Resumen de Anonymus De rebus bellicis: un état des lieux: À propos de De rebus bellicis, Sur les affaires militaires, texte établi, traduit et commenté par Philippe Fleury, Paris, Les Belles Lettres (CUF), 2017
The initial project of a mere review of the newly published edition / commentary / French translation of the De rebus bellicis by Philippe Fleury developed into an update of our perception of this most discussed text and its author. Here are successively considered, the date when the libellus was written, the geographic origin of the Anonymus, the addressee’s identification, the social extraction of the author, the extent to which he was original and trustworthy. Then comes an assessment of his skills or ignorance as regards currency, military finance and fiscal matters, military machinae, justice and laws. The various interpretations by modern commentators and their translations are compared.
New achievements in our knowledge of the period during the past sixty years brought a major shift in our relation to the text and author of the De rebus bellicis. When this text became a major focus of historical research, it was expected to provide us a fresh information on the fourth-century realities. Nowadays, new tools are at hand for assessing what escaped the Anonymus’ attention, knowledge or understanding. Such a confrontation does not benefit his reputation as an original reformer and brilliant inventor, whereas a new dimension of his personality can be highlighted, i.e. the quest for promoting himself, by claiming that he holds miracle solutions to any problem, and his flippancy when, after arousing curiosity and expectation in his preface, he is no longer interested in fulfilling his boldest promises.To sum up, we can find in the libellus direct or more distant echoes of a variety of problems which arose in his period, but expressed in the greatest confusion, without any logical linking or synthetic view, through a mere contradictory and confused juxtaposition of table talks, common hearsay, existing or planned governmental provisions, moralizing common places and rhetorical topics. Consequently, we should stop considering the De rebus bellicis as an unicum. Engaging a broader discussion is badly needed.
