In issue 52.3, the abstract for Manish Sharma's article, “Hylomorphic Recursion and Non-Decisional Poetics in the Canterbury Tales,” contains two errors. The abstract should read as follows:

This article begins with an admittedly improbable claim: Chaucerian poetics operates via a process of “hylomorphic recursion.” This phrase means that Chaucer engineers only two elements, Form and Matter, by means of only two relations, Formalist and Materialist. The formalist relation corresponds to medieval realism: universals order particulars. The materialist relation corresponds to medieval nominalism: particulars do not conform to universals. The article deploys this organon to read the Nun's Priest's Tale and propose a new understanding of Chaucer's relationship to the major philosophical positions of the fourteenth century. Critical dispute over the nature of this relationship is unresolved because Chaucer refuses to decide between realism and nominalism. The article then turns from the Nun's Priest's Tale to condensed readings of the...

You do not currently have access to this content.