This is an extremely comprehensive presentation, mainly from the linguistic side, of Scandinavian divine mythology, and related material (literary and inscriptional) from other Germanic-speaking regions. It is a translation, somewhat revised by the author, of "Lexikon der germanischen Mythologie," originally published in 1984. Angela Hall's translation reads well, although the German sentence structure and vocabulary show through from time to time. (Works of literature "come into being.") There also some minor annoyances: Why use an unusual word like "descendancy" (as in "belief in the divine descendancy of the Germanic kings"), when "descent" is available?
The perspective throughout is continental and German, rather than, like most of the works currently available in English, Scandinavian or Anglo-American. Heroic legends are considered only where they unquestionably overlap with stories of the gods, or appear to preserve descriptions of rituals and beliefs. Scandinavian words and names are generally given in their original spelling, including special letters and accents, either as the main heading, or at least as an alternative to a familiar Anglicized spelling. (Some casual readers may find this annoying, but it is extremely useful.) Latin sources include not only the inevitable Caesar, Tacitus, and Pliny, but inscriptions with Germanic, or possibly Germanic, names, notably including dedications to the "Matronae," on which the readily available literature in English is rather small.
Three quarters of fairly serious study of Old English at UCLA, plus a lot of unsystematic reading, does not give me the background to pass an independent judgment on the etymologies, but the German edition seems to have been well-received by the professional community. The main secondary sources Simek cites are highly reputable. In the few instances in which I have studied the literature about a name or word, Simek's views are entirely reasonable (even if I don't always agree with the side he is on.) I expect to use Simek as a basic reference on these matters for years to come, along with two other recent reference volumes, Lindow's "Norse Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs" and Orchard's "Dictionary of Norse Myth & Legend."
The cumulative bibliography is impressive, and seems well-chosen; I expect to make considerable use of it. Given its length, there are only a few unexpected omissions. The nineteenth-century Stallybrass translation of Jakob Grimm's pioneering "Deutsche mythologie" (as "Teutonic Mythology"), long available from Dover Publications in paperbafck [and since re-issued by them is hardcover], is missing. One might presume that the German original is listed for its historical interest only, but in fact it is cited, by page numbers, as a basic reference in some articles. Adding or substituting the English version would have been a convenience; although added work for the industrious translator. Among recent titles, the English translation of P.V. Glob's "The Mound People" is included, but not that of his better-known account of Iron Age bodies preserved in peat, "The Bog People" -- it *is* obsolete, but so is the Danish original! Although there are probably other gaps, given the number of titles involved, and the variety of languages they represent, these are minor issues.
So far, overwhelmingly to the good.
Unfortunately, coverage of narrative sources, particularly those from outside of Scandinavia, is oddly spotty. Some of it is quite good, but some is not. For example, the Venerable Bede (page 33) does indeed give the earliest extant (but not necessarily the earliest) version of the story of Hengest and Horsa, and the arrival of the Germanic tribes in Britain. But he has nothing to say of Scyld Scefing, who appears as such only in "Beowulf." Simek elsewhere gives the impression that Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld, is the hero of the epic, instead of Beowulf the Geat. (It is generally, although not universally, accepted that the Danish Beowulf is a scribal error for Beow[a], son of Sceaf in other texts.)
Most of the factual errors I have spotted are easily corrected by consulting the (usually well-known) original sources, or just another reference book, but a lot of people probably won't bother, so their presence is disturbing. If they are carried over from the German edition, they should have been caught and corrected by the time the author revised the book for the present translation.
There are also some more purely typographical errors, such as "Nennius" for Ennius, an early Latin poet (page 75). (A Nennius is the author, according to some manuscripts, of a "British History" in which Hengest and Horsa appear, along with Vortigern and a version of Merlin ... and perhaps should have rated an entry.)
An immediately attractive feature of the book is the information on the modern "reception" of the character or story -- poems, plays, operas, art, etc. However, I hope that the information on German works is more accurate than that on English and French literature. For example, Simek correctly reports, as has long been recognized, that the Germanic dwarf Alberich entered French literature as Auberon (later Oberon), an undersized Fairy King in the story of "Huon of Bordeaux" -- but that is a Carolingian, not an Arthurian, romance (page 6). Elsewhere, "Huon de Bordeaux" is certainly *not* the author of an Elizabethan chapbook about Oberon (page 239)! The latter entry also confounds the characters of Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and Spenser's "The Faerie Queene." Of less literary moment, on page 323, "the cartoon series *Der maechtige Thor*" is probably the (unrecognized by the translator?) Marvel comic book "The Mighty Thor." Two novels are cited as "Literature" under "Werwolves" -- from other information, the titles of both appear to be metaphorical, and one (in German!) should read "Wehrwolf" not "Werwolf." (The science fiction and fantasy fan in me wants to replace them with James Blish's "There Shall Be No Darkness" and Jack Williamson's "Darker Than You Think," among other titles.)
In conclusion, this is a worthwhile work, which seems trustworthy in its area of main focus, and somewhat erratic when covering side issues, particularly modern literary works.