Log in

No account? Create an account

Loki in Context

Rehash of something I posted on a ML not to long ago. I'm saving it because despite it's rambling, it has my best collection of thoughts on Loki based on the research and my analysis thereof to date.

I’ll be the first to admit, I’m biased as I am a Lokean. Through the years
I’ve ruminated a great deal on Him, His role, His function--I’ve
researched to learn more.

The Poetic Edda as we know it today, was comprised by scholars primarily from
two different manuscripts. The first manuscript is the Codex Regius (GKS 2365
4to). This manuscript does NOT contain Baldrs draumar. This manuscript clearly
shows that the eddic poems were placed into an intentional, narrative order.
Placing what we scholars describe events into mortal or linear time. In other
words that there's a past, present and future. However, this is usually not the
case in many ancient religions and cultures. Time moves on a cosmic, mythical &
immortal level, and isn't necessarily linear. SO human time is a vast line, but
in cosmic time the line of time can bend and fall back on itself and loop and
skip around, like the theoretical warp ability featured so prominently in

The other manuscript is known as AM 748. This manuscript is not ordered in any
way at all, and this is the one and only origin of Baldrs draumar. Interestingly
enough AM 748 has absolutely no mention of the Lokasenna or Loki's role in
Ragnarok. But because it does have some overlap with poems in the Codex Regius
(Grimnismal, Hymiskvida, etc.) scholars, centuries after these separate
manuscripts were written, chose to combine the two together to form the Poetic
Edda as we know it today. They decided that Baldrs draumar should go before the
Lokasenna thus forcing it to a timeline of their choosing.

There is one other version of Baldrs demise, preserved in Gesta Danorum, and in
that version Loki isn't mentioned at all. (And allow me to say that this version
is actually older than Snorri’s Edda).

For everyone's reference:

*Gesta Danorum - (with the tale about Baldrs death where Loki isn't even
mentioned) is believed to have been written in the late 12th Century
*AM 748 where we get Baldrs draumar from (and Loki's involved), was believed
to be written in the late 14th Century

This is a gap of approximately 200 years between these sources, and the 14th
Century firmly puts us into Christian Europe, whereas in the 12th Century while
Christianity was the prevailing religion and the one in political power, the old
religion and its adherents were still around though in increasing

The Lokasenna doesn’t appear to be derived from a pre-Christian tale, but
rather appears to be an example of contemporary Christian Medieval Literature
that mimics Lucian’s Assembly of the Gods, in much the way that Snorri uses
other elements common of Chrisitian Europe’s Medieval Literature by alluding
to other great works (those Western "classics' from Greece and Rome), this is
afterall why he attests that the God Thor is descended from the Greek Agamemnon
featured in Homer’s Iliad & Odyssey, and later mentioned in Virgil's The
Aeneid. It appears that the Lokasenna followed the formula set by Lucian, and
just dropped in Norse Gods instead.

The reason I point this out is because many people assume when they read the
Poetic Edda as we know it today, that Loki’s punishment is because of his role
in Baldr's demise because that is how the tales have been ordered for them. But
to understand where the Poetic Edda comes from, and the questionable veracity of
the Lokasenna as being authentic to a pre-Christian origin, let alone the
understanding that virtually without exception all of our lore was written
post-conversion by Christian scholars... well I think it can dramatically alter
someone's opinion.

I am not saying that the lore should be necessarily thrown out the window in the
least. What I am saying is that each and every one of us need to be aware that
our lore is at best an imperfect source. That what is mentioned within it is by
no means ‘absolutely’ the truth.

So then, what about Ragnarok? So first off the lore itself is in some debate on
how ‘accurate’ the depiction of Ragnarok reflects the pre-Christian old
religious beliefs. And frankly, based on what we know from historical sources,
unless there’s a major archaeological find, I suspect this will be endlessly
debated about within our community. We need something to do when we’re bored I
suppose. ^_~

But when I see two versions of the same tale, and the earlier version doesn’t
mention Loki at all, and the later one does… well I consider that a red flag.
Regardless of whether or not Loki was involved, I see Baldr’s demise, as part
of an overall euherimistic process, that made our Gods more like men, and set up
the supremacy of the Christian god. But beyond that, there’s a message hidden
behind the tale ‘if this Goddess could not (or perhaps would not since Frigga
is the one who is said to know all but speak not of it) save Her own son, how
can She save you, or those you care about?’

There are numerous instances in the lore that indeed convey that very meaning as
the old religion conflicted with the new. Where the lack of a God appearing or
‘striking down’ or protecting a people, became the basis for the Christians
to go neener-neener (lots of conflict between old religion and the
‘new’ Christian religion can be found in Hrimskingla).
Ragnarok... is that really certain? Does not the actions in Ragnarok support the
destruction of our Gods? If they can be killed off, isn't that a convenient
thing for Christians to want to show their God is better? I’ve seen a lot of
scholarship (from outside of our community) debating the authenticity of the
events in Ragnarok to the pre-Christian beliefs. (But of course this can be
argued both ways and unfortunately without discoveries that pre-date the
Christian conversion of Europe I doubt we’ll ever know for certain, save
perhaps when we die and meet up with our Gods in the halls we go to.)

And we must remember that the ‘true’ lore wasn’t written down, it was
transmitted orally. It was an oral tradition. Sacredness was in the spoken word,
not the written word pre-Conversion. As someone who is from a society that
values the written text over the oral, this is sometimes hard to truly grasp, as
it’s a very different belief and thought structure versus the one we share in
the mainstream Westernized civilization of today.

The concept of absolute good, and absolute evil isn’t really part and parcel
of our ancient tradition. That’s a concept that didn’t enter into it until
Christianity arrived on the scene. We have absolutely no proof that ancient
Heathen peoples believed that the actions of our Gods were to be emulated, this
is known as Hellenistic Discipleship and is something that really didn’t come
into mode until Christianity.

We have instances of other gods, Odin, Freyja, etc. most notable behaving in
ways that seem against the status quo, but would any of us mere mortals call
them out on it? Call them ergi? a whore? I think not. The last one who did,
during the period of conversion in Iceland, was punished for slandering Freyja
by calling her a ‘bitch goddess’ (bitch with overtones of being a
‘whore’) at the national althingi. That right there tells me, that the
ancient peoples who were adherents of the old religion would never presume to
pass moral judgments upon their Gods and supports that some actions in the lore
may be transgressive and not meant to be emulated.

We have to remember that translations will never accurately represent the
original. Some translators may sacrifice part of the meaning, to make it fit
with some sort of poetic device they want to have in their translation. I.e.
they may want to preserve a cadence or rhythm but to do so sacrifice some of the
details. They may have their own preconceived notions, influenced by their own
beliefs and environment that they then use to color the word choices of the
translations. Cultural specific items and colloquiliasms just don’t translate
well from one culture/language into another. Some translators may opt to
‘update’ the language to make it more accessible, etc.

But we must remember that Our Gods do not exist merely as characters in some
text. There is tons about them that came before those texts (no matter how
imperfectly or polluted were even penned, and tons that has happened since their

And ultimately, ours must be a religion that isn’t read, but is done. It is
found in the little things we do, and in the grand, By the way we live our
lives, honor our ancestors, help our communities, in how we honor the land, and
the Gods. That doesn’t mean lore doesn’t have it’s place, it does. But it
cannot be the be all and end all of our way today, or frankly we’re missing
the point.

So, our lore is not infallible. Really, our lore is at best a diving board,
surely some things in there are "right" some things are "wrong" and some things
may be allegorical. To me the meaning of faith and religion is in the individual
struggle to wrestle it into meaning.

I do believe that we can see brief glimpses of our Gods in the lore, and even
then with the exception of a select handful of Them, we know next to nothing
about Them. We must remember that the ancient believers were an oral society.
Sacred things were transmitted orally. In Iceland for the national gathering,
the althing, the law was recited from memory each and every year
pre-Christianity, and after. So even Christian polluted as our lore may be I
think at best we maybe know 15% of what once was of that ancient religion and
belief system. As time passes a few things are rediscovered but the ultimate
rediscovery is never going to happen in text, but in our own living breathing
practices, and the truths our own hearts lead us too. It’s frustrating because
that of course means that there will never be a consensus among us, but that’s
also the thing I find beautiful. If we did not struggle with interpretations,
and beliefs and question it, and took it all for granted, would our religious beliefs really have meaning for us at all?

So all I say is to not just simply accept it all at face value, but to think
about what’s there. And then reach out to Them and find the answers for
yourself no one else, can really give that to you. Although being able to
converse with others helps I think. I've gotten amazing insights from my
conversations with other Heathens through the years. :)

I know some argue that there’s no evidence for a cultus of Loki, and it is
true we do not have the overwhelming body of evidence for a cultus of Loki that
we do have for the obvious cultus associated with Odin. But there are many of
our Gods to which that can be said of as well. But while I’ve heard people use
this as an argument against worshipping Loki, I’ve yet to see anyone ever use
this as an argument against worshipping any of the other Gods and Goddesses of
our tradition this can also be said of. What many do not realize, is there is a
lot of circumstantial evidence out there that may suggest that Loki was indeed

If we look at the eye-witness account of Ibrahim ibn Ahmed, he speaks of a
widespread worship of Sirius, the brightest star of the night. Now, as what
happens with the eye-witness, outsider accounts that we have (such as Tacitus,
etc.) these people oftentimes either do not know the name of the god in
question, or attempt to liken it to a similar God that they may already know
from elsewhere. So what does Sirius have to do with Loki? Well Icelandic for
Sirius was Lokabrenna or 'Loki's brand'. And Ibrahim ibn Ahmed certainly
noticed worship to Sirius in the Danish city of Hedeby. Now while the first
written occurrence of Lokabrenna appears late, we have no knowledge of when the
spoken word actually began being used. But it’s presence suggests that the
worship to Sirius that this man witnessed, may have been worship to Loki.

Some will also argue that the lack of place names, or names of people from a
God’s name is proof against such a cultus, and so some have made that argument
against Loki, but such evidence again does exist. We have evidence of place
names throughout Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden that begin with the
genative form of Lok-. Now while all of these may not necessarily relate
specifically to Loki, there are a few among them such as Lokehall in
Vestergotland that certainly appears to relate to Him. Similalry, one of
Loki’s other names, Loptur has been a fairly common name of Icelandic men for
many centuries. Stick loptur into google, and all of the first returns you
get are genealogical records. Absolute proof? Hardly. But it teases and hints at
a possibility of such worship.

Then if we take a chance to examine the lore and folklore that we know of, there
are other items that tease at such a possibility. We have folkloric evidence
(Loka Tattur) (that may pull from much older source material) of people relying
on Loki as a helper and protector of the people, even when Odin was unable to.

Then we have one of less than a handful of traditional images for Loki that we
have: the Snaptun Stone. This stone is a depiction of Loki carved and used in
the hearth of a home found in Denmark, and dated to around the time of
conversion. Now, let's step back and think a moment here. The hearth/fireplace
was the most important part of the home. In the cold winters people slept by it,
they cooked their foods over it, they sat around it and socialized with friends
and family. The hearth was very much the heart of the home. I find it personally
unlikely, that if Loki the God was so villified as the great evil of all things,
that he would have His image in such a central part of the home. (And there’s
even folk tradition in Norway of giving offerings to Him in the kitchen fire
that survive to the present day).

Loki is much more than a God of dishonesty and trickery. He is a God of change,
one even of magic and transformation, and one who appreciates a joke and a
laugh. He can be a bit onrey sometimes, and maybe the tricks he gets up to might
go a tad too far on occasion... but He introduces change to the Gods, and
without Him we wouldn't have:

*Odin's 8 legged horse sleipnir
*Sif would not have her 'golden' hair
*Thor would not have his 'mjollnir' which he uses to protect Asgard/Midgard
*there'd be no wall around Asgard to keep the destructive Giants at bay
*Odin wouldn't have his oathring draupnir (from which all other oathrings are
said to derive)
*Freyr would not have his ship Skidbladnir
*Freyr wouldn't have his boar, Gullinbursti
*Odin wouldn't have his spear Gungnir

If we really look at the symbolism of these items, and Loki's role, he is
connected with the tools that protect Asgard, and tied to "oaths" more so than
He is connected with being "against" the Asgard/midgard. Even outside of these
‘gifts’ He was Thor’s companion-- Thor the great defender of Midgard and
Asgard loved to travel around with no one more than Loki (or should I say, uncle
Loki). Now, this is usually when I hear people bring up the fact that he’s
called in the skaldrasparmal the ‘father of lies’ but did you know ‘father
of lies’ is actually an inaccurate translation? The original is bölvasmiðr,
and it means bale-smith or one who creates misery. So, it’s not necessarily a
flattering description, but it doesn’t mean lying or deception. It does at
least fit if we look at His occurrences in the lore. The process of change can
be miserable, but without that ‘push’ we wouldn’t change and reap the
rewards of that change.

In fact if we examine the extant of the lore that we have, and accurately
translate the passages where others have translated that he’s lied, or been
dishonest, the truth is that’s not what those words mean at all (at least
literally). Oh He’s definitely clever with his words, and has an odd way of
looking at situations, and weaving in and out of them, that’s for sure. But is
that dishonest, or just merely being clever? And cleverness, and words were
indeed valued in ancient times. A man proved his worth not only by his
fulfillment of defending his family and community, but also by the ability to
speak extemporaneously over the horn. Cleverness is also a means of helping to
protect and enrich your community. Communities are comprised of people with
different traits and skillsets... and they are strongest when you bring them
together. Loki possesses an ability to make a way in unlikely circumstances. And
there are times when unexpected strategies
can save the day.

With this body of evidence, we cannot say that there definitely was a cultus to
Loki in the same way that we obviously know there was to Odin. But there is
however enough possible tantalizing evidence that it makes it impossible for us
to rule out a cultus to Loki based on what we know at this time. And while some
folks need things irrefutable before they may believe them and until then will
not have a thing to do with him (and even then varying on the nature of that
evidence may still stay away), to me… well I know what I believe. And that is
that Loki has ever been my friend, even when he pushes me pass the comfortable
and introduces me into the misery of change, but taking me out of my comfort

Tags: ,


one day, it's one one 3 clear books I have in mind to write.

Puts on puppy dog eyes and encourages you.

Honestly, this is good, even if it rambles. I totally learned new stuff today.

I also totally have had no caffeine and no good reason why I'm having 80's flashback speak either.
Still looking forward to the book :D
I want to emulate Freyja :))
Anyway, aside from that, I really don't see this whole "the gods can do any bitchy things they want, it's not our place to pass judgement". I say we should pass judgement. And we do anyway. Tell me how many people don't pass judgement on Jehovah. It would be hard not to, he's the most evil god I've ever heard of. And people do become attracted to one god or another based on the characters they show in the mythos. So we do pass judgement all the time.

Loki in Context

More than once, I've found myself agreeing with something straight-spoken duchessatreides says.. And here again!

Re: Loki in Context

Thanks! I added you to my friends list, hope you don't mind.

Loki in Context

Found it at last! The post referenced on lokeans. And it's a cracker. You practically took the words out of my mouth on one or two things. Regarding the ibn Ahmed citation about the Sirius worship (which most people should know is cognate/linked with Loki already... it seems strange to think of the Norse worshipping sth like a star w/o a god attached; seems to me the only heavenly bodies they deified in themselves were the sun and moon; what I'm saying is, connect that important star with a god, and they've got themselves a nice cult: naturally this would have caught the attention of an Arab traveller (9th century was it? Before that?) because they were great astronomers.)

Loki in Context

What is ML by the way? Anyway, I was trying to say (had to submit it quickly) that I'd found the ibn Ahmed reference on an internet archive pertaining to Norse religion; wanted to post link to lokeans; trouble was, it was on a geocities site due to close in a week! Pity; it was a good site (though I don't think the owner agreed with Loki because he wrote sth immediately after that negating Loki worship!) so I'll have to find it on the Wayback Machine if I want to cite it in future : haven't managed it yet. Anyway Lokis_dottir, I've had some ideas, which I'm just gonna run by you in no particular order. Firstly: you'll never get me to dislike Lokasenna, however much you try: it's a kickass lay/ballad in which Loki, as per usual, rocks! Secondly, it seems to me that MOST of the mythology, apart from parts of Poetic Edda, is of relatively late date, ie mid-medieval (but I thought Lokasenna was 10th century?) so later than a lot of other mythologies; Saxo Grammaticus as much as Snorri Sturloson was a Christian..

Loki in Context

.. yet it's still marvellous how the whole lot manages to hang together, really; and the thing is though, a religion IS the sum of its sacred texts (but in a living, folk religion, it should be possible to add to/change them..still, when all is said and done, you've got to start work with what you've got..) How many people are here who, when they were kids especially, did not have their nature shaken to its foundations, as poets might say, by the tale of Baldur's death and Loki's punishment? It's got to be one of the most harrowing tales in all trad. lit.; scarier even than Orcs + most of the Bible. You'll never take it away from them: they like it too much! Anyway, when I considered it with an adult, Trickster-aware mind, I *knew* it was *just* the sort of thing Loki would do; particularly if Baldur annoyed him or stole his limelight; I know all the faults and foibles of Tricksters and flatter myself that I share not a few (you wouldn't know to look at me, but Christians do, when I get onto their sites!)

Loki in Context

Eg, all Tricksters are attention whores: without that, they can't function: Loki felt robbed. (And if you're like me, you also give him a political motive.) Anyway: I knew the story also rung true because of the *way* he did it: if Sturloson had merely said: "It was a sword fight over Nanna's honour" I would have said (even as a teen) Nah! Lokes would have talked himself out of that! Or if the story went: Loki stabbed him with a spear because Baldur confiscated his whoopee cushion (insert temporally correct plaything here) I would have said: Garn! BUT, you see, it was *because*, however he came to it, that Snorri came up with a literarily plausible, aesthetically satisfying story (some might say he was the Tolkien of his day) that I'm buying it, basically. Because it hangs together and has aesthetic value. IF, contrarily, the later Edda tale had been that Loki did it with a stupidass MO for a trivial reason, like a modern recycled movie or a comic book retcon/revisionism (most of which I HATE and take

Loki in Context

as a sign that modern pop culture has eaten itself - have you noticed that? That it takes itself so seriously these days, yet hardly any of its stories MAKE SENSE?! The sign of a truly sick culture. So I'm a supporter of the view that trad. mythology, by contrast, DOES make sense, even if we don't always understand all of it? One of the reasons I'm interested in the tales of our ancestors!) So - you seem to be supporting the idea that the Christians pinned this idea of Baldur's murder on Loki? OK, I can sort of buy that - but what then was B's previous role in the myths? He does seem to be walking around with a big victim sign on his back, just asking for it - in which case, Loki would *have* to oblige! Which is not saying he's purely there as mistletoe-fodder, because many female god-folks fall in love with him: Nanna, of course; Skadi the frosty snow queen herself (I reckon L saved B from a fate WORSE than death there! Anyway, that great story with the feet pageant! And the um, balls.. people only can be

Loki in Context

brought to the gods with such tales of their misadventures, in my way of thinking - well, it's better than Hollywood pap, isn't it?).. And of course there's Hela. Who Baldur actually ends up with. Sigh. Poor Baldur? Another thing is, when I ask Loki "did you do it?" he always says "yes" -always cops to it, to me. I suppose it's because he likes the story as much as I do! *And* he knows that when I was a teen, it gave me vent for various murderous fantasies! Loki the Therapist..But he knows I never was satisfied by his eventual, shabby, inequitable, unjust treatment by the gods. That's a place in which the myths do NOT excel. If I say it once I've said it a hundred times; those skalds with their harps, and presumably knowledge of their laws and Things; they missed the literary trick of all tricks NOT to do a Trial of Loki lay; since their and Anglo-Saxon law is what the law of all English-speaking countries is based on, it wouldn't be a foreign concept to them - anyone for sending them back some Perry Mason in

Loki in Context

a time machine? Anyway, so Loki always cops to it to me.. But as to whether it *was* murder, I'm not satisfied as to that, and am still trying to work it out. One thing that does become clear is that Odin comes out of the cycle worse than Loki does, ie as a heartless, selfish despot, trampling on democratic rights and the rights of *all* the innocent. He comes off worse to met in the end than does Yaweh, though I also see a lot of frightened old man in him, terrified of the Ragnarok. Lay off the psychic hotlines! I've wanted to tell him for ages. Anyway, Snorri doesn't seem very bothered by the final cruelty of Odin, though it bothered the 19th century retellers who always attempt to gloss over the murder of Loki's kid(s). Snorri upon analysis seems to have a schizoid attitude to Odin; always wanting to puff him up as the top god, much better than all of Asgard esp. lowly Loki (still, they have SO many parallels: if Loki is bale-smith, then Odin is bale-worker and aren't they both kenned Hvethrung? Or sth.)

Loki in Context

But then Odin has to be made to seem inferior after all to the Christian Sky Daddy - or does he, because at the end of the Eddas Snorri envisions an ascended Odin reigning from still higher up, like Yahweh.. maybe he just confuses the two. But Loki gets put down in any case - maybe the two gods once had rival cults! More anon. You can see I've thought about this: shall we push to beat each otherinto publication; or swap notes? :-) Just briefly: I once downloaded a paper, now lost to data corruption, with a Gnostic theme which glossed on Nordic myth: it said that according to well-known rules of myth (the Frazer kind I assume) Baldur *should have never stayed dead : because according to pagan precepts it doesn't make sense. All dying gods have to rise again; like Osiris, Jesus, Mithras etc. It was sth like: Baldur represents the light part of the year, his brother blind Hodur the dark part. (Makes sense so far!) Hodur kills Baldur and the year dies and goes into winter. But then, said this dissident writer, to

Loki in Context

complete the cycle, for Above to match Below and vice versa, Baldur has to come to life again, if he doesn't, it's a sign the myth's been tampered with! (So what are you saying? I asked myself. Either that Loki, or the giantess Thokk, whether or not they are the same, wept for Baldur, and then he came back.. or Loki wasn't involved at all, just Hodur, and B. came back on his own - or he somehow did some other deal with Hela, which allowed him to come back for 6 months of the year.. or.. (this myth in some way resembles Proserpine, but with Hela in the trouser role! Which is not to say that they "copied" it off greco-roman myth - archetypes, anyone?) But then the Gnostic guy confused me by comparing Loki to the Devil once again, and saying that they both represented Time (as in ravages of, I suppose) so then I gave up. Over to you?) One further thing I thought of which ties in with what you were saying about Loki being a god of the hearth (hmm that practically makes him a household god, and I do believe I've

Loki in Context

seen some Loki-related kitchen paraphernalia, on some online heathenish catalogue, a wall plaque or something.) My final contribution to theory is: probably first Loki was seen as the friendly domestic god (modern images of him in corny plastic apron covered in nude flesh and sausages, wielding spoon, anyone?) This must have been his core base of support. But then, aided by forest fires and such, a cult of "dark Loki" sprang up, which people loved, as they love anything scary! A feeling I got a while back when contemplating Egyptian mythology was that Loki gradually came to take on a role like Set (who was the god of the desert, the unwanted, inbetween places, of foreigners/outsiders.. and who had red hair! He was flippin' ugly though!) I think Loki became their Set, the archetypal wicked uncle, and that he had to be set to the mischief of plotting the death of the son of the sky-god for this archetypal reason. (however, in a proper cult of this nature, as I've said, the slain god comes back! Nanna wasn't as

Loki in Context

handy as Isis, obviously! The point being: Set was worshipped in Egypt throughout, murderer of Osiris or not! He was seen as a strong god: "the strong arm of Set" or something, was a title for pharaohs. Ergo: this revelation washed over me: if Set being a murderer didn't prevent his worship in ancient Egypt, why would it necessarily prevent Loki's in the North lands? Every pantheon needs its dark gods: look at Voudun. Somehow, it must have been the Christians who outlawed worship of Loki; first of all by emphasizing all the "bad Loki" stories, making him solely harmful. (Though this too has its contradictions: without Snorri, no surviving tale of Sif's hair - or Loki's gifts!) Yanno but - someone other than Christians should have told the Norse to read and write, then we'd've got the real story - but they had runes - but they didn't use them. They ought to have enslaved some Greek artists too: then plays would have caught on there! (I'm not sure they didn't have them: where did English mumming come from?)

Loki in Context

Yeah. Well I'll have to give it a rest there: me thumbs are nearly exhausted. Over to you? We'll have to discuss this sometime. This is just to let you know that I'm *very* interested. And I'm just not prepared to countenance the assertion that our ancestors did not honour or worship Loki at all - yet they told scores of stories about him - why? Every self-respecting pantheon has a Trickster - or two, all with a following: Hermes was worshipped; Prometheus was worshipped. The Monkey King has a couple of shrines in China to this very day! That's on Wikipedia - yet Loki, he's the victim of a coverup! Assuredly! Incidentally, there's a rule of mythology for Tricksters too - if they get locked up, someone's supposed to let them out! Christians are always portraying Tricksters as the Devil - but even *he* gets let out, for a while (corresponding with Ragnarok?) Ah I dunno; I must bring this telescopic series of posts to an end!