Search

The aim of this afterword is – interrogatively – to complement and compliment the preceding papers by raising some general questions concerning the relationship between poetry and forgiveness, and to do so through reflection on the work of two authors who wrote well before the period explored by the essays in the collection, yet whose influence extends significantly into it. The paper will reflect, in particular, on the way in which Dante's Purgatorio and Shakespeare's The Tempest foreground the question of forgiveness by calling for the prayers of their audience in ways that coincide with these texts' self-conscious presentation of themselves as literary artifacts. By focusing specifically on the opening of Purgatorio XI and the Epilogue of The Tempest and by suggesting an inextricable connection in these texts between meaning and the recognition of one's shortcomings, I aim to point to the value that certain perspectives on the relationship between poetry and forgiveness might have for our understanding of the meaning of poetry and of the nature of our relationship with it.

In this article I reflect on the importance of creation ex nihilo for our understanding of Dante's Commedia. I do so, in particular, by reflecting on the inextricable relationship existing in Dante's poem between creation ex nihilo, contemplation and charity. More specifically, I attempt to outline an understanding of how Dante's idea of the relationship between these three can be seen to underlie the very structure and narrative form of the Commedia. Through reflection on the relationship between contemplation, charity, and creation ex nihilo, I suggest, form and content might be seen, from a theological point of view, to be perfectly at one. Underlying these reflections are also some broader questions. What is the Commedia ultimately about? What is Dante's final end in writing his poem? What bearing does this have on our understanding of the form of Dante's text as a narrative poem? And what, in turn, are the broader theological implications of all this?

With the discovery of radium by Curie in 1898, researchers recognized that this unique radionuclide had specific biologic properties that were applicable to treating patients with cancer. In the beginning, the radium sources were placed within cavities as independent sources and, when needles were available, implanted into tissues. The first combination of brachytherapy technologies with external-beam radiation therapy was reported by Wright at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York in 1914 in the treatment of a patient with cervical cancer. Next, there was a rapid implementation of brachytherapy in the treatment of cancer by intracavitary placement of radionuclides, interstitial implantation technologies, and systemic administrations. With the development of new radionuclides, including cesium-137, cobalt-60, iridium-192, iodine-125, palladium-103, ruthenium-109, strontium-90, iodine-131, and californium-225, which had varying types of radiation emissions appropriate when properly selected in treatment of cancer, there was a rapid development of innovative technologies to treat all malignancies, especially gynecologic cancer. The evolution of events brought forth new applicators and techniques that allowed for better distribution of the radiation dosage within the tumor being treated, safer use of radionuclides, and the development of computer programs allowing for varying source applications and dose distributions within the volume implanted.