Tolkien and Norse Mythology

[Lalwendë]

The other link I've been pondering is whether the Trickster in Tolkien's world might be found in the figure of Melkor as he bears some remarkable similarities to Loki.

Both are renowned for their skill with lies, frauds, cheats, deceptions. Loki is the father of Fenris and Melkor is the master of Carcharoth. Another of Loki's children is of course Jormungandr the serpent/dragon and we know that Melkor bred or corrupted Dragons into being. I wonder if Sauron corresponds to Hel? Or indeed if Sauron shares some of these characteristics? However, I do think that one of the differences between Melkor and Sauron is that Melkor seems much more skilled at deception, much more rounded a fraudster. And if we consider that he was Eru's creation then this would muddy his waters and make him much more appropriate as a Trickster like Loki.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The other link I've been pondering is whether the Trickster in Tolkien's world might be found in the figure of Melkor as he bears some remarkable similarities to Loki.

Yup. That was, actually, one of the first things (let's say, third) which I thought of when I first read the Valaquenta. But Melkor is rather a deciever, not a trickster: in this way, Loki is sort of "light version" of Melkor; but ultimately, Loki is far worse fella...
...now it came to me, what about Loki and Saruman? Now this is an idea! Because Loki was actually most of the time disguised as one friend of the other gods, so was Saruman. Melkor revealed himself quite early and with the supreme evidence brought in by Eru. But Saruman seems for me to fit more with the trickster element: all those White-council delays, and so on...
...or Wormtongue. (seems we are lessening and lessening the divine aspect of this)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The other link I've been pondering is whether the Trickster in Tolkien's world might be found in the figure of Melkor as he bears some remarkable similarities to Loki.

Despite the similarities you point out between Loki and Melkor, the latter seems to bear a greater resemblance to the Judeo-Christian Satan; Tolkien even makes this one-to-one comparison in his Letters in a couple different places.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Despite the similarities you point out between Loki and Melkor, the latter seems to bear a greater resemblance to the Judeo-Christian Satan; Tolkien even makes this one-to-one comparison in his Letters in a couple different places.

We're not saying Melkor=Loki, that's far too simplistic, we're saying that in Melkor you might find a Trickster figure, comparing him with Loki, one of the best known tricksters.

I wouldn't say any character equals any mythic or literary figure, including saying Melkor=Satan, as this reduces Tolkien's creation and Art to mere allegory. I could dump a load of points here but we're talking Norse myth so I won't divert it off on to tangents well covered elsewhere.

Back to the Norse stuff anyway!

The other influence, drawn from the Eddas, a huge favourite with Tolkien, was that at Ragnarok, Loki will come down from the North with Hel and her subjects to fight in the last battle, as Melkor will do at the end of Ea. Like Loki, he too is an outcast because of the trouble he has caused: Melkor is cast into the Void by his Valar kin and Loki is chained to a rock.

Then there's also that intense pleasure that Melkor takes in sheer destruction. When he finds he cannot set up his own Ea or be a rival to Eru he just sets about smashing the place up - very Trickster-ish. He's quite a chaotic figure too, outside the 'rules' as far as he can get.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I wouldn't say any character equals any mythic or literary figure, including saying Melkor=Satan, as this reduces Tolkien's creation and Art to mere allegory.

Exactly. Tolkien would be turning in his grave and I would be very... displeased hearing anyone saying "Gandalf is Odin! Melkor is Satan! Saruman is Loki! Sauron is Gwa-bo-uhuru of the Shomgosh tribe of central Africa!" Heck, in my country, we have even a sculpture of ancient Slavic god Radegast. He has nothing in common with Radagast the Brown. Purely coincidential. There is beer named after him.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The other influence, drawn from the Eddas, a huge favourite with Tolkien, was that at Ragnarok, Loki will come down from the North with Hel and her subjects to fight in the last battle, as Melkor will do at the end of Ea. Like Loki, he too is an outcast because of the trouble he has caused: Melkor is cast into the Void by his Valar kin and Loki is chained to a rock..

I was waiting when someone is going to say this. The inspiration in Ragnarok is quite obvious (although we might argue that there could be also an inspiration in Armageddon, but this is not our topic now. After all, "Last battle" is very much common stuff). I am not very familiar with the things concerning Dagor Dagorath, but wasn't there in some version that Manwë's son should come to battle with Morgoth? (Referring to Vidar son of Odin.)
Although, with the Chaining of Melkor - especially during the first time, before the exile of Noldor - I always associated it with binding of Fenrir.

[Lalwendë]

Radagast beer? Now that's cool!

It's odd how just about all mythologies have an end times story and are finite; some with endless re-makings but with finite existences within that. Even odder is how the Universe itself according to the latest theory is finite in terms of Time; if I knew where to find some text I'd quote something about this but its mind-bending stuff - maybe one of our scientists knows where to find something? Incidentally, technology based on the silicon chip is also finite.

But I'm meandering again...

It says something in UT about Angainor, the chain forged to bind Melkor:

"Behold, Aulë now gathered six metals, copper, silver, tin, lead, iron and gold, and taking a portion of each made with his magic a seventh which he named therefore tilkal, and this had all the properties of the six and many of its own. Its colour was bright green or red in varying lights and it could not be broken, and Aulë alone could forge it. Therefter he forged a mighty chain, making it of all seven metals welded with spells to a substance of uttermost hardness and brightness and smoothness...":

Loki is bound with the innards of his son Narfi, but Fenris the wolf (son of Loki) is bound with a chain, slender yet stronger than iron and made from the sound of a cat's footfall, a woman's beard, the roots of a mountain, the sinew of a bear, breath of a fish and spittle of a bird.

So Aule uses six metals to make Angainor, like the six things used to make Gleipnir which binds Fenris. Interestingly, Aule makes a seventh element to create Angainor which has all the properties of the other elements - just as Melkor shares in all the attributes of his kin.

[Aiwendil]

There are a lot of interesting thoughts on this thread. Like others, I've always seen something of a parallel between Melkor's chaining and the chainings of Loki and Fenrir in Norse mythology.

It's true that there are many differences between Melkor and Loki; most importantly, Melkor is more explicitly evil than Loki, who is more of an amoral trickster. But I think that if one looks at the Book of Lost Tales mythology, one finds in 'Melko' a much closer similarity to Loki. Melko is there presented, at least at the outset, not as being explicitly the enemy of the Valar. Compare the accounts of the destruction of the Lamps in the Lost Tales and in the later Silmarillion. In the Silmarillion, the Valar make the Lamps after fighting a war with Melkor; Melkor later returns to Arda and destroys the Lamps. In the Lost Tales, Melkor works together with the Valar to make the Lamps - his part is to fashion the pillars on which the Lamps will stand. But he secretly fashions them out of ice, which then melts, destroying the Lamps. This earlier story strikes me as exactly the sort of mischief that Loki would engage in.

A small correction - I believe that when Lalwende says:

It says something in UT about Angainor, the chain forged to bind Melkor

. . . she means BoLT (the Lost Tales) not UT (Unfinished Tales). Which fact reinforces the comparison between Norse myth and, specifically, the earliest incarnation of Tolkien's Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

There are a lot of interesting thoughts on this thread. Like others, I've always seen something of a parallel between Melkor's chaining and the chainings of Loki and Fenrir in Norse mythology.

It's true that there are many differences between Melkor and Loki; most importantly, Melkor is more explicitly evil than Loki, who is more of an amoral trickster. But I think that if one looks at the Book of Lost Tales mythology, one finds in 'Melko' a much closer similarity to Loki. Melko is there presented, at least at the outset, not as being explicitly the enemy of the Valar. Compare the accounts of the destruction of the Lamps in the Lost Tales and in the later Silmarillion. In the Silmarillion, the Valar make the Lamps after fighting a war with Melkor; Melkor later returns to Arda and destroys the Lamps. In the Lost Tales, Melkor works together with the Valar to make the Lamps - his part is to fashion the pillars on which the Lamps will stand. But he secretly fashions them out of ice, which then melts, destroying the Lamps. This earlier story strikes me as exactly the sort of mischief that Loki would engage in.

A small correction - I believe that when Lalwende says:


. . . she means BoLT (the Lost Tales) not UT (Unfinished Tales). Which fact reinforces the comparison between Norse myth and, specifically, the earliest incarnation of Tolkien's Legendarium.

Correct sir! I just looked for the quote online to save me getting up and going to the bookshelf - serves me right for being idle.

I've a couple of interesting books knocking about here that might turn up some more goodies too. One of the things I've been noticing a lot lately is links in language - Tolkien has pulled elements of the language from Norse mythology into his own languages and naming in particular. One odd one is a link between Golfimbul and Fimbulwinter - though quite what an Orc who inspires the game of Golf has to do with the endless triple winter that presages Ragnarok I'm not sure.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I was waiting when someone is going to say this. The inspiration in Ragnarok is quite obvious (although we might argue that there could be also an inspiration in Armageddon, but this is not our topic now. After all, "Last battle" is very much common stuff). I am not very familiar with the things concerning Dagor Dagorath, but wasn't there in some version that Manwë's son should come to battle with Morgoth? (Referring to Vidar son of Odin.)
Although, with the Chaining of Melkor - especially during the first time, before the exile of Noldor - I always associated it with binding of Fenrir.

Well, yes but.... at Ragnarok, the good guys lose.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Well, yes but.... at Ragnarok, the good guys lose.

well, the world is destroyed, but that does not mean that the good guys looses. . .

As I remember it Balder (Baldr or Baldur) will survive together with another god an create a new world. This is kind of absurd as Balder is actually alreadt dead, but hey who cares?!

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Despite the similarities you point out between Loki and Melkor, the latter seems to bear a greater resemblance to the Judeo-Christian Satan; Tolkien even makes this one-to-one comparison in his Letters in a couple different places.

Possibly. My own feeling is that (as I've been discussing in the Akallabeth thread) we effectively have a dualistic myth in the Legendarium, Eru playing so irrelevant a part in the actual events. Gibbon has a nice account of Zoroastrianism which resonates quite strongly with the Legendarium:

The great and fundamental article of the system was the celebrated doctrine of the two principles; a bold and injudicious attempt of Eastern philosophy to reconcile the existence of moral and physical evil with the attributes of a beneficent Creator and Governor of the world. The first and original Being, in whom, or by whom, the universe exists, is denominated in the writings of Zoroaster, Time without bounds; but it must be confessed that this infinite substance seems rather a metaphysical abstraction of the mind than a real object endowed with self-consciousness, or possessed of moral perfections. From either the blind or the intelligent operation of this infinite Time, which bears but too near an affinity with the Chaos of the Greeks, the two secondary but active principles of the universe were from all eternity produced, Ormusd and Ahriman, each of them possessed of the powers of creation, but each disposed, by his invariable nature, to exercise them with different designs. The principle of good is eternally absorbed in light: the principle of evil eternally buried in darkness. The wise benevolence of Ormusd formed man capable of virtue, and abundantly provided his fair habitation with the materials of happiness. By his vigilant providence, the motion of the planets, the order of the seasons, and the temperate mixture of the elements are preserved. But the malice of Ahriman has long since pierced Ormusd’s egg; or, in other words, has violated the harmony of his works. Since that fatal eruption, the most minute particles of good and evil are intimately intermingled and agitated together, the rankest poisons spring up amidst the most salutary plants; deluges, earthquakes, and conflagrations attest the conflict of Nature; and the little world of man is perpetually shaken by vice and misfortune. Whilst the rest of human kind are led away captives in the chains of their infernal enemy, the faithful Persian alone reserves his religious adoration for his friend and protector Ormusd, and fights under his banner of light, in the full confidence that he shall, in the last day, share the glory of his triumph. At that decisive period the enlightened wisdom of goodness will render the power of Ormusd superior to the furious malice of his rival. Ahriman and his followers, disarmed and subdued, will sink into their native darkness; and virtue will maintain the eternal peace and harmony of the universe.

The theology of Zoroaster was darkly comprehended by foreigners, and even by the far greater number of his disciples; but the most careless observers were struck with the philosophic simplicity of the Persian worship. “That people,” says Herodotus, “rejects the use of temples, of altars, and of statues, and smiles at the folly of those nations, who imagine that the gods are sprung from, or bear any affinity with, the human nature. The tops of the highest mountains are the places chosen for sacrifices. Hymns and prayers are the principal worship; the Supreme God who fills the wide circle of heaven, is the object to whom they are addressed.” Yet, at the same time, in the true spirit of a polytheist, he accuses them of adoring Earth, Water, Fire, the Winds, and the Sun and Moon. But the Persians of every age have denied the charge, and explained the equivocal conduct which might appear to give a colour to it. The elements, and more particularly Fire, Light, and the Sun, whom they called Mithra, were the objects of their religious reverence, because they considered them as the purest symbols, the noblest productions, and the most powerful agents of the Divine Power and Nature.

Every mode of religion, to make a deep and lasting impression on the human mind, must exercise our obedience by enjoining practices of devotion, for which we can assign no reason; and must acquire our esteem, by inculcating moral duties analogous to the dictates of our own hearts. The religion of Zoroaster was abundantly provided with the former, and possessed a sufficient portion of the latter. At the age of puberty the faithful Persian was invested with a mysterious girdle, the badge of the divine protection; and from that moment all the actions of his life, even the most indifferent or the most necessary, were sanctified by their peculiar prayers, ejaculations, or genuflexions; the omission of which, under any circumstances, was a grievous sin, not inferior in guilt to the violation of the moral duties. The moral duties, however, of justice, mercy, liberality, &c., were in their turn required of the disciple of Zoroaster, who wished to escape the persecution of Ahriman, and to live with Ormusd in a blissful eternity, where the degree of felicity will be exactly proportioned to the degree of virtue and piety.