There is evidence to suggest that the discipline of ritual studies is currently in the midst of a golden age. Apart from a variety of approaches developed during the past century, recent contributions have given us a good deal more to think about. But where, in these contemporary perspectives on ritual, lies “knowledge� While several scholars discuss the ways in which ritual knowledge is transmitted (as in accounts of rites of passage for instance), few consider the kinds of knowledge involved in ritual and the extent to which such knowledge is shared. Who asks whether knowledge is essential to the right practice of ritual? Theodore Jennings has argued, uniquely, that ritual is fundamentally noetic, and I engage seriously with his argument here. However, there seems little doubt that theories developed by, among others, Victor Turner on liminality, Richard Schechner on performance, Catherine Bell on ritualization, Humphrey and Laidlaw on ritual commitment, Maurice Bloch on ideology, and Lindsay Jones on ritual-architectural events, in casting their gaze on other aspects of ritual, have served to complicate any straightforward understanding of what constitutes ritual knowledge through a greater emphasis on practice. My aims in this paper are, first, to shed a little light on issues relating to the position of knowledge in theories of ritual; and second, to remind colleagues that we should be wary of reducing rituals to a single quality, no matter how significant that quality might appear.
