Abstract: I posit as polar extremes of interpretative practice the well-known model of closure Dante reports as guiding or governing medieval literature and the opposed model of acknowledging different degrees and kinds of openness somewhat differently supported by Umberto Eco and Roland Barthes, that suggest the limiting considerations of "the only possible right way" and the increasing tolerance and scatter, characteristic of our time, of contingently contrived responses and associations that convey a sense of relevance but are prepared to dispense with distinctions of any strong methodological sort. Contemporary interpretation, particularly in the arts, tends increasingly to favor openness; accordingly, the artworld itself tends to accommodate artworks (installations, happenings, conceptual art, for instance) that invite open interpretations suited to evolving notions of what counts as art works. It is also true, of course, that interpretation in different fields (in history, the law, the stock market, medical diagnosis, psychoanalysis) needs to answer to professional interests that require adhering to a distinct sense of evidentiary relevance (closure). In all of these cases, the sense of rigor of interpretative practice seems to be guided by our sense of the meaningful order of parts of the entire intelligible world that we draw from in fashioning pertinent kinds of interpretations regarding what falls within the middle range between the two extremes. I offer no more than an initial scan of this changing practice, with an eye to attempting a closer analysis of its notable diversity.

Key words: Barthes, closure, Dante, Eco, interpretation, openness, persons, Weber