The five personalities being discussed in this work practically held a monopoly to the title of saint during the early Palaeologan period thus forming a group which was of great significance regarding the history of Byzantine saints and the ideal of sainthood. They represent the beginning of a revival of an interest in saints after a long period of time which was pretty much barren of saints, while the hagiographic literature was almost nonexistent. Period of Latin occupation (1204-61) and even the entire 12th century proved to be not a very good time for saints. The above mentioned saints from the early Palaeologan period can also help us understand the reason why it was these saints that actually initiated a revival. The story of their canonization, their celebration, and their inclusion in the hagiographies of other Church writers can not be regarded separately from the “transgressions” of the emperor Michael Palaeologus, his usurpation of imperial power in relation to the Laskarid dynasty, and his union with Rome. Had he and his successors been successful rulers, and had they made successful political moves during their reign, these five saints would have almost had no role worthy of attention. Relative peace and prosperity which were brought upon Asia Minor by the Laskarid dynasty were brought to an utter ruin during the final third of the 13th century. Saints have started to reappear during the reign of the emperor Michael Palaeologus and his successors. It should be emphasized that they did not appear in the persons of great ascetics, but as persons belonging civil and Church hierarchy. They were the Nicaean emperors John III Vatatzes, John IV Lascaris, and patriarch Arsenius – personalities that represented the constitutional order and that lived in Asia Minor before the arrival of the Palaeologi. They were not remembered for their ascetic qualities which they might have certainly possessed; they became symbols of popular resistance against the politics of the Palaeologue dynasty. Authors who wrote on their lives wrote their hagiographies at the time when the Church had taken over the role of the leader from the receding state. Almost every aspect of their sainthood pointed towards the triumph of the Church over the Palaeologi. Discussion on the saints of this period also includes an exposure of the way by which sainthood was being recognized within the Orthodox Church. The early Palaeologan period is the key period for the new ideal of sainthood, since the late 13th and the 14th centuries signified a change in the attainment of this ideal, which seems to have been conditioned by the contacts made with the Latin Church during the 13th century. Apology delivered in honor of Byzantine saints gives an account of a dominating climate among the ordinary populace regarding its attitude to the negotiations concerning the union. This period also sheds light on several examples of canonizations as effected by synodal decisions, with an accent on the bureaucracy and the requirement of proofs regarding miracles – such elements which were analogous to the canonic procedure within the 11th century Western Church. These examples illustrate the procedure employed for the purpose of recognizing sanctity which is very different from the canonization practice of the early Byzantine period.