A History of Bibliographies of Bibliographies — Background and Themes

Defining the Scope

Taylor's preface is essential for understanding his criteria. He excludes national bibliographies, such as Ottino and Fumagalli's Bibliotheca bibliographica italiana, and special lists like Peignot's Répertoire des bibliographies spéciales. He also rules out chapters on the bibliography of bibliographies in library handbooks, classified library catalogues, and private library catalogues. Only subject indexes published before the bibliography of bibliographies was recognized as an independent scholarly undertaking are included, such as Conrad Gesner's Pandectae (1548) and Israel Spach's Nomenclator (1598). This deliberate narrowing allows Taylor to focus on the core tradition of universal bibliographies, but it also means that many related works are mentioned only in passing. Readers should be aware that Taylor's definitions shape the entire narrative, and his exclusions are as important as his inclusions.

Critical Evaluations of Early Compilers

In the first chapter, Taylor dissects the work of Léon Vallée, a compiler of a bibliography of bibliographies published in the 1880s. Taylor notes that Vallée recognized only three predecessors: Tonnelli (1782), Petzholdt (1866), and Sabin (1872, with a wrong date). Taylor dismisses Tonnelli's book as a 'worthless mixture' and a 'rubbish heap,' and criticizes Vallée for not fully accepting Petzholdt's work as a model. He points out that Vallée misdates Sabin's book, which began serial publication in 1875. Taylor then examines Vallée's classification, finding that he placed Peignot's Répertoire and Labbé's works in a section titled 'Bibliographies générales' rather than recognizing them as bibliographies of bibliographies. Taylor concludes that Vallée 'did not recognize a bibliography of bibliographies when he saw it.' This detailed critique exemplifies Taylor's method: he uses specific examples to assess the accuracy and judgment of earlier bibliographers.

The Problem of Arrangement and Indexing

Taylor repeatedly emphasizes the importance of arrangement and indexing in bibliographies of bibliographies. He criticizes Petzholdt and Stein for choosing a classified arrangement with 'altogether unsatisfactory subject indexes and hastily-made author indexes.' He also mentions Josephson, who arranged titles in chronological order without any author or subject index—an arrangement Taylor says 'no one has ever recommended.' Taylor himself prefers a subject arrangement with an author index, though he acknowledges that he 'stand[s] alone against general bibliographical practice.' This focus on practical usability reveals Taylor's concern for the working scholar. He also notes that Vallée's supplement of 1887 failed to repair faults that reviewers had pointed out, suggesting that Taylor values responsiveness to criticism. Readers should pay attention to how Taylor evaluates the structural choices of each bibliography he discusses.

Vallée's Faults and a Qualified Defense

Taylor lists numerous faults in Vallée's work: including titles that do not belong, incomplete and inaccurate descriptions, citing easily found bibliographies, failing to analyze long subject entries, and making serious errors in names, dates, titles, and places of publication. He also criticizes Vallée's 'rash attempt to survey all bibliographies anew with little or no regard for his predecessors.' However, Taylor offers a qualified defense: Vallée was the first compiler to base his work on the books in a particular library (the Bibliothèque Nationale), and his faults are partly mitigated by the difficulty of the task. Taylor also notes that Vallée's inclusion of fringe materials is not as extensive as it might seem. This balanced assessment shows Taylor's willingness to acknowledge merit even in flawed works. The passage illustrates Taylor's scholarly ethos: rigorous criticism tempered by an understanding of the practical challenges faced by early bibliographers.

Taylor's history is not a simple chronicle but a critical dialogue with his predecessors. Readers will benefit from noting the specific criteria he applies—scope, arrangement, indexing, accuracy, and originality. The excerpts show that Taylor values careful definition and methodological consistency. As you read, consider how Taylor's own work fits into the tradition he describes: does he avoid the faults he condemns? His preface and first chapter provide a framework for evaluating the later chapters on periodical and cooperative enterprises.

There’s something comforting in how Taylor lingers over old compilers’ choices, wondering why they kept some works and dropped others. It reminds me of leafing through Fine Books — A Closer Reading, where the physical object itself becomes a kind of quiet biography. So much of our love for books is really love for the people who made room for them.