The appearance of Yuliya Ilchuk's thought-provoking study of Nikolai Gogol΄'s oeuvre within the context of his national identity is very timely. Ilchuk acknowledges that recent tensions between Russia and Ukraine have intensified the centuries-old tendency to view relations between Russia and Ukraine in colonial terms. The question of colonialism also extends to the cultural sphere as scholars, often shaping their understanding of Gogol΄'s identity based on their perception of the colonial relationship between Russia and Ukraine, continue to debate whether we should view Gogol΄ primarily as a Russian or a Ukrainian writer.

In an effort to provide a more nuanced and less polarized image of Gogol΄, Ilchuk, pointing to Gogol΄'s self-professed uncertainty as to whether he has a Ukrainian or a Russian soul, focuses on his hybrid identity. She employs postcolonial theory inasmuch as it highlights “the growing agency of the colonized, who from a passive, speechless subaltern has become a subject capable of speaking back to the centre” (5). She posits that Gogol΄'s hybrid identity created a dialogic narrative voice “that delivered different messages to Russian and Ukrainian audiences” and was therefore “culturally performative” (16).

In examining Gogol΄'s hybrid identity, Ilchuk provides invaluable historical background as she traces the challenges facing other Ukrainian intellectuals and writers as they tried to negotiate their national identity within the sphere of Russian cultural influence. She then explores Gogol΄'s presentation of self in Russian society as he dealt with “a sense of non-belonging” and of being “the colonial other” (49, 50). In fashioning his identity, he strove simultaneously “to participate in polite society” while at the same time “imitating and ridiculing its codes” (65). He thereby could “assert his ethnic and cultural difference” while also transforming “mimicry of the imperial centre into mockery” (66).

Shifting her focus to Gogol΄'s hybridized language, Ilchuk then examines how Gogol΄, by creating “his own variant of Russian,” could both reaffirm his connection with Ukrainian culture and communicate effectively with his Russian readers (70, 72, 80). She suggests that, throughout his career, Gogol΄ displayed heteroglossia in his letters and literary works and adapted the degree to which he included Ukrainianisms based on the background of his correspondents and on his artistic purposes. However, after the adoption of Official Nationalism in 1832, “any deviation from linguistic correctness, not to mention the use of Ukrainian proper, was taken as a sign of disloyalty to the empire” (101). That was one factor that led Gogol΄ “to eliminate many Ukrainian elements from the first editions of Evenings and Mirgorod” (103).

Ilchuk highlights the fact that Gogol΄ made substantial changes from the original manuscripts to the published versions of many of his works and then substantially revised some works after publication. In addition, with the 1842 and 1855 editions of Gogol΄'s Complete Works, his editors made numerous changes that Gogol΄ did not have an opportunity to review and approve. The various layers of Gogol΄'s texts thereby produced “the effect of a palimpsest” (126). Ilchuk contends that a careful study of these layers is key to understanding the hybrid nature of his texts and his artistic aims. She provides a detailed examination of Taras Bulba and the changes from the 1835 redaction to the version of 1842. Her thought-provoking analysis provides important insights into Gogol΄'s views of national and cultural identity and calls into question traditional interpretations of the revised text. Ilchuk also explores textual changes pertaining to lyrical digressions in the drafts of Dead Souls. Unlike with Taras Bulba, however, she does not cite earlier drafts for the sake of comparison or provide references for them, so that analysis is not as penetrating.

My only substantive criticism of the book pertains to proofreading. In reviewing a sampling of the notes, I found a number of incorrect page citations and three instances in which the wrong work was cited. In the text itself, I found two instances in which a quotation was attributed to the wrong scholar as well as a few quotations from Gogol΄'s letters that did not include a reference. Moreover, the description in Appendix 2 of plot changes in the 1842 redaction of Taras Bulba includes some minor inaccuracies.

Proofreading issues notwithstanding, Ilchuk's exploration of Gogol΄'s hybrid identity and language raises fascinating questions and provides profound insights, and her book is a valuable contribution to Gogolian scholarship. The issues and questions she raises provide fertile ground for additional scholarship, and that is a mark of a genuinely significant book.