Nothing is known of him, and even his name is uncertain, for the title which appears in some manuscripts of the remains of his code, and in the may be written short, in place of Corpus Gregoriani Codicis. The word codex may also perhaps be supplied in the 15.3, and 15.4, where we find and The ellipsis of codex after the word Theodosianus is not unusual, and the scholiast on the lib. ii. tit. 2. s. 35 (vol. i. p. 704, ed. Heimbach), speaks of τὰς ἐν τῷ Ἑρμογενιανῷ καὶ Γρμγοριανῳ διατάχεις. However, the 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 at Berlin, a work consisting of about fifty legal fragments, which he supposed to be entitled Its author and purpose are unknown. It contains extracts not only from the Gregorian Code, but from the Theodosian Code, from the of Paulus, and from the of Papinian. It is later in date than the 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.