Compared with Poland, Hungary, Romania, and other countries in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bulgaria has attracted relatively little attention among scholars outside Bulgaria. Thus, this fine study of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) by James Lindsay Hopkins is especially welcome. It is a sturdy piece of work, reflecting extensive research in the archives, comprehensive familiarity with relevant secondary sources, and a readiness to challenge historical myths that have been perpetrated in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The myths Hopkins works to dispel include the myth that Ottoman rule was religiously intolerant and resulted in complete catastrophe for Bulgaria (the “catastrophe theory”); the myth that the BOC was a national savior, almost single-handedly driving the national revival in the 19th century; and the myth of unbroken Orthodox lineage from the moment of the conversion of Khan Boris in 865 to today (the “continuity theory”). All three myths were actively fostered in Bulgaria during the years of communist rule (1945–1989). Not all historians in the communist era worked according to this template, however; S. Georgieva, for example, defying the catastrophe theory, argued in a 1979 work that, although the Ottoman conquest was violent, it ultimately brought stability and prosperity to Bulgaria. Again, Antonina Zhelyazkova argued that Islamization in the Ottoman era was the result of gradual progressive change rather than violent imposition. However, Zhelyazkova's work could not be published in the communist era and appeared in print only after 1989.

Surveying nearly 1,200 years of Bulgarian ecclesiastical history, Hopkins punctures all three myths. Where the “catastrophe myth” is concerned, Hopkins notes that many Bulgarian Christians converted to Islam for economic reasons, especially tax relief; in fact, the Ottomans reportedly turned down some would-be converts because accepting their conversions would have reduced tax revenues. Moreover, where some Bulgarian accounts falsely allege that the Ottomans destroyed the Rila monastery and dispersed its monks, Hopkins found evidence to the contrary in the archives of the Rila monastery itself. Indeed, the Sublime Porte specifically protected the property and activity of the monastery and guaranteed the rights of the monastery and its monks.

Hopkins also deflates the myth of the BOC as national savior and spearhead of national revival. While granting that the BOC had an important educational role in the medieval and early Ottoman periods, Hopkins emphasizes that the Bulgarian national revival in the 19th century was associated, in the first place, with initiatives in secular education. Moreover, when, in early 1876, preparations got underway for a rebellion against Ottoman rule, the BOC reported these preparations to the Porte. Indeed, the Bulgarian Orthodox clergy worked actively at this time to gain the Christian population's loyalty to the Ottoman government. Only after the uprising gathered momentum did the Exarch of the BOC switch allegiance and gives his support to the Bulgarian insurgency. Again, Exarch Josef I opposed the Ilinden Uprising of 1903, believing that it endangered the gains made by the Exarchate. Taking stock of the BOC's role and behavior in the 19th century, the author concludes: “it would appear that the role of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church during this vitally important national period has been embellished” (140–141).

Finally, turning to the “theory of continuity,” which alleges that Bulgaria has been Orthodox since 865, the author finds many discontinuities in Bulgaria's religious history. As early as 866, only a year after his conversion to eastern Christianity, Khan Boris sent a delegation to Rome to ask for assistance to replace the Byzantine clergy with Latin priests. Boris turned back to Constantinople four years later, only when Rome declined to grant him an archbishop for Bulgaria — a grant Constantinople was all too ready to make.

But the story of religious discontinuity does not end there. In 1202, at the time of the Fourth Crusade, the Bulgarian Church was briefly reunited with Rome (42). In the 20th century, Tsar Boris III (who reigned 1918–1943) was married according to the Roman Catholic rite. Again, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who served as prime minister from 2001 to 2005 and known affectionately as “Tsar Simeon,” had affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church for much of his life. Bulgaria is certainly an Orthodox country, but, as this book shows, its ecclesiastical history has had its twists and turns.

Hopkins had produced an important book that should be of interest to any scholars interested in southeastern Europe or in the uses of myths in promoting certain ideological arguments.