Only a few entries from the initial parts of Chronographia fit more the George’s work their style and content bear much more similarities with Ekloge (in AM 5796, 5814, 5818, 5827, 5828).

Some later and partial editiorial interventions to Chronographia, conceivable (rubrics?) and in some instances even certain, do not challenge this view. I see no convincing arguments not to call this author Theophanes. Precise analysis of a wider group of similar clauses shows that Ekloge Chronographias and Chronographia were written by two different authors Chronographia was created by one author, distinctive and independent, no matter how reproductive at the same time he was. The style of the proemium of Chronographia fits the rest of the work and differs from Ekloge Chronographias. As for George and Theophanes, the TLG search of such structures in all extant classical Greek and Byzantine output confirms the statement nr 1, with clauses like ὡς προέφην / καθὼς καὶ προέφην / ὡς προέφημεν / καθὼς προέφημεν both rare in the whole preserved corpus, and relatively often used by the author of Chronographia. This observation is of great use not only for the texts analysed here, it may be used to confirm authorship of many other texts.

There are important stylistic differences between the two parts, noticeable in the fragments, in which the authors deliver some editorial remarks or disclose their personal opinions from a wider selection of such phrases, references to the past or future such as ‘as I have mentioned / as I said / as have been said / as we demonstrated above, etc.’, being diverse and individual, are especially helpful. I believe that Ekloge Chronographias of George Syncellus and Chronographia of Theophanes the Confessor should be treated as a single project, undertaken in turn by two authors 2.

Amma syncletica