A better name for a reading list around a mathematician

Question

I would like to create a reading list around the life and works of a mathematician. But I need to choose the name to use as the title.

Take as an example the Bibliography of N. Bourbaki by L. Beaulieu

"This document attempts to be an up to date commented bibliography of works pertaining to the history of the Bourbaki group of mathematicians and their mathematical production. The bibliography is not mainly concerned with any other "Bourbakis", for example the eponymous military man, except as they may figure in a discussion of the group of mathematicians. "Bibliography" is to be understood here in the large sense of publications of all sorts including books, articles, web-sites, ephemereals and audio-visual materials. The sections on homonymous and eponymous entities mainly show how the name « Bourbaki » has a life of its own outside the history of our group. My overriding concern is to make the bibliography as comprehensive as possible. At the same time it has been necessary to make some exclusions and restrictions in order to avoid irrelevance or redundancy. With some exceptions, I have ignored works which discuss the Bourbaki enterprise mainly in relation to reforms in the teaching of mathematics. Also excluded are the many articles or works on or by Bourbaki members when the focus is not explicitly and substantially on the activities of the group."

This description fits perfectly for what I want to do but with another mathematician. What does not feel good is the title. I often use the name Bibliography in a more serious academic context, like the references in an article or so.

So here we are

I need alternative names for "Bibliography" that fits the description above.

I just thought about "Inventory" or "Reading list", something that reflects that in some sense it is informal. Let me know what you think.

Answer 1

The word bibliography is entirely appropriate here. Just because you are used to thinking of a bibliography as the reference section of a paper does not mean that this is the only meaning of the term (cf. meanings 2a and 3 here, or 1 and 2 here).

Answer 2

I would also say that bibliography is entirely fine, the key is in the preposition.

You titled the document you linked to as "Bibliography of Bourbaki". To me this indeed feels wrong, as I think it would imply works by Bourbaki. But note that this title is found nowhere in the actual file. Indeed your quote speaks about "bibliography of works pertaining to ...", which is something entirely different and in my opinion a very clear way of formulating it.

Maybe if that is to long for a title you could shorten it to "bibliography about Bourbaki" or "bibliography regarding Bourbaki" or something similar.