I have saved Lokasenna as the last piece of lore concerning Loki for a few reasons. One is that it will form a good bridge from the part of this article that deals with Loki's place in the lore to the part of the article that deals with the theories regarding him. It is also believed to be one of the pieces of the lore that was penned at the lastest date of any about Loki. Lokaseena is one of the lays included in the Poetic Edda. In it is told about a great feast that Aegir has where he has invited the Aesir as his guest. Loki kills one of Aegir's servants and is driven off but later comes back and gains entrance. He then sets to insult and slander each of the gods and goddesses present at the feast. He continues this until Thorr, who was not present, arrives and threatens to bash his head in and drives him off. At the end of the lay is a short prose section that describes Loki's binding as described above in the Death of Baldr.

 It is here that we shall make the transition from lore to theory.

 Loki's function seems to be that of what I would call “a breaker of stasis.” Although he many times gets the Aesir in a fix he is normally the one that gets them out of it again. On top of that they generally come out much better for the trouble. For instance Mjollnir, Thorr's hammer and the treasure that is considered the most valuable by the Aesir was obtained by them as a direct result of Loki's actions. The walls of Asgarthr, Sleipnir and the other great treasures came about as a result of Loki's actions. So without him, it is easy to say that the Aesir would be in a much worse position had Loki not been around.

  The first thing we must realize about Northern Lore is that unlike the Greek and Roman myths some may be familiar with, the Northern Lore has Christian influences. The lore we have now is not, therefore exactly as it was in the times of our forefathers before Christianity cut its way through Northern Europe. There is much debate about just how much Christian editing was done to our lore. I do think that there was some and most all Scholars will agree there was some degree of Christian editing. The debate is normally to what extent the lore has been influenced by Christian ideas. My own opinion is that there is some Christian influence but not to a great extent. Of course there are some parts of the lore that may have more influence than others. Most scholars believe that most of the Poetic Edda is older and therefore less contaminated by Chrisitian ideas than Snorri's Prose Edda.

 One lay in The Poetic Edda that is very likely of late origin is Lokasenna. Most scholars now believe that Lokasenna was composed at least as late as the 12^th century which places it squarely in the time when Northern Europe was experiencing a Christian conversion. In Haustlöng, one of the earliest pieces of lore that we have mentioning Loki, he is called Thorr's Friend, Othinn's Friend, and Hoegni's Friend. Haustlong is one of the oldest sources of our lore. It was composed by the poet Þjóðólfr ór Hvíni in the 9th century. So here in the lore we see him called Friend of Othinn, Thorr and Hoegni. Fast forward 300 years, for most of which, the Christian religion was being forced on our people, and you find Loki described as evil and at cross purposes with the Aesir. So it obvious that the 9th century poet Þjóðólfr viewed Loki as a friend of the Aesir. (source: Simek's Dictionary of Northern Lore) It is my contention that as the conversation to Chrisitianity took place Loki went from breaker of stasis/trickster to Norse Satan.  That Loki may fill the trickster/breaker of stasis role is not, as some would characterize it, just the ideal of the "Loki lovers." It is a position taken by more than one scholar of our lore including De Vries and Olrik. Simek agrees saying, ““In the tale of how, because of Loki's actions, the gods gain their greatest treasures, we see how Loki's actions, though negative in the beginning bring great benefit to the gods. It this function, that Simek argues, shows that …originally Loki had the role of a culture Hero and only in the course of time did he increasingly become the antagonist of the gods.” So Lokasenna, in my opinion, is a late Christian addition to our lore, one that very likely was written by a Skald who had knowledge of our lore but one who had an agenda. The utterly evil nature of Loki in this lay and its late date of composition, in my opinion make it a distinct possibility. Simek says, that it was likely composed in the 12^th century since its system of a Northern Pantheon as found in Lokasenna more closely resembles Snorri's ideas than living beliefs and that Kuhn says “The language of the Lokasenna seems to points towards a later composition date, as do various allusions to other mythological tales, of which the author of Lokaseena must have known a lost lay about Thor and Skrymir and probably also Voluspa as well as Skirnismal.”

Another point concerning Lokaseena that B. D. Wieden points out is that most of the accusations that Loki slings at the gods and goddesses are found no where else in the lore and that we should consider Loki's accusations (that is, the author of Lokasenna's accusations) as libelous, just as the Medieval public would have done. (Simek p. 192) In other words, Loki was just yanking their chains. Of the accusations that can be found in other lore, one concerning Thorr contradicts other sources. In Voluspa Thorr is said to fall to the poison of the Mithgarth Serpent but in Lokasenna 58 we find:

Loki spake:
58. "Lo, in has come thy son of Earth:
Why threaten so loudly, Thor?
Less fierce thou shalt go to fight with the wolf
When he swallows Sigfather up."

Here the author of Lokasenna accuses Thorr of fear in going to fight Fenrir. We know form Voluspa that Thorr will fight the Mithgarthr Serpent and after killing it fall to it's poisonous breath and that it is Othinn who will do battle with the Fenris Wolf.

 Another confusing fact about Baldr's death concerns Vali. Vali was sired specifically to avenge the death of Baldr. It was his wyrd. It was said that he did not wash his hands nor comb his hair until he had avenged Baldr's murder. What is confusing is why he killed Hothr but took no action against Loki. It seems logical that he would have avenged Baldr by also killing the person who was responsible for motivating Hothr. One less known version of the lore that many people do not know of and one that is ignored to a great extent is Saxo's version of the lore. Admittedly Saxo's version of the lore is much more contaminated by a long shot than either of the Eddas but a comment concerning his version of the death of Baldr may be instructional here. In Saxo's version there is no Loki. Hothr and Baldr are two warriors who vie for the hand of Nanna. Baldr is protected much like Achilles in Greek lore. Hothr travels to Hel to obtain the only sword that will kill Baldr and eventually he does slay Baldr. Another interesting point that should be mentioned here concerns the sword that Hothr must find in order to slay Baldr. Hothr travels to Hel in order to obtain the sword. In the Snorri version Baldr is slain by a shaft made of mistletoe. In the sagas there is frequent mention of a sword called Mistletein (ON for Mistletoe). Is it then possible that what Baldr was slain with was a sword called Mistletoe? Another very interesting point in connection with this sword is a sword called Levaitien (Mistletein) that is said in Fjolsvinnsmal to have been constructed by Loki with the use of runes. It was said to be held in a chest in Hel that was bound with nine locks. Hothr, in Saxo's version must fare to hel to obtain the only sword that will be able to slay Baldr and in Saxo's text the sword is said to be “fastened up in the closest bonds.” This sounds very much like the sword that, in Fjolsvinnsmal, was said to be made by Loki. Is it possible that originally Loki was blamed for Baldr's death only because he had made the sword that killed Baldr?