Erratum

Reviews263 merely less convincing than in the first half. Paradoxically, they are not as persuasive precisely because he succeeds so well in illustrating the Coloquio's "epiphanic vision of evil," and because the "counterweights" that he discovers are too meager to counterbalance Cervantes's pessimistic view of Man. Beyond this, some of Forcione's arguments recur a bit too frequently and become repetitive. These are, however, minor flaws. Forcione's scholarly and complex book, besides providing a fascinating and insightful analysis of the last two Novelas ejemplares, offers an incredible wealth of historical information (almost half of the book is taken up by lengthy footnotes) while it deals also with parody, satire, the literature of desengaño, the intricate relationship between literary criticism and the very act of creation, aesthetic Christian doctrines and Erasmian humanism. Just as the "responsive reader" of Cervantes will be greatly rewarded for his careful and intelligent reading, so will all those who read Forcione's latest book — and every student of Cervantes should. This is indeed a challenging work. The Universiit of Michigan-DearbornManuel A. Esteban ERRATUM In the April 1985 issue of Philosophy and Literature (vol. 9, no. 1), a line was omitted from the article by Gary Hatfield. On page 45, paragraph 2, the fourth line from the bottom should read: . . . argument to the distinctness of mind and body (A&G, pp. 114-15). Similarly, the immediate apprehension of the idea of God serves as a basis for the argument to God's existence . . . ...