The Letters of Gregory the Great and Cassiodorus’ ‘Variae’ *

^[*]Gregory the Great was a prolific writer. Although plagued by ill-health, serving as Pope during one of the most difficult periods of Rome’s history and eagerly waiting for the end of the world, he authored the ‘Pastoral Rule’, completed the ‘Moralia in Iob’, wrote the ‘Dialogues’, and circulated several homilies on the Gospels, the Book of Ezekiel and the Song of Songs in the opening years of his papacy, while at the same time keeping up regular correspondence with deputies of the Roman Church, other Italian bishops, Constantinople, Gaul, Africa, and Spain ^[1]. Over 850 letters, divided into 14 books covering his entire pontificate ( 590‒604 ), have come down to us, a number that has no parallel either for earlier popes or for those of many centuries to come ^[2].

Since the studies of Dag Norberg ( 1909‒1996 ), the issue of the authorship of several letters has been frequently debated. Norberg argued that Gregory’s correspondence should be divided into two groups of documents, namely the personal letters and the administrative ones ( often on secular matters ) ^[3]. The former do not show a regular pattern of Latin prose-rhythm, since the percentage of accentual cadences is consistent with unintentional use, whereas the latter conform almost always to one of the main rhythmical typologies of the cursus. It is therefore likely ‒ according to Norberg ‒ that Gregory himself wrote the letters belonging to the first group, while the other documents were drafted by his secretaries and later slightly edited or simply signed by the pope ^[4]. This reconstruction has been challenged by ( among others ) Reydellet and Recchia, who argue for Gregory’s authorship of the whole corpus of letters ^[5]. Recchia studied the use of recurring words and expressions in both the ‘Registrum’ and the ‘Dialogues’, concluding that papal secretaries sometimes added specific formulae to the letters, but apart from that they limited themselves to copying documents dictated by the pope himself, who enjoyed a higher degree of stylistic liberty in letters addressed to friends or equals, whereas he resorted to the usual ‘bureaucratic’ language of the Roman scrinium when writing to subordinates on secular issues ^[6]. A comparative study of a few expressions in Gregory’s letters and Cassiodorus’ ‘Variae’ can shed new light on this issue and point out one of the models which late sixth-century consiliarii used when drafting the papal correspondence.

Before examining the similarities between these works, however, it is necessary to outline briefly the letters of Cassiodorus and their influence on Medieval writers. The ‘Variae’ consist of twelve books containing 468 letters, edicts and formulae for appointment composed on behalf of the Ostrogothic rulers of Italy between 507 and 537/538 ^[7]. The ‘Variae’ include ordinary chancery letters, documents that are the result of an extremely refined rhetorical education and epistolary panegyrics. Their date of composition, the possible reworking of some epistles and their recipients have been the subject of lively scholarly debate, which needs not detain us here ^[8]. It is sufficient to note that the ‘Variae’ seem to have had a very limited circulation during the early Middle Ages. They are mentioned in three ninth-century catalogues from Lorsch and then a brief quotation taken from book nine surfaces in a document written in 1012 and included in the cartulary of the abbey of Farfa ^[9]. Apart from two eleventh-century fragments, the ‘Variae’ are again attested from the twelfth century onwards, when they were widely used as a model for the drafting of letters. However, scholars have often looked for explicit mentions of Cassiodorus or, failing these, for whole sentences taken from his correspondence, neglecting the occurrences of single words or expressions.

The letters issued in Gregory’s name usually concern spiritual issues or the daily management of the Roman Church and its properties, whereas those of Cassiodorus deal with foreign policy, the administration of the Ostrogothic Kingdom, public offices, taxation and lawsuits, but they both make extensive use of recurring clauses or expressions which were typical of late Roman chancery tradition ^[10]. Many are quite common and they cannot be used to point out cases of intertextual relationship or intentional imitation, but a study of the occurrences of eleven expressions attested only or almost only in the letters of Cassiodorus and Gregory contributes to a better knowledge of both the circulation of the ‘Variae’ in sixth-century Italy and the drafting of the letters included within the ‘Registrum’. Before we proceed to examine each case, however, some points of methodology are in order.

Each expression has been investigated by using three databases: Corpus Corporum, Library of Latin Texts and Cross Database Searchtool ^[11]. If it consists of an ablative absolute, I have searched for the exact words, but if it is formed by a noun and/or an adjective, I have usually searched for both words omitting the ending ( for instance, null* venalita* when looking for occurrences of nulla venalitas ), in order to find out whether the same expression does occur in grammatical cases other than that used by Cassiodorus ^[12]. A global overview of the occurrences can be found in Table 1 ( I have arranged the list alphabetically for convenience ).

The first case is quite straightforward: the ablative absolute aequitate suadente occurs only in Cassiodorus ( Var. 9.9.1 ) and Gregory the Great ( Epist. 7.20 ), in both cases in routine administrative letters. On behalf of king Athalaric, Cassiodorus informs the inhabitants of Dalmatia of the re-appointment of Osuin as governor, and uses the expression in a sentence ( habet enim proprium ius ille qui iustus est: nam etsi terrore minime potestatis erigitur, aequitate tamen suadente semper auditur ) which, as it happens quite often in his correspondence, can be used as a kind of maxim and thereby easily remembered, whereas Gregory writes to Fortunatus, bishop of Naples, and Anthemius, rector of the church patrimony in Campania ^[13], on a house which should have been handed back to a woman who had entered a monastery, and inserts the ablative absolute to say that if the man who occupies the house refuses to give it back to the rightful owner, then Gregory should be informed, so that he can try another way to reach his goal ( cognito negotii merito aliter cogatur aequitate suadente restituere ). Cassiodorus’ sentence and the context of Gregory’s letter are quite similar, since in both cases there is an opposition between power / direct orders and persuasion based on equity. Of course, we cannot rule out that Gregory or the secretary who wrote this letter coined the expression aequitate suadente independently, but the fact that it occurs only here and the analogies between the two passages suggest that the ‘Variae’ are the source of this ablative absolute.

A slightly more complicated case is represented by the expression excedendi licentia, which occurs in two letters of the ‘Variae’, once in the ‘Registrum’ and once in the ‘Code of Justinian’. Cassiodorus uses it first in a document condemning disturbances during a religious festival, which he concludes with an ominous warning ( relegantur populis et proponantur ista quae diximus, ut cum inulta esse minime creduntur, excedendi licentia non quaeratur ^[14] ), and then in a letter sent on behalf of king Theodahad to a royal agent, who should not take advantage of his power in order to oppress the population ( a domesticis inchoare volumus disciplinam, ut reliquos pudeat errare quando nostris cognoscimur excedendi licentiam non praebere ^[15] ). On the other hand, Gregory inserts it in a message to an apostolic visitor who should make sure that the secular and regular clergy of cities without a bishop behave themselves according to canon law, so that nec passim eis in qualibet re sit excedendi licentia ^[16], and the ‘Code of Justinian’ in a passage on the fees to be exacted from former treasury advocates ^[17]. The latter occurrence is quite dissimilar from the others as far as the wording is concerned. Moreover, both Cassiodorus and Gregory address a specific person or group ( those responsible for the disturbances, Theodahad’s agent, the clergy of cities without bishop ), whereas Justinian states a general rule, as it should be expected in a law code. It is therefore likely that the expression found in the ‘Registrum’ is modelled after the ‘Variae’, possibly the first of the two letters, since in both cases a subordinate of the king / pope has to check the misbehaviour of subjects / members of the clergy.

The expression hostes imminuti / imminuere represents another interesting analogy between Cassiodorus and Gregory. The former uses it in a personal letter to pope John, written in his own name, in which he exhorts the pontiff to pray for the Ostrogothic sovereign, so that God Romanae rei publicae hostes imminuat ^[18], and in the following epistle, which is addressed ( again, in his own name ) to the Italian bishops and asks them to implore the Lord that hostes rei publicae defensor imminuat ^[19]. Gregory inserts similar words in a personal letter to the patriarch of Alexandria, in which he rejoices that et imminutos ore vestro Ecclesiae hostes et multiplicatos dominicos greges agnovi ^[20]. This expression occurs only in the ‘Variae’ and the ‘Registrum’, and is followed or preceded in both cases by a genitive referring to the institution which the writer serves, namely the Ostrogothic Kingdom ( res publica ) and the Church ( ecclesia ). Another coincidence is the fact that these words are used in two personal letters, although the majority of the correspondence of both Cassiodorus and Gregory concerns administrative matters.

The three cases which I just outlined have cast some light on the use of Cassiodorus’ ‘Variae’ in the ‘Registrum’, but cannot tell us much on the actual authorship of each document. The next cases will tackle this issue. One of the most evident parallels between the two collections of letters is mediis sacrosanctis Evangeliis, an expression which before the seventh century is attested only in these works ( namely the ‘Variae’ and the ‘Registrum’ ), in spite of its seeming ordinariness. We find it in Var. 4.12.3 ( on a lawsuit concerning the properties of a Gallic woman ), in which Cassiodorus orders two officials to pass their sentence “in the presence of the holy Gospels”, and in eight letters of the ‘Registrum’. Gregory uses this expression in very similar contexts, when writing on a lawsuit between the church of Ravenna and a monastery which judges chosen by both parties should end by taking a decision mediis sacrosanctis Evangeliis ( Epist. 8.17, to archbishop Marinianus ), on a lawsuit in Bruttium ( Epist. 9.90, to Savinus ), on a dispute in Sicily ( Epist. 9.120, to Fantinus ), again on a suit in Bruttium ( Epist. 9.130 and 135, Savinus is involved in both cases ), on payments due to the church of Otranto ( Epist. 9.170, to Sergius ), again on a quarrel in Sicily ( Epist. 9.199, to Fantinus ), and on the formula which a defensor should use when judging a case ( Epist. 13.48 ) ^[21]. Interestingly, this expression occurs in six out of eight cases in book nine, always in epistles sent to Southern Italy between January and July 599 ( three times involving Savinus, twice to Fantinus and once to Sergius ), whereas Epist. 8.17 was written in April 598 and Epist. 13.48 ( a formula ) in August 603. This clause is not equally distributed throughout the ‘Registrum’, as should be expected had it been present in a chancery formulary or ‒ if we accept that all letters were drawn up by Gregory himself ‒ had it been a favourite expression of the pope. On the contrary, it occurs only in documents concerning lawsuits, mostly written in 599 and addressed to Southern Italy. Moreover, we find almost exactly the same clause in Epist. 9.130 and 9.135 ^[22], very similar sentences in Epist. 9.120 and 9.170 ^[23], and several analogies in Epist. 8.17, 9.90 and 9.199 ^[24]. It is therefore likely that the majority ( if not all ) of these documents were written by the same person, in all likelihood not Gregory, but one of his subordinates, who was possibly entrusted with the drafting of the correspondence concerning lawsuits in Southern Italy ^[25]. As for the intertextual relationship with Cassiodorus, taking an oath or making an important decision before the Gospels was a common practice in Late Antiquity, as is attested, for instance, by Justinian’s novels, but the wording is always different ^[26]. The author of these letters used mediis sacrosanctis Evangeliis and no other expressions which were more widespread in the sixth century because he followed the model represented by Cassiodorus’ letter on the lawsuit in Gaul ^[27].

The occurrences of nulla venalitas show a similar situation. We find these words six times in the ‘Variae’, usually referring to bribery ^[28], and three times in the ‘Registrum’, always concerning simony, in two letters sent to Numidian bishops in July 593 ( Epist. 3.47‒48 ) and in one addressed to Castorius ( Epist. 5.24, February 595 ), who was admonished to exhort the clergy and the people of Ravenna to appoint a worthy candidate as archbishop ^[29]. The author of these documents uses very similar expressions ^[30]. Interestingly, also Epist. 8.17 ( written in April, 598, and including the first occurrence of mediis sacrosanctis Evangeliis ) was sent to Ravenna, in this case to archbishop Marinianus, the candidate who was elected in 595. It could be a mere coincidence, but we should not rule out the possibility that a subordinate of the pope was entrusted ( among other tasks ) with drafting all letters concerning Ravenna and that this secretary knew the ‘Variae’ or at least a few epistles of Cassiodorus. Gregory himself reveals that he delegated a consiliarius to write a letter on secular matters addressed to Marinianus ^[31].

One of the most striking parallels between the two letter collections is represented by the expression praesenti auctoritate, meaning “by the present document / order”, which is very common in both Cassiodorus ( 40 occurrences ) and Gregory ( 22 occurrences ), but is exceedingly rare in all other Latin works written up to the seventh century, since we find it only in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’ ( once ) and in three papal letters ^[32]. Of course, one could argue that the clause praesenti auctoritate was possibly widespread in papal documents well before the late sixth century and that it is impossible to study further occurrences since most of the correspondence written by Gregory’s predecessors is lost. If this reconstruction is correct, then the author( s ) of the ‘Registrum’ did not use the ‘Variae’ as a model, but simply imitated previous papal correspondence. However, if we inspect the ‘Collectio Avellana’, which includes 244 documents written by the Lateran chancery between 367 and 553, we find only one occurrence ( auctoritate praesenti instead of the more common praesenti auctoritate ). Moreover, the occurrences can be divided into two groups ( see below ) and, up to July 599, the ‘Registrum’ uses in nine cases out of 13 the clause praesenti auctoritate praecepimus ^[33], which is attested five times in Cassiodorus ( Var. 2.5.1, 4.17.2, 4.32.2, 8.26.2, 9.13.2 ) and never in other sources. As far as the geographical distribution, the recipients and the chronology of the letters are concerned, books 1‒9 differ from books 10‒13 ( there is no occurrence in book 14 ) in quite a few respects. The expression praesenti auctoritate can be found, more or less within phrases with the same wording, in four letters addressed to Anthemius ( Epist. 1.53, 1.57, 9.69, 9.164 ), in five epistles sent to different recipients in Sicily ( Epist. 3.55, 4.28, 9.22, 9.110, 9.200 ), in two concerning Rome ( Epist. 3.17, 9.192 ) and in one sent to the bishop of Misenus ( Epist. 2.37 ). As I have already remarked, before July 599 praesenti auctoritate praecepimus occurs in nine cases out of 13, after that the clause disappears. Later occurrences are more dissimilar, but there are three letters sent to Autun which contain the same sentence ( Epist. 13.9‒11: privilegia praesentis auctoritatis nostrae decreto indulgemus, concedimus atque firmamus ).

Drawing general conclusions based solely upon the occurrences of a single expression can be risky, but these letters show a fairly consistent pattern. A secretary possibly wrote all praecepimus-letters addressed to Anthemius, using an expression found in Cassiodorus as a model, since the first two occurrences of praesenti auctoritate ( Epist. 1.53 and 1.57 ) are in praecipimus-clauses addressed to Anthemius. Then he or ( less likely ) other secretaries chose a synonym ( Epist. 9.110: praesenti auctoritate mandamus ), possibly using sentences including praesenti iussione as a model ( see below ), and then coined similar expressions ( as in Epist. 3.55: ex praesenti nostra auctoritate ). After July 599, the Anthemius-secretary either disappeared or changed his style, but in the meantime praesenti auctoritate had become a quite common expression in the Lateran chancery, therefore it was employed more freely, without consistency. However, the same scribe drafted three letters sent to Autun in November 602 ( Epist. 13.9‒11 ), using almost exactly the same sentence, which is never attested in other letters. This case study indicates quite clearly that Gregory cannot be considered as the sole author of the whole ‘Registrum’, since we can discern the traces of at least two different hands, each with distinctive stylistic peculiarities, within 22 letters.

This reconstruction is confirmed by the occurrences of a similar expression, namely praesenti iussione, which can be found 30 times in Cassiodorus, eight times in Gregory and five times in two other sources ( the ‘Code of Theodosius’ and the ‘Code of Justinian’ ) ^[34]. Interestingly, praesenti iussione occurs only in the first book of the ‘Registrum’. Moreover, it can be found in letters sent to just two recipients, namely Anthemius ( Epist. 1.23, 1.37, 1.40, 1.48, 1.66 ) and Peter, rector of the church patrimony in Sicily ( Epist. 1.18, 1.42, 1.44 ) ^[35]. The author of these documents uses the clause propterea experientiae tuae praesenti iussione mandamus twice ( Epist. 1.23 and 1.40, both sent to Anthemius ), which is quite similar to ‘Variae’ 2.19.2 and 5.26.2 ( et ideo praesenti iussione mandamus ); twice the clause propterea experientiae tuae praesenti iussione praecipimus ( Epist. 1.44 to Peter and 1.48 to Anthemius ) ^[36], which is reminiscent of ‘Variae’ 1.19.2 and 10.5.1 ( et ideo praesenti iussione praecipimus / vobis praecipimus ) ^[37]; twice praesentem iussionem susceperis / susceperit ( Epist. 1.37 and 1.66, both to Anthemius ), and once ex praesenti iussione nostra ( Epist. 1.42 to Peter ). None of these sentences can be found either in the ‘Code of Theodosius’ or the ‘Code of Justinian’, whereas two of them are very similar to a few passages of the ‘Variae’. We can be fairly sure that these letters were written by the same person, since they are all in the same book, were sent to just two recipients, contain very similar expressions or recurring phrases, and Epist. 1.44 ( to Peter ) and 1.48 ( to Anthemius ) include an identical clause. Anthemius received four letters with the words praesenti auctoritate ( Epist. 1.53, 1.57, 9.69, 9.164 ), which were in all likelihood written by a secretary who knew the correspondence of Cassiodorus, as we have already seen. Therefore, we can conclude that the same subordinate of pope Gregory wrote the letters including praesenti iussione addressed to both Anthemius and Peter, again using the ‘Variae’ as a source of chancery formulae.

Another expression which in all likelihood comes from Cassiodorus is praesentibus affatibus, which occurs twice in his letters, once in the ‘Registrum’ and once in a letter of pope Agapitus ^[38]. The ‘Variae’ and Gregory’s letter use praesentibus affatibus in the same context, namely in order to exhort someone to act according to the orders of the king / pope, whereas Agapitus writes to Caesarius of Arles that he would send him the text of a canon “together with the present letter” ( cum praesentibus pariter affatibus ). This strongly suggests that Gregory or his secretary did not imitate Agapitus’ document, but followed Cassiodorus’ example instead ^[39].

The same is true of salva aequitate, which is present twice in the ‘Variae’, seven times in the ‘Registrum’ and three times in other sources, whose context and wording is quite different from the letters of both Cassiodorus and Gregory ^[40]. The pattern of the occurrences is reminiscent of praesenti auctoritate: four out of seven are in epistles addressed to the same person ( the above-mentioned Peter ) and were written in or before April 593, whereas the remaining three are addressed each to a different person and were written from 597 onwards. The letters sent to Peter were in all likelihood drafted by the same secretary, since there are a few similarities between them ^[41]. Epist. 9.123 shows a couple of analogies as well ^[42], but its authorship cannot be convincingly demonstrated relying solely on these coincidences. As we have seen when dealing with praesenti iussione, it is likely that a secretary with a good knowledge of the ‘Variae’ wrote a few letters addressed to Anthemius and Peter. It is no surprise that we find other echoes of Cassiodorus in four epistles addressed to Peter, which were possibly drafted by the same consiliarius. As far as subsequent occurrences of salva aequitate are concerned ( Epist. 7.36, 9.39 and 9.123 ), it would be tempting to trace them back to the same secretary, but we must bear in mind that this and other similar expressions had possibly become part of the formulae used by Gregory’s chancery, therefore different ‘ghost writers’ may have employed them while imitating not Cassiodorus’ correspondence, but other letters sent by Gregory a few years earlier.

There are two final parallels between the ‘Variae’ and the ‘Registrum’ which should be taken into consideration. In spite of their seeming ordinariness, the expressions ( alicuius ) suggestione comperimus and tot solidos only occur in these letter collections ^[43]. Gregory uses them respectively in a letter concerning a monastery in Sardinia ( Epist. 5.2, September 594 ) and in one addressed to Cyprianus, rector of the church patrimony in Sicily ( Epist. 6.38, June 596 ) ^[44]. Both documents were written in the first period of Gregory’s papacy, when the ‘Variae’ were used quite often in his correspondence, as we have seen, and one letter is addressed to the rector of the church patrimony in Sicily, in all likelihood the successor of Peter, who received more than once documents with passages reminiscent of the ‘Variae’. Therefore, it is likely that these expressions derive from Cassiodorus’ letters as well.

To be sure, there is one major risk in carrying out a research like this, namely that accidental coincidences between two authors who wrote on similar subjects are misinterpreted as cases of intertextual relationship or imitation. We must concede, of course, that such a danger cannot be fully avoided, but it can be substantially reduced by taking a few simple steps. Firstly, I looked for the expressions which I have just analysed within the corpus of Latin works written before the seventh century. This allows us to exclude at first glance ‘chancery’ words and clauses which were commonly used in Late Latin, such as ausu temerario, missis brevibus, salutationis honorificentia or illum et illum ^[45]. Although a few of them occur in both Cassiodorus and Gregory ( and often in similar contexts ), it is likely that the latter and his secretaries simply employed formulae which were quite widespread, therefore not recurring specifically to the ‘Variae’. Then, I checked the context of each expression and the pattern of the occurrences, thereby leaving out clauses which at first sight may be regarded as cases of borrowings, as is illustrated by sine aliqua imminutione. This expression occurs seven times in the ‘Variae’, four times in the ‘Registrum’ and five times in other sources ( Hilary of Poitiers, the ‘Code of Theodosius’ and Ennodius ) ^[46]. A comparison between the passages of Cassiodorus and Gregory in which it is present shows that there is no meaningful analogy, and the fact that these words occur in the writings of Ennodius three times ( twice in his letters ) calls for caution, because it indicates that sixth-century authors possibly employed sine aliqua imminutione without consciously imitating a model ^[47]. Finally, I took into due consideration the recipients of Gregory’s letters, pointing out that expressions reminiscent of the ‘Variae’ are often found in documents sent to the same persons.

In light of these points, we may reasonably conclude that the authors of Gregory’s ‘Registrum’ did use a few letters of Cassiodorus’ ‘Variae’ as a model when drafting papal correspondence. Of course, it is possible ( although unlikely ) that a couple of the cases which have been examined in the previous pages are just coincidences, but the majority ( if not all ) of them include expressions whose occurrences and distribution in the sources are so peculiar that a direct borrowing from Cassiodorus represents the most likely explanation to justify their presence only in a few letters issued in Gregory’s name, often addressed to the same persons and on similar topics.

This paper has also shed some light on the actual authors of Gregory’s correspondence, confirming the reconstruction put forward by Norberg. All but one of the expressions reminiscent of Cassiodorus occur in administrative letters, which were not written by the pope himself, but by his subordinates ^[48]. Trying to sort out the different hands which drafted each letter is admittingly tricky, but a few analogies and similarities between groups of documents point out a common authorship. As it has already been noted, the letters sent to Anthemius in the first nine years of Gregory’s papacy often include expressions taken from the ‘Variae’ which are absent in all other letters of the ‘Registrum’ written in those years. It is therefore likely that they were drafted by the same person, which I will call Anthemius-secretary for the sake of clarity. He was in all likelihood responsible for the composition of Epist. 1.53, 1.57, 3.17, 4.28, 9.22, 9.69, 9.164, 9.170 and 9.192 ( praesenti auctoritate ), and Epist. 7.20 ( aequitate suadente ), which are either addressed to Anthemius or include expressions almost identical to those of the documents sent to him. He authored the praesenti iussione letters ( Epist. 1.18, 1.23, 1.37, 1.40, 1.42, 1.44, 1.48, 1.66 ) as well, since the clauses used in the epistles sent to Anthemius are often hardly different from those addressed to other recipients, among whom there is also Peter. On this basis, we may speculate further that the Anthemius-secretary wrote Epist. 1.69, 1.71, 3.5 and 3.34 ( salva aequitate ) too, which were drafted in the same years and are all addressed to Peter. Another papal subordinate authored all but one of the epistles including the words mediis sacrosanctis Evangeliis ( Epist. 8.17, 9.90, 9.120, 9.130, 9.135, 9.170, 9.199 ), most of which are addressed to either Savinus or Fantinus. He possibly also wrote Epist. 9.39 and 9.123 ( salva aequitate, respectively to Fantinus and Savinus ), and Epist. 3.47‒48, 5.24 ( nulla venalitas, the last is addressed to Marinianus of Ravenna as Epist. 8.17 ), whereas Epist. 13.9‒11 ( praesenti auctoritate, sent to Autun and including the same sentence ) were in all likelihood drafted by another secretary.

If these conjectures are correct, then there was at least a manuscript of Cassiodorus’ ‘Variae’ in the Lateran chancery during Gregory’s papacy. A few subordinates of the pope possibly perused it in search of expressions and clauses which could be employed when drafting the papal correspondence, at first adhering quite closely to their model and then using them more freely, since after a few years their origin was forgotten and they became part of the administrative language of Gregory’s chancery. As it happens quite often to both ancient and modern writers, some secretaries had a liking to peculiar expressions or clauses, which represent important markers of authorship and can be used in order to catch a glimpse of the anonymous subordinates who wrote most of Gregory’s ‘Registrum’.