Loki as a Vätte
Heide (2011) argues that Loki in older Nordic tradition was not only a mythological figure but also a type of household spirit connected to the home and hearth. He bases this argument on late folk traditions from different parts of Scandinavia in which Loki (in various linguistic forms, though I will use “Loki” here for simplicity) is described as a being dwelling by the hearth, influencing the fire, and receiving offerings in the fireplace – characteristics otherwise associated with the vätte and household spirits. Heide argues that these traditions are likely very old because similar beliefs appear across several geographically isolated regions. Even rituals in which children threw their baby teeth into the fire for Loki are interpreted as traces of an older belief in Loki as a household spirit.
Heide also highlights Loki’s association with spiderwebs, threads, knots, and tangles, where he is, among other things, connected with problems occurring during spinning and sewing. Heide interprets this as further evidence for an older folkloric understanding of Loki as a supernatural yet everyday being associated with the household.
When I first read the introduction to Heide’s article, I felt alienated by the image of Loki as a household spirit, even resistant to it. My initial reaction was that I experienced it as reductive, because I viewed a god as a vast cosmic being and a household spirit as something smaller, more limited, and more local in nature. However, after reading the entire article and reflecting on it for some time, I gradually began to agree more and more with Heide.
Salinas (2013) discusses how tricksters break categories and linguistic barriers. This led me to think that the words “god” and “household spirit” may themselves function as such categories, where language and its associations cause us to connect these concepts with entirely different things. This may help explain my initial reaction. Heide (2011) indeed addresses this issue directly by distinguishing between Loki as a mythological figure and Loki as a folkloric being, while also arguing that these categories were not strictly separated and may have existed in parallel while partially overlapping. He presents Loki as a figure standing between worlds. I can relate this to Weaver and Mora (2016), who describe the trickster as a boundary-crosser who not only transgresses boundaries but also demonstrates that those boundaries are not as stable as they may appear.
John Lindow (2001, pp. 33–36) discusses various difficulties involved in forming a clear understanding of Norse mythology and Old Norse religious practice, particularly because the sources are fragmentary, and many were written down long after the Christianization of Scandinavia. Heide (2011), meanwhile, points out that older folkloric material was for a long time dismissed within scholarship on Old Norse religion and mythology. He describes how many scholars during the interwar period began viewing late folkloric traditions as unreliable for understanding pre-Christian Nordic belief because they were considered too heavily influenced by Christianity and later folkloric developments. When I compare these claims, however, I cannot really see why folkloric material should be considered less reliable, since Christian influence also applies to the older mythological material.
Based on the reasoning above, I therefore do not find Heide’s connection between Loki as a mythological figure/god and Loki as a household spirit particularly far-fetched. I do not see them as two separate beings, but rather as describing different ways of relating to a divine being on the one hand and a more every day, intimate being on the other. Even though there is no concrete historical evidence for the former interpretation, Heide demonstrates that there may well be evidence for the latter – that Loki could indeed have been a being people related to in everyday life. This is something I can relate to within my own practice, where Loki can fulfill both of these functions for me depending on the context. In some situations, he appears more as a larger boundary-crossing and transformative force that challenges my models, norms, and self-conceptions. In other contexts, I experience him as more present within everyday life, for example in small household rituals, during walks, or in spontaneous moments of reflection and presence in daily life. In this sense, I do not experience these functions as contradictory, but rather as different expressions of the same presence.
I arrived at these conclusions by giving Heide’s argument a fair chance despite initially dismissing it, and then relating it to other texts I had already read and reflected upon, as well as to my own relationship with Loki.
Sources
Heide, E. (2011). ‘Loki, the Vätte, and the Ash Lad: A Study Combining Old Scandinavian and Late Material’, Viking and Medieval Scandinavia, 7, pp. 63–106. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.VMS.1.102616
Salinas, C. (2013). ‘Ambiguous Trickster Liminality: Two Anti-Mythological Ideas’, Review of Communication, 13(2), pp. 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2013.791716
Lindow, J. (2001). Norse Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, S. and Mora, R.A. (2016). ‘Introduction: Tricksters, humour and activism’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 19(5), pp. 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877915595302