Abstract
The so-called Prose Edda has been scrutinized by scholars for over two centuries, and since the end of World War II, several seemingly incompatible approaches have been established. Whereas these different interpretations all have their strong and weak points, in the early 21st century, they seem to have become gridlocked in an exclusive either-or thinking. Since the 1990s, Heinrich Beck had sought to establish the medieval concept of analogy as preferred way of interpreting the mythological accounts of the Prose Edda, arguing against competitive approaches such as euhemerism. Towards the end of his productive period, however, he started to throw doubt on the superiority of his own perspective. Rather, he emphasized the necessity to step back from traditional frontiers, and to overcome them by putting more effort into the establishment of a fruitful coexistence of contradictory approaches and a dialogue of different textual and contextual voices. Acknowledging an intended ambiguity of the Prose Edda (and medieval lore in general), recipients are continuously challenged to reevaluate critically their own interpretations. Time did not allow Heinrich Beck to perform such a reevaluation of his extensive oeuvre himself, and the present chapter can by no means take on this task. It is, however, intended to draw awareness to the currently deadlocked state of the majority of scholarship on the Prose Edda, which often seems to consist in little more than the mantra-like repetition of traditional views.
