Furthermore, one finds unexplainable errors and omissions in them. For instance, although Ernest Reyer died January 15, 1909, there is no mention of it in his biography; but there is, however, the statement that his _Quarante Ans de Musique_ “was published in 1909.” This careless oversight in not noting Reyer’s death while at the same time recording a still later biographical fact is without any excuse, especially as the death of Dudley Buck, who died much later than Reyer, is included. Furthermore, the biography omits stating that Reyer became Inspector General of the Paris Conservatoire in 1908. Nor is his full name given, nor the fact recorded that his correct name was Rey. Again, although Théodore Dubois relinquished his Directorship of the Conservatory in 1905, his biography in the _Britannica_ merely mentions that he began his Directorship in 1896, showing that apparently no effort was made to complete the material. Still again, although Fauré was made Director of the Conservatory in 1905, the fact is not set down in his biography. And once more, although d’Indy visited America in 1905 and conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the fact is omitted from his biography.... These are only a few of the many indications to be found throughout the _Britannica_ that this encyclopædia is untrustworthy and that its editors have not, as they claim, taken pains to bring it up to date. Among the important French composers who should have biographies, but who are omitted from the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, are Guilmant, perhaps the greatest modern organist and an important classico-modern composer; Charpentier, who with Puccini, stands at the head of the modern realistic opera, and whose _Louise_ is to-day in every standard operatic repertoire; and Ravel, the elaborate harmonist of the moderns. Even greater inadequacy—an inadequacy which could not be reconciled with an encyclopædia one-fourth the size of the _Britannica_—exists in the treatment of modern Russian music. So brief, so inept, so negligent is the material on this subject that, as a reference book, the _Britannica_ is practically worthless. The most charitable way of explaining this woeful deficiency is to attribute it to wanton carelessness. Anton Rubinstein, for instance, is given a biography about equal with Balfe and Charles Stanford; while his brother Nikolaus, one of the greatest pianists and music teachers of his day, and the founder of the Conservatorium of Music at Moscow, has no biography whatever! Glinka, one of the greatest of Russian composers and the founder of a new school of music, is dismissed with a biography no longer than those of John Braham, the English singer, John Hatton, the Liverpool genius with the “irresistible animal spirits,” and William Jackson; and shorter than that of Charles Dibdin, the British song-writer!