fits one figure : Voluspa "25. She that war remembers, the first on earth, when Gullveig they with lances pierced, and in the high one´s hall her burnt, thrice burnt, thrice brough her forth, oft not seldom; yet she still lives." Many commentators adjudge that Gullveig (= Power of Gold, Gold-Greed) represents a Personification of Greed. In the words of Padraic Colum, who poetically retold the Norse Myths in his "The Children of Odin" : "For Loki was one of those whose minds were being changed [160] by the presence and the whispers of the witch Gulveig. His mind was being changed to hatred of the Gods. Now he went to the place of Gulveig's burning. All her body was in ashes, but her heart had not been devoured by the flames. And Loki in his rage took the heart of the witch and ate it. Oh, black and direful was it in Asgard, the day that Loki ate the heart that the flames would not devour!" (Chapter : "Foreboding in Asgard".) As you can see, Colum bases his statements here firmly on the dovetailing of Voluspa 25 and Hyndluljod 39. Gullveig, as we know from Voluspa 26, was a great sorceress. That the Power of Gold is able to cast spells on people the history of civilization has certainly proven. Here is an opportunity to affirm BOTH your and my perspective, within the pre-Christian heathen context, that gives an especial warning : The Trickster is an ambivalent, playful, creative force who gives some good for every ill he does, UNTIL and UNLESS such time as that already tricky, difficult, mischevious, and capricious force JOINS FORCES with the Power of Gold-Greed. THEN, all bets are off. I think that is not only a marvelous (and quite well grounded in the lore) compromise between our positions (in fact a synthesis thereof), but a fantastic message, as well. It gives space to that part of Loki that you sensed, and gives it a definitive time period within the lore, while at the same time demonstrating what forces must be added into the mix for everything to go haywire. The Power of Gold Greed is already enough of a difficult opponent, seductive and enchanting to the minds of men. The Power of Caprice sometimes serves good ends, but often ends up landing people in trouble, too. But when these two forces are put together, a formidable but ill-conceived alliance begins that perverts all sides and results in the birth of world-consuming monsters. Loki on his own may be precisely as you portray him, and such he remains, until such time as he consumes the heart of Gullveig. Mythologically, consuming the heart of someone takes their power and soul into one's own being. From that point on, all of the deeds I've documented above, which your mind resisted attributing to Loki because they don't fit his character, result. In a sense, we were both right. You were right that it did not entirely fit Loki's character. It doesn't --- until his character is perverted and twisted by taking Gullveig's heart-soul within himself. Of all the impulses the Trickster should have resisted, that was the very one of ones. It is that impulsive act of curiosity and mischief that takes him over the edge. I don't know if you will see eye to eye to me on this compromise, but I hope I have adequately demonstrated its grounding in the lore, and the plausibility, therefore, that both viewpoints were quintessentially heathen, and represent a profound message about the convergence of greed and caprice. This occurred to me while I was reflecting upon our disputations and realizing that while I disagreed with you, I also agreed with you, in part, which sparked my memory of this critical juncture in the mythic map of time. I should add that in my book Wyrd Megin Thew, where I in fact take a highly appreciative look at Loki, I speculate that the poison that is made to drip in Loki's eyes as he is chained to the rock is perhaps intended as a purgative to purge Gullveig out of his being, a kind of crude, early, Odinic psychopharmacological psychiatric intervention ... Does that mean there is hope, however small, that Loki might recover his older tricksterish self before Ragnarok? Stay tuned, I suppose, or, perhaps more to the point, in order to find the answer, we, the supplicants or initiates or adepts or whatever we wish to call ourselves, we have to find out how to purge the Gullveig within so that our playful caprice is not poisoned by the voracious greed for gold. Hey Jason,

A couple things just occurred to me which may allow an interesting joiner between our two contrasting ideas.

It occurs to me that there IS a time when Loki fits more of the “Trickster” archetype you are invoking, but it is not an extra-mythic, pre-Christian time, but rather a specific time within the mythic chronology.

This is the time before he eats Gullveig’s heart. Hyndluljod 39 tells us

“39. Loki, scorched up
in his heart’s affections,
had found a half_burnt
woman’s heart.
Loki became guileful
from that wicked woman…”

The half-burnt woman’s heart refers to some wicked woman who was burned. This mythologically fits one figure :

Voluspa “25. She that war remembers,
the first on earth,
when Gullveig they
with lances pierced,
and in the high one´s hall
her burnt,
thrice burnt,
thrice brough her forth,
oft not seldom;
yet she still lives.”

Many commentators adjudge that Gullveig (= Power of Gold, Gold-Greed) represents a Personification of Greed.

In the words of Padraic Colum, who poetically retold the Norse Myths in his “The Children of Odin” :

“For Loki was one of those whose minds were being changed [160] by the presence and the whispers of the witch Gulveig. His mind was being changed to hatred of the Gods. Now he went to the place of Gulveig’s burning. All her body was in ashes, but her heart had not been devoured by the flames. And Loki in his rage took the heart of the witch and ate it. Oh, black and direful was it in Asgard, the day that Loki ate the heart that the flames would not devour!” (Chapter : “Foreboding in Asgard”.)

As you can see, Colum bases his statements here firmly on the dovetailing of Voluspa 25 and Hyndluljod 39.

Gullveig, as we know from Voluspa 26, was a great sorceress. That the Power of Gold is able to cast spells on people the history of civilization has certainly proven.

Here is an opportunity to affirm BOTH your and my perspective, within the pre-Christian heathen context, that gives an especial warning :

The Trickster is an ambivalent, playful, creative force who gives some good for every ill he does,

UNTIL and UNLESS such time as that already tricky, difficult, mischevious, and capricious force

JOINS FORCES

with the Power of Gold-Greed.

THEN, all bets are off.

I think that is not only a marvelous (and quite well grounded in the lore) compromise between our positions (in fact a synthesis thereof), but a fantastic message, as well.

It gives space to that part of Loki that you sensed, and gives it a definitive time period within the lore, while at the same time demonstrating what forces must be added into the mix for everything to go haywire.

The Power of Gold Greed is already enough of a difficult opponent, seductive and enchanting to the minds of men.

The Power of Caprice sometimes serves good ends, but often ends up landing people in trouble, too.

But when these two forces are put together, a formidable but ill-conceived alliance begins that perverts all sides and results in the birth of world-consuming monsters.

Loki on his own may be precisely as you portray him, and such he remains, until such time as he consumes the heart of Gullveig. Mythologically, consuming the heart of someone takes their power and soul into one’s own being. From that point on, all of the deeds I’ve documented above, which your mind resisted attributing to Loki because they don’t fit his character, result. In a sense, we were both right. You were right that it did not entirely fit Loki’s character. It doesn’t — until his character is perverted and twisted by taking Gullveig’s heart-soul within himself. Of all the impulses the Trickster should have resisted, that was the very one of ones. It is that impulsive act of curiosity and mischief that takes him over the edge.

I don’t know if you will see eye to eye to me on this compromise, but I hope I have adequately demonstrated its grounding in the lore, and the plausibility, therefore, that both viewpoints were quintessentially heathen, and represent a profound message about the convergence of greed and caprice. This occurred to me while I was reflecting upon our disputations and realizing that while I disagreed with you, I also agreed with you, in part, which sparked my memory of this critical juncture in the mythic map of time. I should add that in my book Wyrd Megin Thew, where I in fact take a highly appreciative look at Loki, I speculate that the poison that is made to drip in Loki’s eyes as he is chained to the rock is perhaps intended as a purgative to purge Gullveig out of his being, a kind of crude, early, Odinic psychopharmacological psychiatric intervention … Does that mean there is hope, however small, that Loki might recover his older tricksterish self before Ragnarok? Stay tuned, I suppose, or, perhaps more to the point, in order to find the answer, we, the supplicants or initiates or adepts or whatever we wish to call ourselves, we have to find out how to purge the Gullveig within so that our playful caprice is not poisoned by the voracious greed for gold.

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178107 Ziggy Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:12:20 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178107 Lokasenna 28 : "Loki kvað: "... ek því réð, er þú ríða sér-at síðan Baldr at sölum."" "Because I plotted/planned/designed that you see not riding Balder anymore to the halls." That's my translation. Compare : "I am the cause that thou seest not Baldr riding to the halls." (Thorpe) and "Mine is the blame that Baldr no more Thou seest ride home to the hall." (Bellows) Before he admits this, he says, "Enn vill þú, Frigg, at ek fleiri telja mína meinstafi;" "Yet will thou, Frigg, that I should tally up more of my harmful charms/spells/runes?" He knows he's admitting something terrible, and in fact is proud of the fact. "Mein" means "hurt, harm, injury, damage, disease". Freya calls these deeds in 29 "leiðstafi", "loathsome runes." Lokasenna 33, 39, and 41 all make clear reference to Loki giving birth to the monsters, including Fenris. And to top it off, Gefjun, whom Odin describes as knowing all of the orlog of old (21), says of Loki, "ok hann fjörg öll fíá.", ""and he life all hates." Now whether you configure that as "And he hates all life", or "And all of life hates him", it amounts to pretty much the same thing. Finally, it is this poem which reveals that Loki was exiled and bound to the rock. That's in Lokasenna, a legitimate Eddic poem in Codex Regius. It's heathen. So, from a heathen source, we have Loki's open admission to bringing about Baldur's death, and the open knowledge that he birthed the monsters. Because of this, Gefjun says that "all of life hates him" (or "he hates all life"). This follows, because everyone, except Loki (assuming we identify Thokk with Loki, as Snorri does) wept for Baldur. Hollander points out that Snorri quotes a slightly different version, proving that he was familiar with the already-existing poem, and that it had greater circulation. "For the text of the lay we are altogether dependent on the Codex Regius. However, this text was not used as a source by Snorri, though he quotes one stanza (29) in a slightly different form. The weight of evidence points to Norway as a place of origin, and suggests the latter half of the tenth century as the period of composition." (Lee Milton Hollander, The Poetic Edda, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1962, p. 90.) Hollander's sources lead him to date it somewhere between 950 and 1000 AD, before the Christian conversion in Iceland. Another source dates this poem to the same time period : "The Lokasenna was probably only a century later in origin than the Old Saxon Heliand and Genesis..." (Scandinavian Language Periodicals, Publications of the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study, Urbana, Illinois, 1916, p. 248. Heliand is about 825 AD.) We are still well within heathen times and the Viking Age. Alaric Hall, Elves in Anglo-Saxon England : Matters of Belief, Health, Gender, and Identity , The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2007, p.36 says that Lokasenna is "a tightly constructed poem and mythologically well informed." Hyndluljod 38 and 39 confirm Loki's begetting of the wolves. Hyndluljod, which appears in Flateyjarbok, contains (in stanzas 29 -44)another even earlier poem, Voluspa en skamma, which Snorri quotes, and so which obviously predated him. The material in Voluspa en skamma is highly mythological, and thus of older provenance. So, I've amply demonstrated here, from heathen sources, that Loki : 1. Brought about Baldur's death. 2. Birthed the Monsters of mayhem. 3. Was exiled (and bound) for his crime. These are all heathen figures. Whatever Snorri may have added, he added upon this base. There are Indo-European parallels. Amongst the Greeks, there was a figure whose name means "Mocker" (Momus), who was brother to Strife, Fraud, and Nemesis, known for setting people in strife, and who was eventually banished by Zeus for his strife-causing. If we bracket the strong possibility that Momus is simply a heiti for Prometheus, then we also have the example of Prometheus, the Greek Loki cognate, also a troublemaker, being bound to a rock. Several other examples from Indo-European mythology could be edduced. Suffice it to say that the troublemaker bound to the rock is an ancient IE motif, and Loki is square within that pre-Christian tradition. Furthermore, the strife that Loki causes between the Sons of Ivaldi and the brothers Brokk and Sindri, artisans of nature and the weather, which results in such terrible woe for the world, can be found in the Greek tradition (with the elves' cognates the Telchines), between the Rbhus and Tvastar in the Rig Veda, and traces of the resulting weather havoc can also be found in Avesta. It's a widespread Indo-European story, probably related to some ancient disaster or drastic weather-shift. If you're looking for people who demonized the Trickster by blaming horrible events on them, it is to this long-gone pre-Christian era amongst the Indo-Europeans you might want to look. Further confirmation of some of these traits of Loki comes from Voluspa, the quintessential heathen poem. 36 and 37 describe the murder of Baldur, and 38, which directly follows, mentions Loki bound in the underworld. The allusion is clear. Furthermore, using Vegtamskvida as an argument that Loki was not involved, because the vala there only mentions Hodur being the cause doesn't quite work either, because one has to consider the source. Odin essentially calls her Angrboda in verse 19 by accusing her of being the mother of three monsters, a known reference to Angrboda, who is Loki's accomplice in birthing the monsters of mayhem! It would not suit the purpose of two saboteurs working together to reveal who had really brought about the death, because by avoiding that connection, two deaths can be brought about : Baldur and Hodur, who had previously worked together as a team (and were known in IE cognates as the Asvins and the Dioscuri). Thorsdrapa, a heathen poem, argues that Loki led Thor into a full ambush : "The father of the sea-thread [Loki] set about urging the feller of the life-net of the gods of the flight-ledges [Þórr] to leave home. Loptr [Loki] was a mighty liar. The deceitful mind-tester of the war-thunder's Gautr [Loki] declared that green paths led towards Geirröðr's wall-horse [house]." Loki sets the thing up, letting Thor think that everything will be ok, and an attempt is made on Thor's life. This attempt fails, but that does not touch the fact of the treason. In Saxo Grammaticus' History of the Danes, Book One, we find Odin instructing the young hero Hadding in how to escape the clutches of "Loker", described as both a "tyrant" and a "foe", who is surrounded by ravenous beasts. Loker tries to have his beasts devour Hadding, but Odin's instructions allow the young hero to escape. It is generally admitted that Loker is Loki, and the fact that Loker is surrounded by ravenous beasts, while Loki is the father of monsters, confirms the suspicion. Here again we find Loki presented as a "hostis" or "foe". And all of this, while quite sufficient and very well grounded, is just the beginning. One can edduce other sources to demonstrate that Loki is responsible for generating wars on earth, stirs up strife and prevents reconciliation, and repays good with evil. I think we are well within sociopathic territory, and have walked outside the boundaries of the playful and troublesome prankster we've been discussing. Lokasenna 28 :

“Loki kvað:

“…
ek því réð,
er þú ríða sér-at
síðan Baldr at sölum.”"

“Because I plotted/planned/designed
that you see not riding
Balder anymore to the halls.”

That’s my translation. Compare :

“I am the cause
that thou seest not
Baldr riding to the halls.” (Thorpe)

and

“Mine is the blame that Baldr no more
Thou seest ride home to the hall.” (Bellows)

Before he admits this, he says,

“Enn vill þú, Frigg,
at ek fleiri telja
mína meinstafi;”

“Yet will thou, Frigg,
that I should tally up more
of my harmful charms/spells/runes?”

He knows he’s admitting something terrible, and in fact is proud of the fact. “Mein” means “hurt, harm, injury, damage, disease”. Freya calls these deeds in 29 “leiðstafi”, “loathsome runes.”

Lokasenna 33, 39, and 41 all make clear reference to Loki giving birth to the monsters, including Fenris.

And to top it off, Gefjun, whom Odin describes as knowing all of the orlog of old (21), says of Loki, “ok hann fjörg öll fíá.”, “”and he life all hates.”

Now whether you configure that as “And he hates all life”, or “And all of life hates him”, it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

Finally, it is this poem which reveals that Loki was exiled and bound to the rock.

That’s in Lokasenna, a legitimate Eddic poem in Codex Regius. It’s heathen. So, from a heathen source, we have Loki’s open admission to bringing about Baldur’s death, and the open knowledge that he birthed the monsters. Because of this, Gefjun says that “all of life hates him” (or “he hates all life”). This follows, because everyone, except Loki (assuming we identify Thokk with Loki, as Snorri does) wept for Baldur.

Hollander points out that Snorri quotes a slightly different version, proving that he was familiar with the already-existing poem, and that it had greater circulation.

“For the text of the lay we are altogether dependent on the Codex Regius. However, this text was not used as a source by Snorri, though he quotes one stanza (29) in a slightly different form. The weight of evidence points to Norway as a place of origin, and suggests the latter half of the tenth century as the period of composition.” (Lee Milton Hollander, The Poetic Edda, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 1962, p. 90.)

Hollander’s sources lead him to date it somewhere between 950 and 1000 AD, before the Christian conversion in Iceland. Another source dates this poem to the same time period :

“The Lokasenna was probably only a century later in origin than the Old Saxon Heliand and Genesis…” (Scandinavian Language Periodicals, Publications of the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study, Urbana, Illinois, 1916, p. 248. Heliand is about 825 AD.)

We are still well within heathen times and the Viking Age.

Alaric Hall, Elves in Anglo-Saxon England : Matters of Belief, Health, Gender, and Identity , The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, 2007, p.36 says that Lokasenna is “a tightly constructed poem and mythologically well informed.”

Hyndluljod 38 and 39 confirm Loki’s begetting of the wolves. Hyndluljod, which appears in Flateyjarbok, contains (in stanzas 29 -44)another even earlier poem, Voluspa en skamma, which Snorri quotes, and so which obviously predated him. The material in Voluspa en skamma is highly mythological, and thus of older provenance.

So, I’ve amply demonstrated here, from heathen sources, that Loki :

1. Brought about Baldur’s death.
2. Birthed the Monsters of mayhem.
3. Was exiled (and bound) for his crime.

These are all heathen figures. Whatever Snorri may have added, he added upon this base.

There are Indo-European parallels. Amongst the Greeks, there was a figure whose name means “Mocker” (Momus), who was brother to Strife, Fraud, and Nemesis, known for setting people in strife, and who was eventually banished by Zeus for his strife-causing. If we bracket the strong possibility that Momus is simply a heiti for Prometheus, then we also have the example of Prometheus, the Greek Loki cognate, also a troublemaker, being bound to a rock. Several other examples from Indo-European mythology could be edduced. Suffice it to say that the troublemaker bound to the rock is an ancient IE motif, and Loki is square within that pre-Christian tradition.

Furthermore, the strife that Loki causes between the Sons of Ivaldi and the brothers Brokk and Sindri, artisans of nature and the weather, which results in such terrible woe for the world, can be found in the Greek tradition (with the elves’ cognates the Telchines), between the Rbhus and Tvastar in the Rig Veda, and traces of the resulting weather havoc can also be found in Avesta. It’s a widespread Indo-European story, probably related to some ancient disaster or drastic weather-shift. If you’re looking for people who demonized the Trickster by blaming horrible events on them, it is to this long-gone pre-Christian era amongst the Indo-Europeans you might want to look.

Further confirmation of some of these traits of Loki comes from Voluspa, the quintessential heathen poem. 36 and 37 describe the murder of Baldur, and 38, which directly follows, mentions Loki bound in the underworld. The allusion is clear.

Furthermore, using Vegtamskvida as an argument that Loki was not involved, because the vala there only mentions Hodur being the cause doesn’t quite work either, because one has to consider the source. Odin essentially calls her Angrboda in verse 19 by accusing her of being the mother of three monsters, a known reference to Angrboda, who is Loki’s accomplice in birthing the monsters of mayhem! It would not suit the purpose of two saboteurs working together to reveal who had really brought about the death, because by avoiding that connection, two deaths can be brought about : Baldur and Hodur, who had previously worked together as a team (and were known in IE cognates as the Asvins and the Dioscuri).

Thorsdrapa, a heathen poem, argues that Loki led Thor into a full ambush :

“The father of the sea-thread [Loki] set about urging the feller of the life-net of the gods of the flight-ledges [Þórr] to leave home. Loptr [Loki] was a mighty liar. The deceitful mind-tester of the war-thunder’s Gautr [Loki] declared that green paths led towards Geirröðr’s wall-horse [house].”

Loki sets the thing up, letting Thor think that everything will be ok, and an attempt is made on Thor’s life. This attempt fails, but that does not touch the fact of the treason.

In Saxo Grammaticus’ History of the Danes, Book One, we find Odin instructing the young hero Hadding in how to escape the clutches of “Loker”, described as both a “tyrant” and a “foe”, who is surrounded by ravenous beasts. Loker tries to have his beasts devour Hadding, but Odin’s instructions allow the young hero to escape. It is generally admitted that Loker is Loki, and the fact that Loker is surrounded by ravenous beasts, while Loki is the father of monsters, confirms the suspicion. Here again we find Loki presented as a “hostis” or “foe”.

And all of this, while quite sufficient and very well grounded, is just the beginning. One can edduce other sources to demonstrate that Loki is responsible for generating wars on earth, stirs up strife and prevents reconciliation, and repays good with evil.

I think we are well within sociopathic territory, and have walked outside the boundaries of the playful and troublesome prankster we’ve been discussing.

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178100 Jason Godesky Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:02:43 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178100 <blockquote><p>I’ve written a 1200 page book on the topic of Norse religion, and therefore I’m in a place to know what I’m talking about.</p></blockquote> That's interesting, but I don't see anywhere that you've used your real name, and you don't mention the book's title. Could you give me a citation? I'd like to look it up. I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, but I hope you're not expecting me to substitute your judgment for my own because you wrote a long book! As Pascal wrote, "I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter." I kid, but until I've had a chance to look at the book in question, I can hardly use it as a standard to judge by. But that's neither here nor there for our discussion; an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. We have plenty of evidence to discuss, and I have no reason to doubt your familiarity with it. <blockquote><p>You’re trying to imply a Christian demonization of Loki, and I’m telling you that he was already a demonic force WAAAAAAAY back into Indo-European times, long before anyone had ever even heard of Christ.</p></blockquote> A perfectly respectable position to take, but do you have any evidence for it? There are, of course, any number of people who've offered evidence counter to it. I'm hardly the first person to make this claim. What I could find quickly online to back me up included Stefanie von Schnurbein's 2000 article in <em>History of Religions</em>, "The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson's 'Edda'," specifically that "the prominent function Snorri allows Loki to assume in Baldr's death could be traced to Christian influences." I'm sure you're even more aware than I of the problems of Christian glosses applied by Snorri in the Prose Edda. <blockquote><p>The entire POINT of the story is a cautionary tale about exercising discernment about who you let into your inner circles, and making sure you don’t allow sociopaths to have reign.</p></blockquote> <em>If</em> the more sinister tales are older than current evidence suggests, which is what you need to prove, I think. For instance, did Loki play a major role in Baldr's death? In later versions of the tale, he is the architect of the entire affair. In earlier versions, such as <em>Baldrs draumar</em>, Loki's role is suspiciously lacking. Here are stanzas 8 and 9 or <em>Baldrs draumar</em>, from Larrington's translation: <blockquote><p><em>Who will be Baldr's killer<br /> and who'll steal the life from Odin's son?</em></p> <p><em>Hod will dispatch the famous warrior to this place;<br /> he will be Baldr's killer</em></p></blockquote> No mention of Loki; in fact, the earliest connection drawn to Loki occurs in the Prose Edda, written by Snorri Sturluson, a devout Christian who applied a great many Christianizing updates to the old myths. <blockquote><p>No, that’s just the point. In the earliest parts of the Indo-European epic, that is precisely what he does.</p></blockquote> Can you point to some evidence for that assertion? Here's an example: ask your average Christian for the Christmas story, and it will likely include both shepherds and magi, even though the shepherds appear only in Luke, and the magi only in Matthew. Later on, we synthesized them. When read from the original sources, the stories change a great deal. The earlier stories are the ones where Loki does good, or at least ambivalent, things. The earliest evidence of Loki that I know of comes from carvings of him giving birth to Sleipnir. Now, you can certainly find plenty of evidence for Loki-as-sociopath, but look where that evidence comes from. The murder of Baldr is probably the best example, but is there any source that implicates Loki before Snorri Sturluson? That would suggest that before the influence of Christianity, Loki was a much more ambivalent god, not because murdering Baldr was considered ambivalent, but because in the earlier version, he didn't murder Baldr. I'm not saying the interpretation changed, I'm saying the stories changed to make him more malevolent, the stories put Loki behind everything bad that happened. Neither am I claiming that it was necessarily Christians behind that change, at least directly; it could just as easily be more modern pagans, trying to keep the myths competitive with the rather seductive allure of a simple dichotomy of black and white. It certainly makes the world simple, if nothing else. <blockquote><p>I’m sorry, as I said, it just ain’t worth it. I don’t get any “vitality” from sociopaths. Sorry. It ain’t working for me.</p></blockquote> That's rather the point: I'm making the claim that he wasn't always a sociopath. People couldn't handle his ambiguous nature, so they invented some new stories about him that made him a sociopath. <blockquote><p>But that is far outweighed by breeding monsters that destroy the world.</p></blockquote> Is it? Loki's children by Sigyn, Narfi and Vali, simply become Odin's victims. His three children by Angrboda play a role in Ragnarok, sure, but that's not the only thing they do. Neither did Loki breed them to destroy the world; his children, like him, are chaotic forces, forces that make the world change. When the prophecies predicted that they would bring trouble for the Aesir, they bound Jörmungandr in the sea (but that doesn't stop Thor from basically tormenting the snake on his fishing trip, or trying to lift his paw in cat form), cast Hel into the land of the dead, and hunted down and chained Fenrir. Fenrir grows too big for his chains; ultimately, trying to contain those chaotic forces leads to Ragnarok far more directly than Loki's siring of them. The prophecy is self-fulfilling. Jörmungandr is the chaos of the sea. Fenrir and his children chase the sun and moon through the sky, creating day and night. Hel's name comes from the Indo-European word for "hider"; she's a chthonic god, including the dead, buried secrets, and the past itself. She, too, became demonized with the spread of Christianity, originally appearing as a fairly neutral, chthonic goddess. They contribute to Ragnarok mostly because of the lengths the gods go to, in order to keep them from contributing to Ragnarok. The Aesir's attempts to control the chaotic forces of change leads to the end of the world far more directly than anything Loki ever did. <blockquote><p>You’re not getting that Loki IS NOT A “CREATIVE FORCE”.</p></blockquote> No, that's not it; I'm not getting what evidence exists to suggest that Loki is not a creative force. From the stories I can see with the earliest evidence, that's <em>precisely</em> what he is. Can you show me some evidence that the stories where Loki <em>does</em> act like a sociopath are older? Because <em>that</em> would change things. I know Loki certainly is not ambiguous whatsoever in the stories that stand now; the real question is, when did those stories emerge? <blockquote><p>The idea that our world will “grow weary, lifeless, [and] dull” because people aren’t trying to burn our houses down or kill one of our brothers or any other of a number of acts of mayhem just doesn’t fly with me. Pranks are one thing ; mayhem is another.</p></blockquote> Agreed. There are plenty of stories with Loki as prankster, even Loki as coward. And then, dating from a later time, stories of Loki as sociopath. Pranks are one thing; mayhem is another. In the earliest stories, Loki pulls pranks. In the later stories, he commits mayhem. He burns down houses and kills brothers. If you want to prove your point, what you really need to provide is some evidence that those stories <em>aren't</em> as late as they appear. For instance, if you could prove that Loki was involved in Baldr's murder in stories dating back to, say, 800, then I'd have to cede the point. But saying that murdering Baldr makes Loki a sociopath doesn't really get us anywhere; we both recognize that much. What we're really differing on is whether Loki was always Baldr's murderer, or did Loki become Baldr's murderer as he was shifted from ambiguous Trickster to sociopathic Devil? I've suggested that Loki's myth show a historical process of a Trickster turned into a Devil; arguing that Loki as he stands now is a Devil hardly overturns that point. <blockquote><p>To me, it’s one thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy, and sometimes he stirs things up and causes some trouble, but he’s not antagonistic towards the community, and really brings some refreshing life in from time to time. Ok, that’s a particular personality profile. It’s quite another thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy in the community, he’s really a black ops agent, but hey, y’know, no problem, let’s let him stay because how could we imagine life being exciting without continual sabotage of our existence?</p></blockquote> Agreed. That's why Tricksters are different from Devils. The former is a Trickster; the latter, a Devil. What this article analyzes is how we cannot tolerate Tricksters, so we turn them into Devils. The story changes. Originally, they were not antagonistic, stirred up trouble, but generally made life interesting. But when we can't handle that, we change the stories to make them saboteurs and sociopaths. You get Snorri turning Loki into the grand mastermind behind Baldr's murder, where previously it had simply been Hod, all by himself. Snorri tells us, no, it wasn't Hod; it was Loki, and he just used Hod. The story changed. If we're talking about post-Christian Loki, I agree with you completely. But I'm talking about Loki's transformation, from a Trickster, into a Devil. Now, maybe you can make the argument that post-Christian Loki is identical to pre-Christian Loki, and that no change took place, but assuming that would be begging the argument. That's what needs to be proven. You need to provide us with some evidence that these stories that qualify Loki as a sociopath aren't actually as recent as they appear. <blockquote><p>Loki doesn’t need to be a “devil” or “demonized” in order to be a force of sabotage so dangerous that he needs to be exiled. And he was exiled and bound from the very first, long before Christianity.</p></blockquote> So where's the evidence for this claim? Where's the pre-Christian stories where Loki is a saboteur and a sociopath? You keep stating this baldly, but that is the very substance of the argument, it is precisely what you need to prove! <blockquote><p>Um, Loki ADMITS to killing Baldur, in his own words.</p></blockquote> <em>In Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda</em>, in which he changed <em>many</em> of the myths to make them more compatible with his Christian religion. The question isn't whether or not Loki's a Devil in the post-Christian myths; the question is whether or not those stories are older than Christianity. For that, I see no evidence. <blockquote><p>If that feels “out of character”, you’re not getting the character.</p></blockquote> Or, there's actually two different characters: the original Trickster, and the Devil he was turned into. You get this kind of thing when somebody picks up a character and takes him in a radically different direction. Ask any Robert Howard fan what he thinks of L. Sprague de Camp's Conan. I always got a similar vibe from Loki in Baldr's stories. It doesn't fit with the older material; he suddenly becomes a sociopath out of nowhere. <blockquote><p>Loki projects all of those fun characteristics you’re probably liking, but that is the charm of a sociopath.</p></blockquote> That really only works if you assume Snorri made no changes. Yes, if we want to make sense of the character with all the stories as presented currently, your interpretation is dead on. But the question is, were some of these stories added later to change Loki's character? Then, that mismatch isn't a sociopath's charm, it's the seam where two characters were patched together. So, if you assume that no changes were made to the story, then you have evidence that no changes were made to the story. It's circular. Unless you can provide evidence for the antiquity of those aspects of Loki's character, it's simply a tautological assertion without evidence. <blockquote><p>We’re not discussing a neutral-chaos here or a life-affirmative chaos, but a mayhem-oriented chaos.</p></blockquote> You're begging the question here again; are we talking about a mayhem-oriented chaos, or a life-affirmative chaos? Let me bring this down to earth a bit more: Baldr-murdering-Loki is a force of mayhem-oriented chaos. So, if we took a look at Loki in 800, did he kill Baldr, or was that something that was added later, as Loki was demonized, because people became uncomfortable with the very idea that chaos can be life-affirming, and began changing the stories to make all chaos mayhem-oriented? Did people start to add in, "No, Hod didn't <em>really</em> kill Baldr; you see, it was Loki, who tricked Hod," later on? <em>That's</em> the question. We agree that murdering Baldr crosses the line from Trickster to Devil. The question is: when did people begin identifying Loki as the Devil? Was he always the Devil, or was that added later? The Poetic Edda doesn't mention any of Loki's sociopathic acts. Snorri does. Doesn't that suggest that in an earlier version of the story, Loki was a very different character? <blockquote><p>He is creative when he’s saving his own ass. Do we refer to the gifts to the gods that the Sons of Ivaldi and Brokk and Sindri crafted? But he didn’t make those. Do we credit him with the creation of the fish-net in Gylfaginning 50? But he didn’t invent that. We know he got the net from Ran. Do we say, well, he retrieved Idunn for the Aesir? That is no net-good because he was the one who took her away in the first place! </p></blockquote> You just described the typical Trickster to a T. They rarely invent their gifts; more often, they steal them. Just like Prometheus stole fire from the gods. It's still thanks to Loki that the gods got them. <blockquote><p>If I had someone in my community whose balance sheet was this lopsided, and had been such a source of mayhem, I’d toss him out, wouldn’t you?</p></blockquote> Firstly, I think your list is decidedly biased; you've systematically discounted everything a Trickster offers! And, we've already discussed most of the items in your "mayhem" list, but ultimately, a list of pro's and con's seems a bit superficial for a question like this, don't you think? <blockquote><p>The Indo-European societies were agricultural / pastoral long before Christianity came around, and Loki is a product of an Indo-European society.</p></blockquote> Not all of them. Indo-European is a language stock, not necessarily a way of life. The Norse were practicing a much smaller-scale kind of agriculture, one that involved foraging (fishing, specifically) much more than most. Is it an untainted, aboriginal culture? By no means, but it shows elements common to many cultures, sometimes more strongly than other European societies with a more developed agriculture. As that system of increased complexity penetrated Scandinavia (which happened to include Christianity at that point), the cultural ramifications of greater complexity began to occur, including a distinct discomfort with the Trickster that is so pivotal to life in less complex societies. That that transformation happened to take place as Christianization is rather incidental, but it is specific. <blockquote><p>In fact, if anything, in the older heathen poems, he’s even more sinister than in Snorri’s stories, generating an ambush on Thor.</p></blockquote> Are you referring to the story in which he's introduced to the Aesir? These are the stories I'd like to have some evidence for. If they are as old as you say, that would change things, but you haven't provided evidence for these claims here, you've simply stated them baldly. <blockquote><p>And yes, from the most heathen of sources.</p></blockquote> Evidence for this? <blockquote><p>That’s why I say that Loki is NOT a Trickster. When you go back into the older heathen sources, there is an undeniably sinister side to him, regardless of how likeable he is.</p></blockquote> Evidence for this? <blockquote><p>That doesn’t mean that I see Loki as “the Devil”. To do that, I would have to invest ALL evil-power in him, and make him the SOLE AUTHOR of all evil, and the one force opposing the forces of good.</p></blockquote> I'm not sure of that; most Christian theologians say that human free will is capable of generating a good amount of evil all on its own. But I think you're taking my use of the term Devil a bit too literally here; I'm really just talking about any sinister, sociopathic god of mayhem and destruction. <blockquote><p>If I weren’t convinced of a) several serious and grave crimes on his part, and b)that these are of heathen, not post-Christian provenance, I would tend to take your position and argue that there’s no point turning a mere troublemaker into a sociopath and saboteur.</p></blockquote> Then I think we're mostly agreed but for one detail: I don't see any evidence for (B). I think that's the crux of the argument. I think that's what needs to be proven.

I’ve written a 1200 page book on the topic of Norse religion, and therefore I’m in a place to know what I’m talking about.

That’s interesting, but I don’t see anywhere that you’ve used your real name, and you don’t mention the book’s title. Could you give me a citation? I’d like to look it up.

I don’t doubt that you know what you’re talking about, but I hope you’re not expecting me to substitute your judgment for my own because you wrote a long book! As Pascal wrote, “I have only made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter.” I kid, but until I’ve had a chance to look at the book in question, I can hardly use it as a standard to judge by. But that’s neither here nor there for our discussion; an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. We have plenty of evidence to discuss, and I have no reason to doubt your familiarity with it.

You’re trying to imply a Christian demonization of Loki, and I’m telling you that he was already a demonic force WAAAAAAAY back into Indo-European times, long before anyone had ever even heard of Christ.

A perfectly respectable position to take, but do you have any evidence for it? There are, of course, any number of people who’ve offered evidence counter to it. I’m hardly the first person to make this claim. What I could find quickly online to back me up included Stefanie von Schnurbein’s 2000 article in History of Religions, “The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson’s ‘Edda’,” specifically that “the prominent function Snorri allows Loki to assume in Baldr’s death could be traced to Christian influences.” I’m sure you’re even more aware than I of the problems of Christian glosses applied by Snorri in the Prose Edda.

The entire POINT of the story is a cautionary tale about exercising discernment about who you let into your inner circles, and making sure you don’t allow sociopaths to have reign.

If the more sinister tales are older than current evidence suggests, which is what you need to prove, I think. For instance, did Loki play a major role in Baldr’s death? In later versions of the tale, he is the architect of the entire affair. In earlier versions, such as Baldrs draumar, Loki’s role is suspiciously lacking. Here are stanzas 8 and 9 or Baldrs draumar, from Larrington’s translation:

Who will be Baldr’s killer
and who’ll steal the life from Odin’s son?

Hod will dispatch the famous warrior to this place;
he will be Baldr’s killer

No mention of Loki; in fact, the earliest connection drawn to Loki occurs in the Prose Edda, written by Snorri Sturluson, a devout Christian who applied a great many Christianizing updates to the old myths.

No, that’s just the point. In the earliest parts of the Indo-European epic, that is precisely what he does.

Can you point to some evidence for that assertion?

Here’s an example: ask your average Christian for the Christmas story, and it will likely include both shepherds and magi, even though the shepherds appear only in Luke, and the magi only in Matthew. Later on, we synthesized them. When read from the original sources, the stories change a great deal.

The earlier stories are the ones where Loki does good, or at least ambivalent, things. The earliest evidence of Loki that I know of comes from carvings of him giving birth to Sleipnir. Now, you can certainly find plenty of evidence for Loki-as-sociopath, but look where that evidence comes from. The murder of Baldr is probably the best example, but is there any source that implicates Loki before Snorri Sturluson? That would suggest that before the influence of Christianity, Loki was a much more ambivalent god, not because murdering Baldr was considered ambivalent, but because in the earlier version, he didn’t murder Baldr. I’m not saying the interpretation changed, I’m saying the stories changed to make him more malevolent, the stories put Loki behind everything bad that happened. Neither am I claiming that it was necessarily Christians behind that change, at least directly; it could just as easily be more modern pagans, trying to keep the myths competitive with the rather seductive allure of a simple dichotomy of black and white. It certainly makes the world simple, if nothing else.

I’m sorry, as I said, it just ain’t worth it. I don’t get any “vitality” from sociopaths. Sorry. It ain’t working for me.

That’s rather the point: I’m making the claim that he wasn’t always a sociopath. People couldn’t handle his ambiguous nature, so they invented some new stories about him that made him a sociopath.

But that is far outweighed by breeding monsters that destroy the world.

Is it? Loki’s children by Sigyn, Narfi and Vali, simply become Odin’s victims. His three children by Angrboda play a role in Ragnarok, sure, but that’s not the only thing they do. Neither did Loki breed them to destroy the world; his children, like him, are chaotic forces, forces that make the world change. When the prophecies predicted that they would bring trouble for the Aesir, they bound Jörmungandr in the sea (but that doesn’t stop Thor from basically tormenting the snake on his fishing trip, or trying to lift his paw in cat form), cast Hel into the land of the dead, and hunted down and chained Fenrir. Fenrir grows too big for his chains; ultimately, trying to contain those chaotic forces leads to Ragnarok far more directly than Loki’s siring of them. The prophecy is self-fulfilling.

Jörmungandr is the chaos of the sea. Fenrir and his children chase the sun and moon through the sky, creating day and night. Hel’s name comes from the Indo-European word for “hider”; she’s a chthonic god, including the dead, buried secrets, and the past itself. She, too, became demonized with the spread of Christianity, originally appearing as a fairly neutral, chthonic goddess. They contribute to Ragnarok mostly because of the lengths the gods go to, in order to keep them from contributing to Ragnarok. The Aesir’s attempts to control the chaotic forces of change leads to the end of the world far more directly than anything Loki ever did.

You’re not getting that Loki IS NOT A “CREATIVE FORCE”.

No, that’s not it; I’m not getting what evidence exists to suggest that Loki is not a creative force. From the stories I can see with the earliest evidence, that’s precisely what he is. Can you show me some evidence that the stories where Loki does act like a sociopath are older? Because that would change things. I know Loki certainly is not ambiguous whatsoever in the stories that stand now; the real question is, when did those stories emerge?

The idea that our world will “grow weary, lifeless, [and] dull” because people aren’t trying to burn our houses down or kill one of our brothers or any other of a number of acts of mayhem just doesn’t fly with me. Pranks are one thing ; mayhem is another.

Agreed. There are plenty of stories with Loki as prankster, even Loki as coward. And then, dating from a later time, stories of Loki as sociopath. Pranks are one thing; mayhem is another. In the earliest stories, Loki pulls pranks. In the later stories, he commits mayhem. He burns down houses and kills brothers. If you want to prove your point, what you really need to provide is some evidence that those stories aren’t as late as they appear. For instance, if you could prove that Loki was involved in Baldr’s murder in stories dating back to, say, 800, then I’d have to cede the point. But saying that murdering Baldr makes Loki a sociopath doesn’t really get us anywhere; we both recognize that much. What we’re really differing on is whether Loki was always Baldr’s murderer, or did Loki become Baldr’s murderer as he was shifted from ambiguous Trickster to sociopathic Devil? I’ve suggested that Loki’s myth show a historical process of a Trickster turned into a Devil; arguing that Loki as he stands now is a Devil hardly overturns that point.

To me, it’s one thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy, and sometimes he stirs things up and causes some trouble, but he’s not antagonistic towards the community, and really brings some refreshing life in from time to time. Ok, that’s a particular personality profile. It’s quite another thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy in the community, he’s really a black ops agent, but hey, y’know, no problem, let’s let him stay because how could we imagine life being exciting without continual sabotage of our existence?

Agreed. That’s why Tricksters are different from Devils. The former is a Trickster; the latter, a Devil. What this article analyzes is how we cannot tolerate Tricksters, so we turn them into Devils. The story changes. Originally, they were not antagonistic, stirred up trouble, but generally made life interesting. But when we can’t handle that, we change the stories to make them saboteurs and sociopaths. You get Snorri turning Loki into the grand mastermind behind Baldr’s murder, where previously it had simply been Hod, all by himself. Snorri tells us, no, it wasn’t Hod; it was Loki, and he just used Hod. The story changed. If we’re talking about post-Christian Loki, I agree with you completely. But I’m talking about Loki’s transformation, from a Trickster, into a Devil. Now, maybe you can make the argument that post-Christian Loki is identical to pre-Christian Loki, and that no change took place, but assuming that would be begging the argument. That’s what needs to be proven. You need to provide us with some evidence that these stories that qualify Loki as a sociopath aren’t actually as recent as they appear.

Loki doesn’t need to be a “devil” or “demonized” in order to be a force of sabotage so dangerous that he needs to be exiled. And he was exiled and bound from the very first, long before Christianity.

So where’s the evidence for this claim? Where’s the pre-Christian stories where Loki is a saboteur and a sociopath? You keep stating this baldly, but that is the very substance of the argument, it is precisely what you need to prove!

Um, Loki ADMITS to killing Baldur, in his own words.

In Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda, in which he changed many of the myths to make them more compatible with his Christian religion. The question isn’t whether or not Loki’s a Devil in the post-Christian myths; the question is whether or not those stories are older than Christianity. For that, I see no evidence.

If that feels “out of character”, you’re not getting the character.

Or, there’s actually two different characters: the original Trickster, and the Devil he was turned into. You get this kind of thing when somebody picks up a character and takes him in a radically different direction. Ask any Robert Howard fan what he thinks of L. Sprague de Camp’s Conan. I always got a similar vibe from Loki in Baldr’s stories. It doesn’t fit with the older material; he suddenly becomes a sociopath out of nowhere.

Loki projects all of those fun characteristics you’re probably liking, but that is the charm of a sociopath.

That really only works if you assume Snorri made no changes. Yes, if we want to make sense of the character with all the stories as presented currently, your interpretation is dead on. But the question is, were some of these stories added later to change Loki’s character? Then, that mismatch isn’t a sociopath’s charm, it’s the seam where two characters were patched together. So, if you assume that no changes were made to the story, then you have evidence that no changes were made to the story. It’s circular. Unless you can provide evidence for the antiquity of those aspects of Loki’s character, it’s simply a tautological assertion without evidence.

We’re not discussing a neutral-chaos here or a life-affirmative chaos, but a mayhem-oriented chaos.

You’re begging the question here again; are we talking about a mayhem-oriented chaos, or a life-affirmative chaos? Let me bring this down to earth a bit more: Baldr-murdering-Loki is a force of mayhem-oriented chaos. So, if we took a look at Loki in 800, did he kill Baldr, or was that something that was added later, as Loki was demonized, because people became uncomfortable with the very idea that chaos can be life-affirming, and began changing the stories to make all chaos mayhem-oriented? Did people start to add in, “No, Hod didn’t really kill Baldr; you see, it was Loki, who tricked Hod,” later on? That’s the question. We agree that murdering Baldr crosses the line from Trickster to Devil. The question is: when did people begin identifying Loki as the Devil? Was he always the Devil, or was that added later? The Poetic Edda doesn’t mention any of Loki’s sociopathic acts. Snorri does. Doesn’t that suggest that in an earlier version of the story, Loki was a very different character?

He is creative when he’s saving his own ass. Do we refer to the gifts to the gods that the Sons of Ivaldi and Brokk and Sindri crafted? But he didn’t make those. Do we credit him with the creation of the fish-net in Gylfaginning 50? But he didn’t invent that. We know he got the net from Ran. Do we say, well, he retrieved Idunn for the Aesir? That is no net-good because he was the one who took her away in the first place!

You just described the typical Trickster to a T. They rarely invent their gifts; more often, they steal them. Just like Prometheus stole fire from the gods. It’s still thanks to Loki that the gods got them.

If I had someone in my community whose balance sheet was this lopsided, and had been such a source of mayhem, I’d toss him out, wouldn’t you?

Firstly, I think your list is decidedly biased; you’ve systematically discounted everything a Trickster offers! And, we’ve already discussed most of the items in your “mayhem” list, but ultimately, a list of pro’s and con’s seems a bit superficial for a question like this, don’t you think?

The Indo-European societies were agricultural / pastoral long before Christianity came around, and Loki is a product of an Indo-European society.

Not all of them. Indo-European is a language stock, not necessarily a way of life. The Norse were practicing a much smaller-scale kind of agriculture, one that involved foraging (fishing, specifically) much more than most. Is it an untainted, aboriginal culture? By no means, but it shows elements common to many cultures, sometimes more strongly than other European societies with a more developed agriculture. As that system of increased complexity penetrated Scandinavia (which happened to include Christianity at that point), the cultural ramifications of greater complexity began to occur, including a distinct discomfort with the Trickster that is so pivotal to life in less complex societies. That that transformation happened to take place as Christianization is rather incidental, but it is specific.

In fact, if anything, in the older heathen poems, he’s even more sinister than in Snorri’s stories, generating an ambush on Thor.

Are you referring to the story in which he’s introduced to the Aesir? These are the stories I’d like to have some evidence for. If they are as old as you say, that would change things, but you haven’t provided evidence for these claims here, you’ve simply stated them baldly.

And yes, from the most heathen of sources.

Evidence for this?

That’s why I say that Loki is NOT a Trickster. When you go back into the older heathen sources, there is an undeniably sinister side to him, regardless of how likeable he is.

Evidence for this?

That doesn’t mean that I see Loki as “the Devil”. To do that, I would have to invest ALL evil-power in him, and make him the SOLE AUTHOR of all evil, and the one force opposing the forces of good.

I’m not sure of that; most Christian theologians say that human free will is capable of generating a good amount of evil all on its own. But I think you’re taking my use of the term Devil a bit too literally here; I’m really just talking about any sinister, sociopathic god of mayhem and destruction.

If I weren’t convinced of a) several serious and grave crimes on his part, and b)that these are of heathen, not post-Christian provenance, I would tend to take your position and argue that there’s no point turning a mere troublemaker into a sociopath and saboteur.

Then I think we’re mostly agreed but for one detail: I don’t see any evidence for (B). I think that’s the crux of the argument. I think that’s what needs to be proven.

]]> By: Ziggy http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178095 Ziggy Sun, 03 Feb 2008 02:06:43 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2006/06/the-trickster-the-devil-and-an-ambiguous-world/#comment-178095 Jason, I am trying to share with you reflections stemming from my experience and expertise in this matter, and I ask that you take what I am saying in this light. I've written a 1200 page book on the topic of Norse religion, and therefore I'm in a place to know what I'm talking about. I am not simply some random individual spouting off his opinion about this matter. I am not trying to be antagonistic. I appreciate playful troublemakers myself so long as they are not sociopathic saboteurs. Your point about Tricksters in general I am not taking issue with (although I'll point out that Trickster-studies have diversified, with many older theories being challenged). I'm merely pointing out that Loki --- in his OLDEST FORMS --- does NOT fit the model you're building here. You're trying to imply a Christian demonization of Loki, and I'm telling you that he was already a demonic force WAAAAAAAY back into Indo-European times, long before anyone had ever even heard of Christ. He's a saboteur, a sociopath, and an antagonist pretending to be people's friends while stabbing them in the back. The entire POINT of the story is a cautionary tale about exercising discernment about who you let into your inner circles, and making sure you don't allow sociopaths to have reign. "In the early myths, Loki acts for good as often as he acts for evil. He isn’t responsible for technology going out of control." No, that's just the point. In the earliest parts of the Indo-European epic, that is precisely what he does. "The early myths probably did include him breeding the monsters of Ragnarok, but they also included myths like Loki rebuilding the walls of Asgard. The whole point of the Trickster character is that the represent not good or evil, but chaos, which sometimes results in good, and sometimes results in evil, but is ultimately where all the vitality of the universe comes from." I'm sorry, as I said, it just ain't worth it. I don't get any "vitality" from sociopaths. Sorry. It ain't working for me. And he didn't rebuild the walls of Asgard. He made a perilous (at best!) deal with a jotunn who made outrageous demands, (and it is the jotunn who rebuilt the walls) and then when it seemed like he wasn't going to be able to pull off the deal without the gods losing everything that was precious, he had to go to extra measures to make sure the jotunn and his stallion weren't able to finish the job in time. I will grant that the birth of Sleipnir was one of the very few actually good things that resulted from Loki's actions. That much is admitted by everyone. But that is far outweighed by breeding monsters that destroy the world. "He just knocks things out of order. That’s what makes him the refreshing, creative force. A culture that becomes increasingly obsessed with order needs to turn Loki into something more sinister; have him simply murder Baldur, turn him into a Devil, and then exile him. So you exile the creative force disturbing your order, so all you have is lifeless, dull, order. The world itself grows weary and wants to die, because there’s no one there to upset the order from time to time and renew life." I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You're imposing a framework onto this material that it can't and won't fit into. You're not getting that Loki IS NOT A "CREATIVE FORCE". I understand what you're getting at. There CAN be disruptive-creative forces that rejuvenate life. Loki ain't one of them. The idea that our world will "grow weary, lifeless, [and] dull" because people aren't trying to burn our houses down or kill one of our brothers or any other of a number of acts of mayhem just doesn't fly with me. Pranks are one thing ; mayhem is another. Loki is a saboteur. He has his reasons for what he does, and I'm compassionate to those so far as they go, but that still doesn't mean that being bound isn't the best thing for him --- until he can at least learn to play without causing utter mayhem. Fredy Perlman suggests that even amongst a genuine North American Trickster, exile and banishment was seen as appropriate if the mayhem went too far : "Potawatomi storytellers of the Great Lakes told of a certain Wiscke, an ancient trickster who, long ago, almost became Archon over Neshnabe, over free people ... Yet the Council banished Wiske." (Fredy Perlman, "Against History, Against Leviathan", p. 240) "And of course they know what to do about the long-membered one: expel him from their communities, exile him to lands where life is nasty, brutish and short, push him away from the lush and teeming woodlands and lakes." (Ibid., p. 262.) To me, it's one thing to say, well, we've got this guy, and sometimes he stirs things up and causes some trouble, but he's not antagonistic towards the community, and really brings some refreshing life in from time to time. Ok, that's a particular personality profile. It's quite another thing to say, well, we've got this guy in the community, he's really a black ops agent, but hey, y'know, no problem, let's let him stay because how could we imagine life being exciting without continual sabotage of our existence? Loki doesn't need to be a "devil" or "demonized" in order to be a force of sabotage so dangerous that he needs to be exiled. And he was exiled and bound from the very first, long before Christianity. "No, what’s agricultural (and specifically, in Loki’s case, Christian, insofar as Christianity is agricultural) is not being able to tolerate a figure who doesn’t play by the rules, constantly breaks his promises and minor taboos, and is as often the source of everything good in the world as everything bad in it, so you invent some new stories to push him into total evil. You have him outright murder Baldur, which I have to admit, even in my first readings of Norse myth, simply felt out of place and out of character." Um, Loki ADMITS to killing Baldur, in his own words. He is the "radbani" of the event. If that feels "out of character", you're not getting the character. Loki projects all of those fun characteristics you're probably liking, but that is the charm of a sociopath. Sociopaths are often quite fun, charming, playful, and "who could complain" about their little pranks? Yah, until they start burning down grandmothers' houses. Then they smile and say, "What? Wasn't that fun, too?" Someone who doesn't play by the rules and constantly breaks his promises might be a force of "chaos", or he might be a sociopath. This isn't all fun-loving stuff. We're not discussing a neutral-chaos here or a life-affirmative chaos, but a mayhem-oriented chaos. Now just exactly what that is good in the world is Loki a source of? Sleipnir? Ok, I've granted that. He is creative when he's saving his own ass. Do we refer to the gifts to the gods that the Sons of Ivaldi and Brokk and Sindri crafted? But he didn't make those. Do we credit him with the creation of the fish-net in Gylfaginning 50? But he didn't invent that. We know he got the net from Ran. Do we say, well, he retrieved Idunn for the Aesir? That is no net-good because he was the one who took her away in the first place! So that counts for nothing, as it was only a restorative act that cancelled out the ill he had already done. Do we say, well, he brought the wergild for Ottr? But he killed Ottr. Moreover, he goes about this in such a way as to cause the curse of the Rheingold, which brings untold misery to generations of people. I'm willing to credit him the help he gives the little child in Lokatattur, and indeed, he goes to quite some trouble to help that child, and so we'll give that to him as a total good and gain. So let's add it up : GOOD : 1. Gift of Sleipnir. 2. Helping out a child. Those are indeed good things. If we knew nothing else about a figure, or even if we had heard that he was a little bit of a troublemaker, but we knew he'd done those things, we might shrug. But let's look at the other side of the equation : MAYHEM : 1. Generates strife between clans of crafters leading to catastrophe. 2. Generates Three Monsters who will destroy the world. One of them will kill someone who is supposed to be his blood-brother, and the other will kill his blood-brother's son. 3. Openly admits to bringing about Baldur's death. But by waiting to admit this until Hodur has paid for the crime with his life, he's also cleverly brought about the death of Hodur. 4. Brings about the curse of the Rheingold. #1,2, and 3 outweigh anything in our first column in terms of sheer weight, while even in terms of numbers, the number of acts of mayhem outnumber the good acts. If I had someone in my community whose balance sheet was this lopsided, and had been such a source of mayhem, I'd toss him out, wouldn't you? "But those stories took on an increasingly darker hue as Christianity developed, because agricultural societies could not tolerate figures as ambivalent as Loki originally was, so they demonized him." The Indo-European societies were agricultural / pastoral long before Christianity came around, and Loki is a product of an Indo-European society. If you want to extend your argument about Christianity and point out that Indo-European societies, agricultural/pastoral as they were, were engaged in similar processes relative to mythological figures identified elsewhere as Tricksters, that would be a perfectly reasonable thesis. One might wonder how Loki might have looked if he had been conceived in a non-Indo-European context. But it's not Christianity that had these effects on him. In fact, if anything, in the older heathen poems, he's even more sinister than in Snorri's stories, generating an ambush on Thor. "Depends on the law. You’re describing the Devil here, not the Trickster. The Trickster breaks the laws, but not maliciously like a wife-beater or a child-molester. He breaks much smaller laws, like, “don’t steal Freyja’s necklace, even for the Allfather, and certainly don’t then proceed to steal it back from the Allfather to give it back to Freyja.”" Hey, such things I'm willing to put beneath notice, even as I put his multiple adulteries beneath notice. Whatever. But Loki's crimes make a wife-beater or child-molester seem like small fry. And yes, from the most heathen of sources. "Absolutely. I can’t remember who it was who said we judge work by the best example, and people by the worst example. A nice guy who occasionally murders people is still a murderer. But Tricksters don’t molest children, because they’re not villains. They’re ambiguous; nothing they do is really motivated by evil," That's why I say that Loki is NOT a Trickster. When you go back into the older heathen sources, there is an undeniably sinister side to him, regardless of how likeable he is. That doesn't mean that I see Loki as "the Devil". To do that, I would have to invest ALL evil-power in him, and make him the SOLE AUTHOR of all evil, and the one force opposing the forces of good. That doesn't happen in Norse mythology. He's of an entire nation of jotnar who engage in all kinds of mayhem in the world. There are all KINDS of things one has to watch out for, not just Loki. But Loki's one of them. If I weren't convinced of a) several serious and grave crimes on his part, and b)that these are of heathen, not post-Christian provenance, I would tend to take your position and argue that there's no point turning a mere troublemaker into a sociopath and saboteur. And in my defense, I began with that assumption, and insisted on taking Loki's best with good faith at every step of the way. Despite all that, I have been forced by preponderance of evidence to not turn away from his crimes. Don't get me wrong. I like Laufeysson. I really do. In his best moments I can appreciate his point of view. And within reasonable bounds, I wish him well. To paraphrase from Fiddler on the Roof, "May God Bless and Keep Loki ---- Far Away From Us!!!" Jason, I am trying to share with you reflections stemming from my experience and expertise in this matter, and I ask that you take what I am saying in this light. I’ve written a 1200 page book on the topic of Norse religion, and therefore I’m in a place to know what I’m talking about. I am not simply some random individual spouting off his opinion about this matter. I am not trying to be antagonistic. I appreciate playful troublemakers myself so long as they are not sociopathic saboteurs.

Your point about Tricksters in general I am not taking issue with (although I’ll point out that Trickster-studies have diversified, with many older theories being challenged). I’m merely pointing out that Loki — in his OLDEST FORMS — does NOT fit the model you’re building here. You’re trying to imply a Christian demonization of Loki, and I’m telling you that he was already a demonic force WAAAAAAAY back into Indo-European times, long before anyone had ever even heard of Christ. He’s a saboteur, a sociopath, and an antagonist pretending to be people’s friends while stabbing them in the back. The entire POINT of the story is a cautionary tale about exercising discernment about who you let into your inner circles, and making sure you don’t allow sociopaths to have reign.

“In the early myths, Loki acts for good as often as he acts for evil. He isn’t responsible for technology going out of control.”

No, that’s just the point. In the earliest parts of the Indo-European epic, that is precisely what he does.

“The early myths probably did include him breeding the monsters of Ragnarok, but they also included myths like Loki rebuilding the walls of Asgard. The whole point of the Trickster character is that the represent not good or evil, but chaos, which sometimes results in good, and sometimes results in evil, but is ultimately where all the vitality of the universe comes from.”

I’m sorry, as I said, it just ain’t worth it. I don’t get any “vitality” from sociopaths. Sorry. It ain’t working for me. And he didn’t rebuild the walls of Asgard. He made a perilous (at best!) deal with a jotunn who made outrageous demands, (and it is the jotunn who rebuilt the walls) and then when it seemed like he wasn’t going to be able to pull off the deal without the gods losing everything that was precious, he had to go to extra measures to make sure the jotunn and his stallion weren’t able to finish the job in time. I will grant that the birth of Sleipnir was one of the very few actually good things that resulted from Loki’s actions. That much is admitted by everyone. But that is far outweighed by breeding monsters that destroy the world.

“He just knocks things out of order. That’s what makes him the refreshing, creative force. A culture that becomes increasingly obsessed with order needs to turn Loki into something more sinister; have him simply murder Baldur, turn him into a Devil, and then exile him. So you exile the creative force disturbing your order, so all you have is lifeless, dull, order. The world itself grows weary and wants to die, because there’s no one there to upset the order from time to time and renew life.”

I’m sorry, that’s not how it works. You’re imposing a framework onto this material that it can’t and won’t fit into. You’re not getting that Loki IS NOT A “CREATIVE FORCE”. I understand what you’re getting at. There CAN be disruptive-creative forces that rejuvenate life. Loki ain’t one of them. The idea that our world will “grow weary, lifeless, [and] dull” because people aren’t trying to burn our houses down or kill one of our brothers or any other of a number of acts of mayhem just doesn’t fly with me. Pranks are one thing ; mayhem is another. Loki is a saboteur. He has his reasons for what he does, and I’m compassionate to those so far as they go, but that still doesn’t mean that being bound isn’t the best thing for him — until he can at least learn to play without causing utter mayhem.

Fredy Perlman suggests that even amongst a genuine North American Trickster, exile and banishment was seen as appropriate if the mayhem went too far :

“Potawatomi storytellers of the Great Lakes told of a certain Wiscke, an ancient trickster who, long ago, almost became Archon over Neshnabe, over free people … Yet the Council banished Wiske.” (Fredy Perlman, “Against History, Against Leviathan”, p. 240)

“And of course they know what to do about the long-membered one: expel him from their communities, exile him to lands where life is nasty, brutish and short, push him away from the lush and teeming woodlands and lakes.” (Ibid., p. 262.)

To me, it’s one thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy, and sometimes he stirs things up and causes some trouble, but he’s not antagonistic towards the community, and really brings some refreshing life in from time to time. Ok, that’s a particular personality profile. It’s quite another thing to say, well, we’ve got this guy in the community, he’s really a black ops agent, but hey, y’know, no problem, let’s let him stay because how could we imagine life being exciting without continual sabotage of our existence?

Loki doesn’t need to be a “devil” or “demonized” in order to be a force of sabotage so dangerous that he needs to be exiled. And he was exiled and bound from the very first, long before Christianity.

“No, what’s agricultural (and specifically, in Loki’s case, Christian, insofar as Christianity is agricultural) is not being able to tolerate a figure who doesn’t play by the rules, constantly breaks his promises and minor taboos, and is as often the source of everything good in the world as everything bad in it, so you invent some new stories to push him into total evil. You have him outright murder Baldur, which I have to admit, even in my first readings of Norse myth, simply felt out of place and out of character.”

Um, Loki ADMITS to killing Baldur, in his own words. He is the “radbani” of the event. If that feels “out of character”, you’re not getting the character. Loki projects all of those fun characteristics you’re probably liking, but that is the charm of a sociopath. Sociopaths are often quite fun, charming, playful, and “who could complain” about their little pranks? Yah, until they start burning down grandmothers’ houses. Then they smile and say, “What? Wasn’t that fun, too?”

Someone who doesn’t play by the rules and constantly breaks his promises might be a force of “chaos”, or he might be a sociopath. This isn’t all fun-loving stuff. We’re not discussing a neutral-chaos here or a life-affirmative chaos, but a mayhem-oriented chaos.

Now just exactly what that is good in the world is Loki a source of? Sleipnir? Ok, I’ve granted that. He is creative when he’s saving his own ass. Do we refer to the gifts to the gods that the Sons of Ivaldi and Brokk and Sindri crafted? But he didn’t make those. Do we credit him with the creation of the fish-net in Gylfaginning 50? But he didn’t invent that. We know he got the net from Ran. Do we say, well, he retrieved Idunn for the Aesir? That is no net-good because he was the one who took her away in the first place! So that counts for nothing, as it was only a restorative act that cancelled out the ill he had already done. Do we say, well, he brought the wergild for Ottr? But he killed Ottr. Moreover, he goes about this in such a way as to cause the curse of the Rheingold, which brings untold misery to generations of people. I’m willing to credit him the help he gives the little child in Lokatattur, and indeed, he goes to quite some trouble to help that child, and so we’ll give that to him as a total good and gain.

So let’s add it up :

GOOD :

1. Gift of Sleipnir.
2. Helping out a child.

Those are indeed good things. If we knew nothing else about a figure, or even if we had heard that he was a little bit of a troublemaker, but we knew he’d done those things, we might shrug. But let’s look at the other side of the equation :

MAYHEM :

1. Generates strife between clans of crafters leading to catastrophe.
2. Generates Three Monsters who will destroy the world. One of them will kill someone who is supposed to be his blood-brother, and the other will kill his blood-brother’s son.
3. Openly admits to bringing about Baldur’s death. But by waiting to admit this until Hodur has paid for the crime with his life, he’s also cleverly brought about the death of Hodur.
4. Brings about the curse of the Rheingold.

#1,2, and 3 outweigh anything in our first column in terms of sheer weight, while even in terms of numbers, the number of acts of mayhem outnumber the good acts. If I had someone in my community whose balance sheet was this lopsided, and had been such a source of mayhem, I’d toss him out, wouldn’t you?

“But those stories took on an increasingly darker hue as Christianity developed, because agricultural societies could not tolerate figures as ambivalent as Loki originally was, so they demonized him.”

The Indo-European societies were agricultural / pastoral long before Christianity came around, and Loki is a product of an Indo-European society. If you want to extend your argument about Christianity and point out that Indo-European societies, agricultural/pastoral as they were, were engaged in similar processes relative to mythological figures identified elsewhere as Tricksters, that would be a perfectly reasonable thesis. One might wonder how Loki might have looked if he had been conceived in a non-Indo-European context. But it’s not Christianity that had these effects on him. In fact, if anything, in the older heathen poems, he’s even more sinister than in Snorri’s stories, generating an ambush on Thor.

“Depends on the law. You’re describing the Devil here, not the Trickster. The Trickster breaks the laws, but not maliciously like a wife-beater or a child-molester. He breaks much smaller laws, like, “don’t steal Freyja’s necklace, even for the Allfather, and certainly don’t then proceed to steal it back from the Allfather to give it back to Freyja.””

Hey, such things I’m willing to put beneath notice, even as I put his multiple adulteries beneath notice. Whatever. But Loki’s crimes make a wife-beater or child-molester seem like small fry. And yes, from the most heathen of sources.

“Absolutely. I can’t remember who it was who said we judge work by the best example, and people by the worst example. A nice guy who occasionally murders people is still a murderer. But Tricksters don’t molest children, because they’re not villains. They’re ambiguous; nothing they do is really motivated by evil,”

That’s why I say that Loki is NOT a Trickster. When you go back into the older heathen sources, there is an undeniably sinister side to him, regardless of how likeable he is. That doesn’t mean that I see Loki as “the Devil”. To do that, I would have to invest ALL evil-power in him, and make him the SOLE AUTHOR of all evil, and the one force opposing the forces of good. That doesn’t happen in Norse mythology. He’s of an entire nation of jotnar who engage in all kinds of mayhem in the world. There are all KINDS of things one has to watch out for, not just Loki. But Loki’s one of them.

If I weren’t convinced of a) several serious and grave crimes on his part, and b)that these are of heathen, not post-Christian provenance, I would tend to take your position and argue that there’s no point turning a mere troublemaker into a sociopath and saboteur. And in my defense, I began with that assumption, and insisted on taking Loki’s best with good faith at every step of the way. Despite all that, I have been forced by preponderance of evidence to not turn away from his crimes.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Laufeysson. I really do. In his best moments I can appreciate his point of view. And within reasonable bounds, I wish him well. To paraphrase from Fiddler on the Roof,

“May God Bless and Keep Loki —- Far Away From Us!!!”

]]>