ABSTRACT
I welcome the initiative and its results to flesh out extensions to the original (and growing) theory of ripeness. A good theory, at least in social science, does not stand unchanged like an obelisk for all to admire, but rather grows like a tree out of the original string stem. These branches give further life to the trunk and spread its shadow over broader and broader terrain. To work in reverse, a frequent criticism of ‘mere’ history is that it has plenty of leaves but needs conceptual branches and finally a mainstem to give the events meaning and direction. Together they give the theory increased coverage and relevance. Of course, further research may discover warts in the tree, weak branches even hollowness in the trunk. The name of the scientific game is to meet such criticisms, fold them into the theory, disprove them, recognize their weakening or invalidating effect, or join in reframing the problem and planting a different kind of tree. The contributions spelled out here do not fall within the latter types but rather join in a strengthening exercise, above all by filling in absent branches not involved in the original formulation.
