The Symbolical Investiture of the Archbishop Basil of Bulgaria at Melnik

The heretofore variously explainedfresco in the apse ofthe church at Melnik showing the apostle Peter, a bishop and Christ is now interpreted as the symbolical investiture ofarchbishop Basil. The interpretation is based on iconographic analysis taking into account the other frescoes in the apse as well as on the sources relating to the short-lived union ofthe Bulgarian (Timovo) Archbishopric with Rome. The fresco has been dated between 1204 and 1207.

St Stephen.On the south wall ofthe prothesis were saints and the Nativity above them.The opposite, north, wall also showed the remains of saints and scenes.In the apse of the diakonikon was the Deesis and, above it, the Presentation of the Virgin in the Temple.On the north wall was the mounted figure of St Prokopios, and on the south wall were Judas' Betrayal and Christ before the Cross.The west facade of the church also displayed a few frescoes .
This brief overview of the frescoes once adorning the church of St Nicholas, gleaned from descriptions and old photographs, shows that their programme, and to a lesser extent their iconography, generally conformed to the patterns adopted in the Byzantine art of the eleventh to thirteenth century .A careful study, however, reveals a number of distinctive features, only some of which will be highlighted: the absence from the sanctuary ofthe Communion of the Apostles and the Officiating Bishops, virtually inevitable in Orthodox churches in the early thirteenth century; the absence ofholy bishops from the Melismos in the prothesis; and an unusual scene in the lowest register in the central apse showing the consecration of a bishop, quite lonely in medieval art in terms of both appearance and location.What lay behind these deviations from the established programme and iconography, and what link connects them, are the questions we shall try to answer here.
At Melnik, in the lowest register in the main apsewhere, from the eleventh century on, bishops holding open scrolls were shown, at first turned towards the Hetoimasia, 60 and then towards the Amnos on the altar -was painted, above the high-set synthronon, the consecration of a bishop.All the characters depicted belong into a single theme, as observed long ago.I I The first figure on the north is a facing bishop with long hair and three-pronged beard.,whosename has not survived.He holds a gospel in his draped left hand, while pointing to the neighbouring figures with his right. 12he westernmost figure in the group is the apostle Peter in a chiton, himation and sandals.His identifying inscription has not survived.,but he is easily recognizable by his standard portrait traits -wavy hair and short rounded beard.He holds a rolled-up scroll in his left hand., and blesses the neighbouring bishop with his right, almost touching his head with his fingers.Slightly bent forward, the latter also lacks the inscription.His face is badly damaged and the only surviving detail is his long and pointed beard.Similarly to the other bishops, he wears a white sticharion with river-like stripes (potamoi), epitrachelion, polystaurion and omophoros.He does not seem to have been haloed .His arms are crossed, and the right one is slightly raised towards Christ.Jesus Christ, in a dark himation and light-coloured chiton, is standing on a low supedaneum and blessing the bishop.South of the window are four bishops with their hands raised to chest level, the first of them at a distance from the rest 15 His inscription has not survived, but the characteristic long black beard identifies him as St Basil.The bishop next to him hasalso lost his identifying inscription, but his hollow cheeks, high forehead and short beard unmistakably point to St John Chrysostom.The inscriptions accompanying the other two bishops used to be legible: St Gregory (0 &:ytO; Fpn-y6pw;), and the one at the end, St Athanasios (0 aytOt; 'Aeavacnoc;).
Its place of honour in the apse clearly shows that the scene of the consecration of a bishop was very important in Melnik's fresco programme.Moreover, it included a large number of protagonists: Christ and the apostle Peter performing the ceremony, and five holy bishops.If its many peculiarities are set aside for a moment, the scene may be said to reiterate in the main the scenes showing the ceremony of chirotony at the centre, and bishops, priests or people, blessing or acclaiming, on the sides)6 The iconography of such scenes in Byzantine art was fixed, and it only varied in details depending on which particular moment of the ceremony was depicted (laying on of hands, blessing, holding an open book over the head, etc).The old euchologia prescribed that the rite should be performed in the sanctuary and attended by several bishops: one performed the rite of chirotony of'the new bishop, another one prayed, and the rest hailed "aksios".17 The presence of St Peter at Melnik, however, is unusual in at least two respects.Firstly, he is never mentioned in the prescribed Byzantine rite of episcopal consecration.Secondly, this is the only instance of St Peter blessing a bishop from behind or laying a hand on his head.Peter's presence in the scenes of chirotony is exceptionally rare anyway.As a matter of fact, there is a single surviving example in Byzantine art: in the New Church at Tokale Kilise (tenth century) St Peter is shown standing in front of 14 Mavrodinova, CBenJU HUKOJl(J, fig.15  where he ordains Veranus as deacon.2o Other examples ofthe apostles consecrating the first bishops (Ananias, Mark or Timothy) are also found beyond the Byzantine orbit. 21The fresco from Melnik is completely lonely even in that St Peter is standing behind the bishop, and not before him as was customary and as shown in all other instances.St Peter's position behind the bishop must mean that the investiture ofthe unknown bishop is in fact performed by Jesus Christ standing in front ofhim and blessing.To the best of our knowledge, this is yet another detail which makes the scene from Melnik completely lonely in medieval art.Christ is not depicted in the scenes of episcopal consecration, except for few cases ofhis ordaining St James, the Brother of the Lord, as the first bishop of Jerusalem, all of a late Byzantine date (cf.below).Therefore, the possibility should be allowed for that Christ such as shown at Melnik might have been borrowed from royal iconography: standing before the ruler, he performs investiture and by the gesture of blessing lays emphasis on the divine origin of his power. 22e rest of the Melnik scene, behind Christ and above the three-light window, shows objects from the Ark of the Covenant: two candlesticks, a stamnos and the tablets of the Law.Not even these items are known from any other scene of chirotony.If the reason for their presence at Melnik remains unknown, the source from which they were borrowed as an iconographic detail can be reliably identified.It should be noted, however, that a carefully written study23has 62 shown that in the early centuries of Christianity the Ark of the Covenant was interpreted exclusively in ecc1esial and Christological terms, and that such was also the meaning of its depictions in the visual arts.Latin patristic literature has never abandoned this interpretation, owing above all to Isidore of Seville and Bede.>Byzantine theologians, on the other hand, began from the sixth century to associate the Ark of the Covenant and its contents with the Virgin,2S and from the twelfth century this interpretation became prevailing in Byzantine art. 26Because of the relevance of Kosmas Indi-Fig.4. Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory and Athanasios, St Nicholas, Melnik kopleustes' Christian Topography (sixth century) to the Melnik fresco, it should be noted that it interprets the Ark in cosmological and Christological terms, and so do the illuminations in its manuscript versions from the ninth (Vat.gr.699) and the eleventh century (Sin.gr.1186 and Laur.Pluto IX. 28).27The same meaning is conveyed by the depictions of the Ark and its contents in the Byzantine octateuchs of the eleventh-twelfth century whose iconography was influenced by Kosmas' Topography.tsHowever, it was already in the early twelfth-century Physiologus from the Evangelic School at Smirna (B-6), which contained excerpts from Kosmas' Topography, that these depictions were supplemented with images of the Virgin and Christ.2 9 This iconography was further developed in Byzantine art, invariably carrying Mariological symbolism, but it found no echo in Melnik.The apse at Melnik did show the Virgin above the objects from the Ark, but there was no link between them because they were separated by a horizontal red border; indeed, the Ark was associated with Christ and included into the extensive depiction of the investiture of a bishop.The iconographic origin of the objects depicted can only be traced to the abovementioned illuminations from Kosmas' Topography (Sin.gr.1186, fo1.77v and Laur.Plut.IX. 28, fo1.l07r)30 or to their version from the Smima Physiologus, where the Ark of Covenant is represented symbolically, between the columns of an arcade, by the jar of manna, Aaron's rod and the tablets ofthe Law (fo1.177 or l79r), and accompanied by a text the quotations from which were used for the inscriptions at Melnik: 'H mcTJV~, EV nf) O"'ta~voc, f) XPtlO"Tj, EXOtlO"a 'to ~avva, Kat f) pa~Bol; ~pcbv f) ~A.aO"'t~(mO"a, Kat at 1tA.aKEl; 'tTjl; Bta9~KT)l;.31This is to say that it is the Ark ofthe Covenant that was depicted at Melnik: it is not explicitly named as such and is somewhat simplified in comparison with the illuminations, but it is quite closely related to them in iconography and inscriptions.
Finally, Melnik shows four church fathers frequently depicted in the apses of Byzantine churches, Sts Basil, John 1/2, Paris 1930,315-324; J. D. Stefanescu, L'illustration des liturgies dans l'art de Byzance et de l'Orient, Brussels 1936, 135-139;Revel-Neher, L'Arche d'alliance, 44-47;Revel-Neher, Hypothetical Models, 405-411 31 Strzygowski, Bilderkreis, 59; Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographie chretienne, I, 99; H. L. Kessler, "Pictures Fertile with Truth".How Christians managed to make images of God without violating the second commandment, Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 49-50 (1991-92)   Generally and in few particular details, then, the chirotony scene at Melnik resembles older patterns, while some of its elements are borrowed from other themes of Byzantine art.The apostle Peter, Christ and the Ark pop in quite unexpectedly, while the church fathers take on a somewhat modified form so as to fit into the theme.Naturally enough, such an unusual composition has attracted considerable attention of the scholarly community, whose primary concern has been to identify the bishop being consecrated and then, based on that identification, to explain other elements of the scene.A great obstacle to them, and indeed to us, has been the loss of inscriptions and the considerable damage to the frescoes, many of which no longer exist.
At first the Melnik composition was interpreted as the bringing or "la presentation" of St Nicholas, the church's patron saint, to Christ by the apostle Peter,36 but the interpretation was soon dismissed and instead the ordination ofSt James the Brother of the Lord was assumed.t? A. Xyngo-64 poulos rightfully dismissed the view of A. Stransky that the apostle Peter presents St Nicholas to Christ, founding his dismissal on the fact that Byzantine art knows ofno example ofa saint presenting another saint, and taking him -as he put it -by the head; he also observed that the long-bearded bishop bore no resemblance to St Nicholas.wAccording to him, the chirotony at Melnik being performed by Christ, the bishop could be no other than St James, traditionally believed to have been appointed the first bishop of Jerusalem by Christ.39 Scenes of the consecration of St James do occur in post-Byzantine icon painting, but their iconography considerably differs from that of the Melnik scene: wearing the omophorion and with his hands crossed., James is shown kneeling before Christ the Archpriest who is blessing him, while apostles or angels can be shown beside them.40Relying on the descriptions of the ceremony of episcopal consecration, Xyngopoulos interpreted the role ofthe apostle Peter as that of the chartophylax, the objects from the Ark of the Covenant as the gospel, the chalice and the inscribed sheet (1t't£p6v) on the altar table, and the four church fathers as painted according to the Apostolic Constitutions, where there is a reference to atCD1tU 1tpoa£'l)XO~£VCDV of the attending clergy."He assumed the iconography to be of Palestinian origin, and explained its appearance at Melnik as resulting from indirect oriental influences spreading to Macedonia via Thessalonike.What has remained unexplained, however, is why it appears at Melnik and nowhere else.Accepting Xyngopoulos's hypothesis about St James, Mavrodinova found the explanation for its appearance at Melnik in a sermon ofKosmas the Presbyter (tenth century) condemning the Bogomil rejection ofliturgy,42 although this text in fact refers to the authors of the first liturgies, Peter, James and Basil, and only mentions the consecration of James by God in passing.
The main flaw in Xyngopoulos's interpretation, besides his many quite freely made assumptions, is in its being based on the descriptions of the rite of episcopal consecration from a late euchologion -M 362 (607) from the Patriarchate Library in Jerusalem (fourteenth century)and a text of Simeon of Thessalonike (early fifteenth century).43These are accounts ofthe fourteenth-century and later rites 44 and cannot be used in interpreting the practices of earlier epochs and their visual depictions.Ch. Walter found the hypothesis unconvincing, as it failed to explain both the theme and its display in so important a place as the apse.The absence of similar scenes with St James in Byzantine art led him -similarly to Stransky -to reluctantly identify the bishop being consecrated as St Nicholas, based on the legend about the insignia being restored to St Nicholas by Christ, but also by the Virgin.In our turn we also note that the iconography ofthis legend was different and that the bishop depicted bears no resemblance to St Nicholas whatsoever.This "curious scene" in the apse of the church of St Nicholas at Melnik being completely lonely, Ch. Walter found its interpretation impossible.s>It is exactly this loneliness of the scene, and a series of its curious details, that should take our thinking in a different direction.This primarily goes for the unexpected presence of the apostle Peter, which has not attracted much attention, but also for some other parts of the scene which, being unknown to the iconography of such themes in Byzantine art, call for reconsidering the view that the Melnik scene does not step out of the Eastern Orthodox framework and that it even communicates clear anti-heretical messages.seStransky was the only to make a cursory and unsubstantiated remark that "la presentation de saint Nicholas a Christ dans l'autel montre les influences de Rome",47 which Xyngopoulos and Mavrodinova simply discarded without any explanation.ssThat Stransky was on the right track seems to be confirmed by a few other details: the absence of two central scenes in the sanctuary, Communion of the Apostles and Officiating Bishops, from the Great Schism of 1054 the most important visual expression of the Orthodox dogmatic and liturgical tenets in Byzantine churches.s? Melnik shows the Melismos, but in the apse of the prothesisw and reduced to the Christ Child covered with an aer, on a simple bed, and two deacon angels.Obviously, the church fathers were deliberately omitted, given that the Orthodox rite of consecration of the holy gifts required their presence.t!The absence of themes otherwise compulsory for a Byzantine church, the Melismos without bishops, and the presence of St Peter at the consecration of a bishop, show clearly enough that Melnik's programme and iconography depart from the Byzantine tradition, and under the influence of Roman Catholic doctrine.
Explanation may be sought for in political and ecclesiastical developments in Bulgaria in the early thirteenth century.It is well known that between 1199/1200 and 1207 there was an intensive correspondence (preserved almost in its entirety in the Regesta Vaticana) concerning union between Rome and the church in Bulgaria.52 Negotiations were motivated by the aspiration of pope Innocent III (1198-1216) for an eastward Roman Catholic expansion and the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan's (1197-1207) to secure from Rome the crown for himself, and the patriarchal title for the archbishop of Tirnovo.Without going into a detailed political account of the negotiations,53 we shall remind that in late 1204 Kaloyan subordinated the Bulgarian church to Rome by his chrysobull.wwhich was then confirmed by archbishop Basil's oath.55Kaloyan'ssudden death before the walls ofThessalonike on 8 November 1207, the reaction of his successor Boril (1207-1218)  From what is known, the nature of the union was primarily hierarchical and canonical.The Bulgarian church did become subordinate to Rome, but dogmatic, liturgical and ritual issues are generally believed to have been left for a later phase ofnegotiations.57There are sufficient indications, however, that Innocent III raised these questions straight away.Namely, the pope permitted chrism to be prepared according to the Roman rite,58 and the Bulgarian archbishop, metropolitans and bishops were anointed because the Orthodox rite according to which they had been consecrated did not involve anointing.59 The pope authorized his legates to rectify spiritual affairs in Bulgaria and to instruct the metropolitans, clerics and people in the Petrine doctrine ("eius sequamini doctrinam et formam, cui Dominus totius ecclesie magisterium contulit et primatum").60Archbishop Basil himself requested of the pope to introduce the church order (''ut dispenses et adimpleas ordinem ecclesiasticum") and to instruct him in anointing, baptism and other matters.stThe pope added: "si forsitan dubitaveris, cum a te fuerimus requisiti, fraternitatem tuam plenius instruemus."62Undoubtedly, archbishop Basil received instruction not only from the pope, but also from cardinal Leo and other papal legates in Bulgaria.P It may be assumed, therefore, that it was their intervention that led to the omission from the fresco programme at Melnik of typically Orthodox themes, and to the creation of the curious scene of a bishop being invested by Jesus Christ through the mediation of St Peter.
In light ofthese facts, the bishop is likely to have been a contemporary of the union events.Namely, as has been shown, this can be neither St Nicholas nor the apostle James; and this is unlikely to be the bishop ofMelnik,64 because such a dignitary is mentioned neither in the correspondence between Innocent III and the Bulgarians nor anywhere else in the early thirteenth century.65Therefore, this should rather be archbishop Basil, not only because ofthe role he played in the union affair, but also because the investiture is being performed by Jesus Christ and the apostle Peter.Another clue pointing to archbishop Basil is the figure ofSt Basil the Great at the head of, and somewhat apart from, the holy bishops on the other side of the apse.66 Archbishop Basil had, of course, been consecrated according to the Orthodox rite, and in 1204, the year of his appointment as archbishop and primate of all Bulgaria and Vlachia.s? the procedure was supplemented by anointing and the bestowal of the pallium and other usual insignia of Roman Catholic prelates.In the name of the pope, the ceremony was performed by cardinal Leo.Given that the ceremony in the fresco is being performed by the apostle Peter in the name of Christ, the scene is painted and understood as the symbolical investiture of a new primate.
Such a scene, with its iconographical elements borrowed from earlier Byzantine art and somewhat modified, demonstrates the origin ofspiritual authority in Christ, which now, through the apostle Peter, is being invested into archbishop Basil.Apparently, the exact source of this composition and its meaning may be identified: the privilege of pope Innocent III to the archbishop of Tirnovo sent from Anagni and dated 25 February 1204.68 The pope begins the privilege with an exposition of Christ as the beginning of all hierarchy: "Rex regum et Dominus dominantium, Jhesus Christus, sacerdos in eternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, cui dedit omnia pater in manu."69Christ established St Peter as his deputy: "Summum apostolice sedis et ecclesie Romane pontificem, quem in beato Petro sibi vicarium ordinavit", thereby bestowing on him primacy and all authority,70 which is extensively elaborated by Innocent III in his privilege.The apostle Peter transmitted to his successors the authority conferred upon him by Christ.Accordingly, as a successor in the Petrine primacy, pope Innocent assumes Peter's role and care for the Bulgarian people ("cum ex precepto Domini oves eius pascere teneamur, populis Bulgarorum et Blachorum., qui multo iam tempore ab uberibus matris sue alienate fuerunt, in spiritualibus et temporalibus paterna sollicitudine providere volentes"),"!which gives him the right to appoint Basil as primate of the Tirnovo church: "Te quoque in regno Bulgarorum et Blachorum primatem statuimus et ecclesie Trinovitane presenti privilegio auctoritatem concedimus primatie."72The privilege contains various instructions as to the coronation ofthe tsar, the consecration ofbishops, anointing, baptism, confirmation etc.
Whether of his own volition or instructed by cardinal Leo, archbishop Basil decided to depict at Melnik not the usual scene but a more extensive symbolical representation of his investiture as primate of Bulgaria.P probably encou-66 raged by Innocent Ill's privilege.In its extensive intro-duction the pope expounded the Petrine doctrine, which obviously convinced the Bulgarian archbishop that he had been right in linking himself to Rome.Transposed into image, it expounded the origin of sacerdotal authority in Christ, its transmission to St Peter and, through him, to his successors, hence authorized to appoint new bishops.The Greek painters -certainly not fully on their own -took Byzantine patterns and modified them slightly so as to conform to a different context: the investiture of a new primate, archbishop Basil.Innocent Ill's privilege now makes it possible to explain some other curious elements of the Melnik fresco.The papal document begins with the words about Christ as King of Kings (probably the same as in the bull to tsar Kaloyan) and as priest according to the order of Melchisedech  (ps.109,4; Hebrews 6, 20 and 7,7-9).Christ brings together the Old and New Testament priesthoods and transforms them fundamentally, he is the beginning of all hierarchy and through him grace is transmitted to all those consecrated to orders.Both the Eastern and Western churches saw Melchisedech as a prefiguration of Jesus Christ.r-In the Roman Catholic Church, Psalm l09 was sung at the consecration of bishops.rswhich probably inspired Innocent III to choose it for the opening of his privilege to the Bulgarian archbishop.?« It was therefore Christ the Archpriest that was to be depicted at Melnik.Considering, however, that his iconography had not been fully developed in Byzantine art,?? he 63 This is tentatively allowed also by Bozhilov, CeOeM emioou, 168 ("Could some oral agreements not be hiding behind these documents, possibly mediated by cardinal Leo?"  496-509; 36 (1927) 25-45; E. Carnic, Apxujepej iio peoy MellXUceoeKoey,ooroCJIOllJhe XVII (1973) 17-42; XVlII (1974) 17-46.7S PL 54, col.145 (Leo the Great); P. de Puniet, op.cit., col.2602.
77 In eleventh and twelfth century painting Christ as a priest was tonsured: D. Aynalov, H06blU uKoHOzparjJUlJeCKUU o6pQ3 Xpucma, Semi-was depicted in front of or in the Ark of the Covenant, certainly according to the Epistle to Hebrews (5-10, especially 9, 11-12,24-25), in order that his role as high priest would be clearly shown.78Models for the Ark of the Covenant were found in earlier Byzantine iconography.
Other elements ofthe composition were also modified to suit the subject.The posture of archbishop Basil and the entire investiture resemble the usual scenes of episcopal consecration, the only exception being the apostle Peter introduced into the scene as Christ's vicar who, in the words of Innocent III, had been given the authority and responsibility to initiate others into the legacy he had been entrusted with.
Finally, the church fathers, introduced long before into the programmes of the apses of Byzantine churches, assume a new meaning here, their poses and raised arms substituting those acclaiming a new bishop.Standing apart from the group is St Basil the Great, undoubtedly as Bulgarian archbishop's namesake and patron saint.All this resulted in a curious scene the singularity of which only becomes explainable if viewed against a background of union between the Bulgarian and Roman churches.Hence it should be dated between 1204 and 1207, as Melnik's other frescoes.
The union was too short-lived -a few years -to have been able to make itself felt more strongly in art, even at Melnik.The omission of some distinctly Orthodox compositions seems to suggest that it impinged upon certain dogmatic and liturgical aspects.The Bulgarian side does not seem to have intended a complete break with Orthodox practices; to judge by the words from tsar Kaloyan's bull, all clergy in his country will be subordinate to Rome, but they will "teneant legem consuetudinem et obsequutionem, quas tenuerunt beate memorie imperatores totius Bulgarie et Vlachie prisci illi nostri predecessores et nos eodem modo vestigia eorum imitantes"."?This appears to find support in a letter of Demetrios Chomaten, bishop of Ohrid ( 1204).Referring to Bulgarian bishops, he says that, despite their link with Rome, they are not heretics but Orthodox, consecrated according to the Orthodox rite. 80The Synod of the Ohrid Archbishopric, however, was much harsher, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate had never revoked its condemnation of Basil's action.Not even Basil seems to have renounced Orthodoxy altogether.In the aftermath of these events, he withdrew to Mount Athos and he died there.s!This may be the reason that the scene at Melnik showed a symbolical investiture, general and neutral enough to be acceptable both for the Roman Catholic and for the Orthodox, rather than Basil's literal consecration by the papal legate cardinal Leo.And this may explain why the fresco was not destroyed or repainted in 1246, when a Greek bishop entered the city and the church of St Nicholas.

Fig. 3 .
Fig. 3. Objectsfrom the Old Testament Ark ofthe Convenant, St Nicholas, Melnik the other apostles and consecrating the first seven deacons by laying both hands on the first one's head,18 as recorded in Acts 6, 6.All other examples are related to the West, such as the scenes in the crypt of the basilica at Aquileia and in St Mark's in Venice (twelfth century), where St Peter with a pastoral staff blesses bowing Hermagoras.t? or on the altarpiece from Count Paolo Gherli Collection (about 1275), where he ordains Veranus as deacon.2o Other examples ofthe apostles consecrating the first bishops (Ananias, Mark or Timothy) are also found beyond the Byzantine orbit.21The fresco from Melnik is completely lonely even in that St Peter is standing behind the bishop, and not before him as was customary and as shown in all other instances.

Fig . 5 .
Fig . 5. Melismos, north apse, St Nicholas, Melnik Chrysostom, Gregory and Athanasios.All four seem to have been portrayed in that place for the first time in St Sophia at Ohrid (about 1054),32 and frontally.In the late eleventh century (the oldest known examples being the church of St John Chrysostom at Koutsovendi and the Virgin Eleoussa at Veljusa),33 the holy bishops, holding scrolls inscribed with liturgical texts, began to turn towards the centre of the apse and the Amnos.s-AtMelnik, they are also shown in a three-quarter view, but only in one part of the apse, and without scrolls, but with their hands raised towards Christ who is consecrating a bishop.In that way, they assumed the role of anonymous clerics usually shown in the scenes of chirotony with their hands raised in acclamation,35 This is another element that makes the Melnik fresco completely lonely in medieval art.
and the proclamation ofthe Synodikon of Orthodoxy at the Council of Tirnovo on 11 February 1211, marked the end of union with Rome, although it formally continued until 1232.56 At the Council ofTirnovo, almost all bishops who had supported archbishop Basil's union now took sides with the Orthodox bishops.