When does a change in a rite become a change of the rite? The answer depends, obviously, on how the rite is individuated. But that is only the beginning of the story.

Rites are multiple rather than singular symbolic entities. That is, rites are identified by practice not with single performances, but rather with groups of performances satisfying certain specifications. In this respect, they resemble musical works and etchings, rather than paintings. How are ritual specifications formulated? There is variation, of course. They may be passed on by oral tradition, or written down, or may only be tacit though well understood in context. But in every case they lay down conditions that must be satisfield, defining a right way and a wrong way of doing things if the rite is to be realized.

AUTOGRAPHIC AND ALLOGRAPHIC RITES

Theoretically, rites may be autographic or allographic, in Nelson Goodman's terminology, depending on whether the ritual identity of their associated performances depends on the history of their production. Just as etchings are autographic in that the work identity of their associated prints consists in their common source in an original plate, so rites are autographic when the ritual identity of their associated performances depends on the linkage of their performers to a common chain of historic authorizations. Rites whose identities are not thus, or otherwise, dependent upon the historical character of their associated performances are allographic.