the compiler of the Gregorianus Codex
. (Dict. of Ant. s. v. Codex Gregorianus.
Nothing is known of him, and even his name is uncertain, for the title Corpus Gregoriani,
which appears in some manuscripts of the remains of his code, and in the Consultatio veteris Icti,
may be written short, in place of Corpus Gregoriani Codicis.
The word codex may also perhaps be supplied in the Collatio Juris Rom. et Mos.
15.3, and 15.4, where we find Gregorianus Libro VII.
and Gregorianus Libro V.
The ellipsis of codex after the word Theodosianus is not unusual, and the scholiast on the Basilica,
lib. ii. tit. 2. s. 35 (vol. i. p. 704, ed. Heimbach), speaks of τὰς ἐν τῷ Ἑρμογενιανῷ καὶ Γρμγοριανῳ διατάχεις
. However, the Interpretatio
of Cod. Theod. i. tit. 4. s. un.
has the following passage:--“Ex his omnibus Juris Consultoribus, ex Gregoriano, Hermogeniano, Gaio, Papiniano et Paulo, quae necessaria causis praesentitum temporum videbantur, elegimus.
” In this place codice
cannot fairly be subaudited, and therefore, so far as the authority of the Westgothic interpreter goes, the longer name Gregorianus must be preferred to Gregorius. (Zimmern. R. R. G.
vol. 1.46. n. 35.) Burchardi (Lehrbuch
des Rör. Rechts, vol. i. p. 233, Stuttgart. 1841), nevertheless, prefers the shorter form, Gregorius, and thinks that the compiler of the codex may have been the Gregorius to whom was addressed, in A. D. 290, a rescript of the emperor Diocletian (Cod. Just. i. tit. 22. s. 1), and may also have been identical with the Gregorius who was praefectus praetorio under Constantine in A. D. 336 and 337. (Cod. Theod. 3. tit. 1. s. 2, Cod. Theod. 2. tit. 1. s. 3, Cod. Just. 5
. tit. 27. s. 1, Nov. 89. 100.15.)
This hypothesis is consistent with the date at which the Gregorianus Codex may be supposed to have been compiled, for the latest constitution it contains is one of Diocletian and Maximinian of the year A. D. 295.
In the ninth volume of Savigny's Zeitschrift,
p. 235-300, Klenze published, for the first time, from a manuscript of the Breviarium Alaricianum
at Berlin, a work consisting of about fifty legal fragments, which he supposed to be entitled Institutio Gregoriani.
Its author and purpose are unknown.
It contains extracts not only from the Gregorian Code, but from the Theodosian Code, from the Sententiae
of Paulus, and from the Responsa
It is later in date than the Breviarium.
Klenze thought that it was an independent Lex Romana,
intended to be the law of the Romani in some Germanic kingdom, but this opinion seems to have been successfully controverted by G. Hänel in Richter's Krit. Jahrb. für Deutsche Rechtswiss.
p. 587-603, Lips. 1838. Böcking, Institutionen,
vol. i. p. 93, n. 17.