THE PROUD RESPONSE OF JOHN VATATZES FROM DIDYMOTEICHO TO THE PLANETARCH OF HIS ERA
Tags: Vatatzes, Byzantium, History, KASTROPOLITES, Sarsakis. Text by Ioannis A. Sarsakis (Kastropolitis)
The Sack of Constantinople by the Franks in 1204
The sack of Constantinople by the Franks of the Fourth Crusade in April 1204 was the most shocking moment in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire – Romania (that is, the later maliciously and cunningly named by Western historians "Byzantine Empire"[1]). As an immediate consequence of the sack, we have, firstly: the creation of independent Greek states with the aim of preserving the Greco-Orthodox populations and resisting the conquerors, and secondly the rapid awakening of Greek consciousness, which had begun to take shape already from the 6th century. The states that were created were: the Empire of Nicaea under Theodore Laskaris, the Despotate of Epirus under Michael Angelos, and Trebizond under Alexios Komnenos. Of the three Greek states, Nicaea was the one that managed to receive the mantle as the continuator of Romania and, after 57 years, to liberate the Queen of Cities[2]. The emperors who held the exiled throne of Romania, with its seat in Nicaea in Bithynia, were: Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222), John III Doukas Vatatzes (1222-1254), Theodore II Laskaris (1254-1258), John IV Laskaris (1258-1259), and Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259-1282). The first four emperors belonged to the Laskarid dynasty, which was characterized by: intense Hellenophilia, excessive populism, and exceptionally capable diplomatic and military activity. To succeed in reconstituting the empire, the kings of Nicaea fought against the Franks, the Turks, the Bulgarians, and also the Despotate of Epirus, achieving great victories. The most distinguished emperor of Nicaea and one of the greatest of Romania is John III Doukas Vatatzes, who originated from Didymoteicho[3] and is also a Saint of our Church (his memory is honored every year on November 4 by the Holy Metropolis of Didymoteicho).
Researching his life and achievements, we find many actions worthy of mention, which constitute memorable historical legacies. The reconstruction of the empire during his reign (military, economic, and spiritual) culminated in the liberation of Constantinople seven years after his repose[4]. Moreover, John Vatatzes is considered by historians who dealt with the continuity of Hellenism (ancient times, Hellenistic era, Roman rule, Christian Hellenism "Romania", Turkocracy, and modern Hellenism) as one of the main exponents of the evolutionary path of the Greek nation.
A characteristic historical source that demonstrates the Greekness of Romania, the historical continuity of Hellenism, as well as the national dignity of the king from Didymoteicho, is the response letter he sent to Pope Gregory IX[5] in the middle of the 1230s decade. The historical context that caused the exchange of letters between the Pope and John Vatatzes is described by the jurist and philologist, emeritus professor of the University of Athens, Michail A. Dendias (1899-1977), who states the following: "It concerns the era when, in 1236, Baldwin II came to Rome to beg the Pope to intervene for a new crusade, this time specifically against Vatatzes, who, together with the Bulgarians, threatened the collapse of the phantom Latin Empire. Despite his efforts, Gregory IX, Pope of Rome, achieved little, because Frederick II (Emperor of the Germans and later father-in-law of Vatatzes) explicitly opposed the passage of the crusaders through Italy, preferring the Greeks and Vatatzes over the Pope and the Latins. In response to Baldwin's pleas, Gregory IX addressed a letter to John Doukas Vatatzes. The text of this has been lost (as we will see below, the text was preserved), but we know its content and can conjecture the tone in which it was written from the response given to it by the Greek emperor"[6].
Before presenting the letter and the commentary of reputable historians, it is necessary to authenticate, for the sake of truth, the fact of the composition and preservation of the two letters, as well as the validity of their contents. The Pope's letter was found by Abbot Grumel (Venance Grumel) in 1930 in the archives of the Vatican Library and published in the French journal "Echoes of the East" issue 29 (pp. 450-58) under the title "The authenticity of the letter of John Vatatzes, emperor of Nicaea, to Pope Gregory IX"[7]. The response letter of the Thracian King was first published after the establishment of the modern Greek state in the journal "Athenion" issue 1 of 1872 (pp. 369-378) by the great scholar and publisher of many texts from Romania, Ioannis Sakellion (1815-1891). Regarding the discovery of the aforementioned letter, the emeritus professor of the University of Athens and honorary Director of the National Library, Panagiotis Nikolopoulos, states the following: "In mid-July 1872, Ioannis Sakellion sent from Patmos for publication an unpublished letter of Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes to Pope Gregory IX. The letter was published in the first issue of the Athens journal 'Athenion'. Sakellion had found the letter in a house in Patmos. Ioannis Sakellion was an important scholar of the 19th century and paleographer, the first curator of the manuscripts department of the National Library. He is responsible for two catalogs of manuscripts from both the National Library and Patmos, which we still use, as no newer edition has been made since then. Much time was needed to locate the manuscript Sakellion had found in Patmos; finally, in 1957, the manuscript was identified as codex 1896 of the National Library of Greece. It is a famous manuscript known as Sakellion's manuscript. The same year, Sakellion republished the letter in the journal of the same name 'Athenion' published in Smyrna, because the editors (of the Athens journal 'Athenion') avoided publishing Sakellion's introduction, considering it too bold for its anti-Catholic (anti-Papal) character. Indeed, Ioannis Sakellion defended Vatatzes' position, who addressed the Pope in a strong tone"[8].
The issue of the letter's authenticity is considered established even for European scholars; Franz Dölger, member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities, includes John Vatatzes' letter among the genuine texts in the catalogs of "Imperial Documents of Romania". Also, in 2006, Luca Pieralli, lecturer at the School of Paleography, Diplomacy, and Archival Administration of the Vatican, with main research areas in imperial and patriarchal diplomatic texts of Romania, certifies the authenticity of the letter[9].
We should not ignore that, at that time, the Pope was all-powerful, and in modern terms, he was considered the planetarch of the era, while John Vatatzes was king in a state that emerged after the fragmentation of Romania by the Franks in 1204. One would expect that the Greek king, as the weaker of the two, would address the Pope with submissiveness and servility to secure his sympathy and any diplomatic benefit. Below, we present the letter of Pope Gregory IX (in a rough translation and comments by Professor Panagiotis Nikolopoulos) and the letter of the Holy Emperor John Vatatzes in its original form[10] as well as in modern Greek rendering[11], to see, among other things, how he addressed the all-powerful Papal throne.
The letter of Pope Gregory IX to John III Doukas Vatatzes
Pope Gregory IX
To the noble man Vatatzes, may he have a spirit of special counsel (The Pope does not give any title to John Vatatzes, only addressing him as noble man and advising him to be more prudent). Since it is believed that wisdom reigns among the Greeks, from whom, as from a source, streams of knowledge have long flowed, we believe that with this distinction and maturity that you also possess, you ought, as a mother, to recognize Rome and to have and maintain its favor. So that it remains fruitful for you for a long time, paying attention to the primacy of the Apostolic See, which was not given to it by any earthly power, but by Jesus Christ, who built it on the rock of its foundation immediately after its birth, and who united the rights of Rome with the eternal rights to the blessed Peter, the keyholder of eternal life. Since, therefore, for the aid of the Holy Land we have sent to the whole world to proclaim the word of the cross (that is, the crusaders), and since the sound of the salvific trumpet has resounded from the mouths of the preachers who proclaim and invite to battle in a Christian campaign inspired by Divine Grace, both nobles and powerful and brave warriors have taken the sign of the cross, an innumerable multitude, and together with other faithful Christians, whose number is almost endless, the (Frankish) Empire of Constantinople will be aided, so that every onslaught of the enemies is annihilated and with the desired peace this empire may breathe. (That is, as if telling Vatatzes that we are sending this army to fight you). We are therefore led to exhort your nobility and to urge diligently, ordering you to provide and care for your salvation and impunity, protecting yourself in the future, especially the lords of souls, from the slaughter of bodies, the destructions of places, and all that arises from the misfortune of wars, which may the Lord prevent from following. (See with what threats Pope Gregory IX threatens John Vatatzes and continues saying), do not devise any danger or harm against the (Frankish) empire, and no annoyance against our dearest son in Christ, John the glorious emperor of Constantinople (John de Brienne) and his subjects. But rather expend aid, counsel, and favor so that you prove yourself a genuine son of the Roman Church; otherwise, consider whether my admonition protects you without paternal threat, so that if you do not foresee the great danger, you escape that critical moment of difficulty, from which if you fall, you will not easily be able to free yourself (the letter was composed on May 21, 1237)[12].
The response letter of John III Doukas Vatatzes to Pope Gregory IX
John, in Christ the God faithful king and emperor of the Romans, the Doukas, to the most holy Pope of Elder Rome Gregory, salvation and request for prayers.
The envoys sent by Your Holiness, arriving at my kingdom, handed over a letter, which they insisted was from Your Holiness and firmly claimed was sent to my kingdom; but my kingdom, looking at the absurdity of what was written, did not quite believe that the letter was yours, but rather from someone filled with extreme malice, arrogance, and audacity in his soul. For how could it not be considered such by one who wished to address my kingdom in writing as if to one of the nameless and inglorious, rather unknown and obscure, unable to be taught the proper by either the experience of things or the magnitude of authority? Yet Your Holiness is adorned with prudence and distinguished from many in discernment. For this reason, my kingdom was reluctant to believe that the letter was yours or that it was written and sent to my kingdom.
The letter indicated that wisdom reigns in the genus of us Greeks, and, as from a source, droplets sprang forth everywhere from it, and it is fitting for us, shining with this distinction, not to ignore the antiquity of your throne, as if it were some great theorem requiring much wisdom to be known. Yet what need do we have of wisdom to discern who and what your throne is? For if it were placed on the clouds or somewhere in the heavens, perhaps we would need some meteorological wisdom to discern, along with lightning and thunder and all other things naturally in the heavens, its nature and composition; but since it is fixed on earth and differs in no way from other thrones capable of bearing high priests, how would its knowledge not be obvious to all? That indeed wisdom and its blooming good sprang from our genus and was passed to others who place much care in its practice and acquisition, this is truly said. But how was this ignored or, if not ignored, how was it silenced: that along with the reigning wisdom among us, the kingdom of this world was allotted to our genus by the great Constantine, who obtained the honorable and precious from the Christ-named calling?
For who among all is ignorant that the lot of his succession passed to our genus, and we are his heirs and successors?
Then you demand that we not ignore your throne and its privileges; but shall we not in turn demand that you see clearly and know the right we have to the rule and power of Constantinople, which began from the times of the great Constantine, passed through many rulers after him from our genus, and extended over a full millennium until reaching us? Immediately, the ancestors of my kingdom, those from the genus of the Doukai and Komnenoi—to not mention the others who ruled from Greek genera—these at least from my genus held the rule of Constantinople for many centuries, whom indeed the Church of Rome and its hierarchs proclaimed emperors of the Romans. How then do we seem to you to rule and reign nowhere, while John from Bretouna is enthroned by you as king? Whence does this pertain to the kingdom of the pious and great Constantine? What right presided over this for him? For surely your honorable head does not praise unjust and avaricious opinion and hand, nor place the robber-like and blood-guilty seizure in the portion of justice, with which from the beginning the Latins intruded into Constantine's city and campaigned against us with such cruelty as not even those from Ishmael did against the parts of Syria and Phoenicia, whom the Lord of vengeance justly pursued for their impiety. But we, even if forced by violence we moved from the place, yet by God's grace we hold unshakably and unalterably the right to the rule and power; for the king is said to rule and dominate a nation and multitude, but not stones and woods that compose walls and fortifications.
This letter also contained that the heralds of Your Honor, traversing the whole world, proclaimed the preaching of the cross, and a multitude beyond number gathered of warlike and battle-ready men for the vengeance of the holy land, by whom the multitude of opponents will be annihilated, and the beauty of peace will shine forth. Hearing this, we were filled with great joy and became full of good hopes, reasoning as likely that these avengers of the holy places would begin such vengeance from our homeland and subject its captors to just punishment as profaners of holy houses, abusers of divine vessels, perpetrators of every impiety against Christians. But as the letter proceeded, it called John of Constantinople king and named him beloved son of Your Honor, who long ago ended his life here but lives and moves with you, and said that for his assembly and aid these new crusaders are being armed; leaving aside what good to think about such endeavors and preachings, we laughed, considering the irony against the holy places and the mockery of the cross, which were devised by most for their own greed as a fitting cover and veil for ambitious and gold-loving intent.
Since Your Honor wished through such a letter to admonish us and urged us not to harass the kingdom of your beloved son John—for this is beneficial and salvific for my kingdom—Your Honor should know that my kingdom neither knows the dominion and authority of such a John, where on land or sea it is, nor have I ever desired any of his possessions. But if the matter concerns Constantinople, as belonging to him and us unjustly claiming it, we affirm and make clear to Your Holiness and all Christians that we will never cease fighting and warring against those who hold Constantinople. For we would wrong both the laws of nature and the institutions of the fatherland and the tombs of fathers and divine and holy temples if we did not strive for these with all our strength. And if anyone is indignant and displeased with us doing this and arms against us, we have those by whom we will defend ourselves: first the God of justice, who aids the wronged and opposes and shows enmity to the wrongdoers; then we have arms and horses and a multitude of battle-ready and warlike men, who have often competed with these crusaders and were seen second to none. And you, as imitator of Christ and successor of the chief of the apostles, having knowledge of divine laws and human institutions, will praise us for championing the fatherland and risking danger for its innate freedom. For how could we bear seeing it thus insulted and having lost all its former glory, transformed into a hearth of murderers and a cave of robbers?
But these will have the end that seems good to God. My kingdom greatly desires and longs to preserve the due reverence to the holy Church of Rome under you and to honor it as the throne of the chief apostle Peter and to have a son's relation and order toward Your Holiness and to do what pertains to its honor and service, only if Your Holiness also wishes to recognize the due right of my kingdom and not still ignore it nor make contact through letters so improperly and privately. For my kingdom, because it endured without distress the uneducated tone of the letter for the sake of peace with Your Holiness and treated mildly those who delivered it.
Saint John III Doukas Vatatzes
The holy Kings of Romania, Great Constantine and John III Doukas Vatatzes the Merciful. The first bequeaths (legacies) the reigning city (the state of the Romans) as an inheritance to the genus of the Greeks, and the second (as representative of Hellenism) accepts the legacy, which he also proclaims with the written text of the letter he bears. The hagiographer Despoina Chatzioannidou Sarsaki, taking inspiration from the aforementioned letter, wished to depict the event of the succession of the inheritance of the Roman Empire to the genus of the Greeks.
This, then, is the letter of John Vatatzes from Didymoteicho, in which it is worth noting the following:
a. The ironic disposition of the Greek king, with which he addresses in many points of the letter the all-powerful Pope, a fact that demonstrates the lack of any kind of submissiveness to the Pontiff and of course his valor and gallantry.
b. The fact that he recognizes his Greek origin and proclaims it with pride, and not only that, but informs us that the ancestors of his kingdom were also Greeks.
c. The explanation he gives to the Pope for calling himself "Emperor of the Romans" (as correctly all emperors of Romania were called), even though he is Greek, mentioning that the Holy and Great Constantine, transferring the capital of the empire from the Latin West to the Greek East, bequeathed it to the genus of the Greeks.
d. And finally worthy of mention is his unwavering decision to fight to the end for the liberation of Constantinople from the Franks.
Of particular interest for understanding the historical value of the letter are the views of researchers-historians who dealt with the Empire of Nicaea as well as the continuity of Hellenism. Below, we present selected passages from historians who referred to and commented on the aforementioned letter as well as the way the merciful king addressed the Pope.
The historian Ioannis Sakellion, who as mentioned discovered and published the letter in the journal "Athenion", comments the following: "The Emperor John speaks as an ancient Greek with pride and sharpness against the Franks who occupied the reigning city"[13].
Antonios Miliarakis (1841-1905), referring to the letter, and especially to the way King John responded to Pope Gregory IX, comments the following: "To this Vatatzes replied in a haughty tone and with astonishing irony, considering in no way the Pope's office, and speaking of himself as a mighty monarch, called to the kingdom by God and from an ancient royal genus"[14]. Also, Michail A. Dendias extols the tone of the king from Didymoteicho, noting the following: "From the latter (i.e., John Vatatzes), it seems, it had been requested to stop threatening Constantinople, allegedly having no right to its throne. To this Vatatzes responded in a heavy and haughty tone, with astonishing arrogance, but also with truly irrefutable arguments, demonstrating that he himself was king and the throne of Constantinople belonged to the Greeks and that, consequently, the Pope was distorting things and meddling where he had no competence"[15].
Nikolaos Politis (1852-1921), father of Greek folklore and close friend of the great German Byzantinist Karl Krumbacher, in his article "Greeks or Romioi" published in 1901 in the newspaper "Agoni" (in a special leaflet), among others states: "The emperor of Nicaea John Vatatzes in a letter to Pope Gregory IX in 1237 openly confesses his Greek origin: 'in the genus of us Greeks wisdom reigns, … etc.'"[16]. As a bibliographic source for the excerpt he uses, he cites the journal Athenion vol. A' p. 393. Politis refers to Vatatzes' letter (as well as other historical sources of Romania) demonstrating that the so-called "Byzantines" used the names Hellen and Graikos throughout the empire's duration.
It is certainly worth presenting the commentary of the great university professor and historical author Apostolos Vakalopoulos (1909-2000), who with his wonderful texts contributed the most to highlighting the continuity of Hellenism in all its historical paths. Below we present excerpts from three of his works: "As for the related movement of ideas and the political pursuits of the kings of Nicaea, very enlightening is the response letter sent by John III Doukas Vatatzes around 1237 to Pope Gregory IX. The king, although bearing the official title 'John in Christ the God faithful king and emperor of the Romans the Doukas…', knows very well that he is Greek and proudly accepts what the Pope had written to him '.. that wisdom reigns in the genus of the Greeks …. And that from their genus wisdom and its blooming good was passed to others who place much care in its practice and acquisition … '. He wonders, however, he says, how the Pope ignores or if he does not ignore, how he silences that together with wisdom 'was allotted' by Great Constantine to the genus of the Greeks 'also the kingdom of this world'. And immediately below he repeats the same much more clearly. 'For who among all is ignorant that the lot of his succession passed to our genus, and we are his heirs and successors?' That is, he says that with the successors of Great Constantine the Roman state passed to the genus of the Greeks. And to prove the Greekness of the state of Constantinople he adds that 'the ancestors of my kingdom, those from the genus of Doukai and Komnenoi, to not mention the others who ruled from Greek genera, … held the rule of Constantinople for many centuries'. Therefore for reasons of respect for tradition and substantive reasons, that is, adherence to preserving the legacy of Great Constantine, the kings of Byzantium bear the official title 'king and emperor of the Romans'. On these clear historical knowledges he founds the justice of the claims to the territories held by the Franks: 'But we, even if forced by violence we moved from the place, yet by God's grace we hold unshakably and unalterably the right to the rule and power'. Specifically, he does not recognize the sovereign rights of the Frankish king of Constantinople ('my kingdom does not even know, he notes ironically, the dominion and authority of such a John, where on land or sea it is') and characterizes succinctly his ceaseless resistance against the conquerors '… we will never cease fighting and warring against those who hold Constantinople. For we would wrong the laws of nature, and the institutions of the fatherland, and the tombs of fathers, and divine and holy temples, if we did not strive for these with all our strength'"[17].
"And if the kings of Byzantium have the official title 'kings and emperors of the Romans', and keep this title, it is because they want to respect tradition and preserve the legacy of Great Constantine. This legacy, writes King John III Doukas Vatatzes in 1237 to Pope Gregory IX, the Greeks will not renounce and will never stop fighting against the conquerors until they liberate their territories. The emperors of Nicaea, that is, are inspired by the exact same idea that later warmed the subjugated Greeks during Turkocracy, by the exact idea that in modern times was called the Great Idea. There, then, in Nicaea, after 1204, we must seek the first principles of it"[18].
"Characteristically in that letter of John III Doukas Vatatzes to Pope Gregory IX the expression 'our Genus' is mentioned, where the word 'our' replaces the adjective 'Greek'. The word 'Genus', together with the words 'Hellen', 'Hellenic' etc., begin to be used increasingly in the 13th and 14th century and tend to replace the national 'Romaios', with which the subjects of the Byzantine empire were known. The word 'Genus', now united with the genitive 'of the Hellenes', denotes the community of the historical past of the inhabitants and the obligations it poses for them in the present and future. In this era of the Laskarids we must trace the genesis of obscure (secret) oracles and prophecies, adorned with allusions to the Laskarids and John III Doukas Vatatzes. Many of these prophecies, though older in their core and known to the popular masses in the 1200s, refer to the achievements and brilliant era of the Laskarids. To them the subjugated Greeks look for courage, and thus a kind of hero-worship begins to form. John III especially, after his death, rises in the people's imagination as a sacred figure, is sanctified. The Church, which had been benefited by him with many land donations and had every reason to be grateful, officially recognizes him as a saint"[19].
Panagiotis Christou (1917-1996), theologian and professor of Patrology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and former Minister of Education, in his work "The adventures of the national names of the Greeks", comments on the fact of the bequest of the Roman Empire by Great Constantine to the genus of the Greeks, as mentioned by John Vatatzes in the letter, stating the following: "Vatatzes does not reject the Roman legacy, but believes that the transfer of the empire is national and not geographical, that it was made to the nation of the Greeks and not to the city of Byzantium. The legacy of Great Constantine has passed 'to our genus' and we are his heirs and successors. It was not the place that was heir, since the place, Constantinople, had now been seized by the Westerners, but the people of the place. Now the same logic prevails that the Germans had followed earlier, who, since they had the empire but did not possess Rome, called it 'Holy Roman Empire of the German nation'. Here the thought is that the Laskarids of Nicaea, who did not possess New Rome, had the Roman empire of the Greek nation"[20].
Dr. Peter Lock (1949– ), member of the Royal Historical Society of the United Kingdom, among other sources uses the letter of the holy king, referring to the significance and weight that Constantinople had for the Greeks during the era of Frankocracy, noting the following: "For the Greeks, the metaphorical descriptions and significance of Constantinople evolved and acquired new power in the years of Latin occupation. This is evident in the court discussions and ecclesiastical correspondence of the 'free areas' (mainly in the Silention of Theodore I Laskaris in Nicaea between 1205-1222), in the letters of Metropolitan John Apokaukos of Naupaktos (1223), and in the correspondence of John Vatatzes with Pope Gregory IX in May 1237. The God-guarded City rightfully belonged to the ruler of the Byzantine Empire, who had to be Greek"[21].
The English historian and journalist William Miller (1864-1945) in the monograph he wrote on the Empire of Nicaea mentions "obviously" the existence of the response letter of John Vatatzes to the Pope, narrating the following: "Pope Gregory IX, who expected to draw the Tsar of the Bulgarians to the Roman dogma, denounced Vatatzes as an enemy of God and the Church and received from him an arrogant letter, in which the Greek ruler claimed to be the true emperor as heir of Constantine and explicitly told the pontiff that he had yielded to superior force but had not abandoned his rights and would never desist from the siege of Constantinople"[22]. The aforementioned historian, referring to Vatatzes' letter, cites as bibliography the journal "Athenion" of Ioannis Sakellion as well as the sources cited by Sakellion and Vakalopoulos, namely: Les Registres de Gregoire IX Vol. B' p. 218 and Byzantinische Zeitschrift Vol. 16 pp. 141-142).
I do not consider it necessary to close the present study by developing my own conclusions on the historical value of the letter and its author. I will only mention that, studying the texts of these important historians selected as bibliography for this work, the most significant contribution of the Holy Emperor from Didymoteicho to highlighting the historical continuity of the Genus of the Greeks becomes easily understandable. I fully agree with the great historian Apostolos Vakalopoulos, who in response to his critics that he "does not reflect on the sources" he presents in his texts, replied by writing the following: "You accuse me because I do not reflect on the events, but I think that science is first the research and analytical, critical presentation of the sources, and then the reflection. So leave me to deal with the sources and then you make your reflections."
Our generation has the privilege of easy access and study of the sources bequeathed to us by these wonderful "pioneers" of past decades. And while one would expect that historical issues such as the continuity of Ellenism would be considered given and obvious, in recent years in our country prevail anti-Ellenic views of the Fallmerayer type as well as other foreign and local historians. It is the obligation and duty of all us pure patriots and lovers of our rich history to study the sources and put our brick so as to refute all these unhistorical views.
Notes
[1]. The term "Byzantine Empire" was first introduced 109 years after the fall of the Queen of Cities to the Turks in 1453. The first historian to use the term "Byzantine history" was Hieronymus Wolf in 1562. After many years, and after other historians had also used this specific term, it was established in 1680 by the historian Charles du Cange, who wrote the work "History of Byzantium". Regarding the adoption of the term "Byzantine Empire" by Westerners, Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos in a letter dated July 1, 1886, to the Chian scholar G. Zolotas, states the following: "Friend Zolotas, no matter how much I researched our historians and chroniclers from the Middle Ages, I could not find among them the name of the Byzantines or Byzentines, as you wish. They use the names Romans, Greeks, and towards the end, Hellenes ……. I fear, therefore, that the name was invented by the Westerners, and we swallowed it". Fr. Georgios Metallinos, "Pagan Hellenism or Hellenic Orthodoxy?" p. 260, Armos Publications.
[2]. "Of the three Greek states, the Empire of Nicaea justly claimed the status of continuator of the Byzantine tradition. Geographical, substantive, and institutional reasons justified this claim". Dionysios Zakythinos, "Byzantine State and Society: Historical Overview", Ikaros Publications, p. 130.
[3]. John III Doukas Vatatzes was born in Didymoteicho in 1193. Regarding his origin, George Akropolites (1217-1281) informs us in his work "Chroniki Syngraphi", which is the main historical source for the Empire of Nicaea: "And the emperor takes as son-in-law John the Doukas, surnamed Vatatzes, who originated from Didymoteicho". George Akropolites, "Chroniki Syngraphi", p. 56, Kanakis Publications.
[4]. "In any case, John Vatatzes had created all the preconditions for this triumph, and to him above all belongs the honor for the restoration of the Byzantine Empire". George Ostrogorsky, "History of the Byzantine State", p. 122, Historical Publications Stef. D. Vasilopoulos.
[5]. Gregory IX served as Pope of Rome from 1227 to 1241.
[6]. Michail A. Dendias, "On a letter of Frederick II to John Doukas Vatatzes", Yearbook of the Society of Byzantine Studies, year 13, Athens 1937, pp. 409-410.
[7]. V. Grumel, L’authenticité de la lettre de Jean Vatatzes, empereur de Nicée, au pape Grégoire IX, EO 29 (1930) 450-458. Apostolos Vakalopoulos, "History of Modern Hellenism", p. 77, Thessaloniki 1974.
[8]. Panagiotis Nikolopoulos, speech at the event of the Holy Metropolis of Didymoteicho "Vatatzeia 2012" on November 4, 2012, on the theme "National consciousness according to Saint John Vatatzes".
[9]. Konstantinos Cholevas, Political Scientist, speech at the event of the Holy Metropolis of Didymoteicho "Vatatzeia 2011" on October 30, 2011, on the theme "Saint John Vatatzes and the continuity of Hellenism".
[10]. The original text of the letter presented here was provided to us by the emeritus professor of the University of Athens and honorary Director of the National Library, Mr. Panagiotis Nikolopoulos.
[11]. The rendering in modern Greek that follows is the work of Mr. Konstantinos Cholevas, Political Scientist.
[12]. See above, note 8.
[13]. See above, note 9.
[14]. Antonios Miliarakis, "History of the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Despotate of Epirus", Publication of the Ionian Bank, p. 275.
[15]. See above, note 6.
[16]. Nikolaos Politis, Folklore Miscellanea, volume A', "Greeks or Romioi", Athens, from the printing house of Paraskevas Leoni, 1920, p. 126.
[17]. Apostolos Vakalopoulos, "History of Modern Hellenism", Thessaloniki 1974, pp. 76-77.
[18]. Apostolos Vakalopoulos, "Modern Greek History", Vania Publications, pp. 13-14.
[19]. Apostolos Vakalopoulos, "The Path of the Genus", Publications of the Friends, pp. 25-26.
[20]. Konstantinos Cholevas, "Romiosyni and the Hellenicity of Byzantium", Athens 2008, Reprint, p. 584.
[21]. Peter Lock, "The Franks in the Aegean", Enalios Publications, pp. 78-79.
[22]. William Miller, "The History of Nicaea and the Recovery of Constantinople", Eleftheri Skepsis Publications, pp. 21-22.
