The assumption, based on studies of the life and works of the late-sixth to seventh century philosopher, Stephanus, by Herman Usener and Wanda Wolska-Conus, that (1) the seventh century author of the commentary on De Interpretatione was summoned by the Emperor Heraclius from Alexandria to take up teaching post in Constantinople at a newly founded imperial institution of higher education (according to Usener) and (2) the same Stephanus was the Constantinopolitan author of the anonymous Prolegomena Philosophiae and Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge published by L.G. Westerink under the name of Ps. Elias (according to Wolska-Conus), is questioned and it is shown that Usener’s hypothesis of an imperial university under Heraclius was based on the anachronistic use of the titles oikoumenikos didaskalos and katholikos didaskalos to describe ‘Stephanus’ in some astrological and alchemical manuscripts. Accordingly, there is no evidence for an imperial institution of higher education under Heraclius. In addition, the evidence for Stephanus’ discussion of the term diairesis (as found in his commentary on De Interpretatione and the Dialogues ofSeverus bar Shakko) differs so completely from that ofPs. Elias that there can be no possibility that the two commentators are the same person. Accordingly, Wolska-Conus’ hypothesis of the identity of the two must be abandoned.