Abstract At the beginning of the 9th c. George Syncellus began to write a universal chronicle, the second part of which was completed by the monk Theophanes. According to Byzantine tradition this monk was Theophanes the Confessor. But 10th-century sources note that this Theophanes was the grandfather or greatuncle of the emperor Constantine VII, which is historically impossible. This prompted P. Speck to invent “another Theophanes”, who lived during the second half of the 9th c. and was the editor of the Chronicle of Theophanes. The hypothesis turns out to be unfounded and untenable. Also untenable and unrelated to the sources is the hypothesis of C. Zuckerman that the author of the Chronicle is another Theophanes who lived at the same time as the Confessor. This study, after an analysis of sources, proves in both cases that they are historical phantoms.

中文翻译：

---

历史记录：«欧特菲奥芬»

摘要9世纪初。乔治·辛塞勒斯（George Syncellus）开始写一部世界纪事，其中第二部分由修道士Theophanes完成。根据拜占庭的传统，这位和尚是The悔者Theophanes。但是，十世纪的消息来源指出，这以太后神是康斯坦丁七世皇帝的祖父或曾祖父，这在历史上是不可能的。这促使P. Speck发明了“另一个Theophanes”，他住在9世纪下半叶。曾是《 Theophanes纪事》的编辑。该假设被证明是没有根据的和站不住脚的。扎克曼（C. Zuckerman）的假设也是不成立的，与消息来源也没有关系，该假设是，编年史的作者是与The悔者同时生活的另一位神学家。经过对来源的分析，