Content deleted Content added
→top: template |
GiantSnowman (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1:
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2022}}
{{short description|Latin philologist and emeritus professor of classics}}
{{Infobox academic
Line 60 ⟶ 61:
==Early life==
[[File:Petri Diaconi Ortus et vita, iustorum cenobii casinensis.jpg|thumb|Rodgers's edition of ''Petri Diaconi Ortus et vita, iustorum cenobii casinensis'', 1972.]]
Robert Rodgers was born in 1944.<ref>[http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n84075001/ Rodgers, Robert H. (Robert Howard) 1944.] WorldCat. Retrieved
==Career==
[[File:Frontinus De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae.jpg|thumb|Rodgers's edition of ''Frontinus De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae'', 2004.]]
Rodgers has spent his career at the [[University of Vermont]] where he is now emeritus professor of classics.<ref>[https://www.uvm.edu/cas/classics/profiles/robert-h-rodgers Robert H. Rodgers.] University of Vermont. Retrieved
His first major work, after the publication of his dissertation, was ''An introduction to Palladius'' which was published as a supplement to the University of London's [[Institute of Classical Studies]] ''Bulletin (BICS)'' in 1975. In the same year, he published an edition of [[Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus Palladius|Palladius]]'s ''Opus Agriculturae'' in the Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana series. Reviewing both for ''[[L'Antiquité Classique]]'', Raoul Verdière saw the ''Introduction'' as the essential companion to the edited edition of ''Opus Agriculturae'' and wished the former could have served as the preface to the latter. He noted the extensive textual choices that Rodgers had made to make his edition coherent which had produced an edition of the highest importance. He did not agree with all of Rodgers's decisions, however, particularly over the dating of the work, and felt that the source material was so contested that other editions with different conclusions remained possible.<ref name=Rod1977>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/41650999 Review: ''An Introduction to Palladius'' by R. H. Rodgers and ''Palladii Rutilii Tauri Aemiliani viri inlustris opus agriculturae, de veterinaria medicina, de insitione'' by Robert H. Rodgers], [[Raoul Verdière]], ''L'Antiquité Classique'', T. 46, Fasc. 1 (1977), pp. 284-285.</ref>
Line 70 ⟶ 71:
In 2004, Rodgers published his edition of Frontinus's ''De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae'', the first detailed commentary on the work for almost 300 years.<ref name=kon/> Reviewed by [[Alice König]] in the ''[[Journal of Roman Studies]]'' along with a related work by [[Michael Peachin]], König began by reflecting on the ongoing reevaluation of a work that had once been seen simply as a factual guide to Rome's aqueducts, or, as Frontinus had described it, an administrative handbook for his work. The more scholars investigated the text, however, the more baffled they were as to its true purpose and meaning, seeing elements of political propaganda and auto-encomium (self praise) in it but reaching no firm conclusions.<ref name=kon>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20430529 Review: ''Frontinus: De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae'' by R. H. Rodgers & ''Frontinus and the Curae of the Curator Aquarum'' by M. Peachin], Alice König, ''The Journal of Roman Studies'', Vol. 96 (2006), pp. 262-265.</ref> König noted that Rodgers had given his own interpretation, balanced between the various competing theories, but wished that he had explored them in more depth which would have added extra interest to his already exhaustive commentary and notes.<ref name=kon/>
[[Marco Formisano]] noted in ''[[The Classical Review]]'' that due to the complex textual history of the ''De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae'', it had received four editions in the twentieth century alone, but Rodgers's comprehensive commentary was the first since the Italian engineer [[Giovanni Poleni]]'s edition of 1722. Combined with the very competent re-editing, this made Rodgers's edition the likely future reference edition of the work. Formisano wished, however, that Rodgers had done more to put the text in the context of the debate about the position of Roman technical literature that had been taking place in scholarly circles in the twentieth century.<ref>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3873555 Review: ''Frontinus. De aquaeductu urbis Romae'' by R. H. Rodgers], Marco Formisano, ''The Classical Review'', New Series, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Apr.
In 2010, Rodgers published his edition of [[Columella]]'s ''Res Rustica'' in the [[Oxford Classical Texts]] series along with the associated ''Liber de Arboribus'' but with the latter marked as ''incerti auctoris'' (by an unknown hand). Reviewing the text for ''[[Gnomon (journal)|Gnomon]]'', David Butterfield appreciated the boldness with which Rodgers had crafted his "radical" version with over 350 new conjectures including more than 200 emendations of the ''Res Rustica''.<ref name=but/> But he also noted that Rodgers had been more conservative with the ''Liber de Arboribus'' by adopting the view of [[Will Richter]]<ref>German teacher and classical philologist (1910-1984).</ref> that the work is of uncertain authorship, rather than a juvenile work of Columella.<ref name=but>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23502225 Review: ''L. Iuni Moderati Columellae Res Rustica. Incerti auctoris Liber de arboribus'' by R. H. Rodgers], David Butterfield, ''Gnomon'', 85. Bd., H. 6 (2013), pp. 561-564.</ref>
| |||