When viewed side by side, the episodes of negative association examined earlier constitute a history that is striking on two counts. First, because it consists of waves of actions and reactions: those exemplified by the Sallustian reaction to Thucydides, Gentillet's reaction to Machiavelli, and Rousseau's reaction to Hobbes, respectively. Although in some ways each wave is different from the ones that follow, they are also very similar. The first part of each wave is marked by a detached, provocative, and ultimately disturbing account of the workings of negative association. This is evident not only in the proclamations that accompany the actions but also, and most importantly, in the furor that characterizes the reactions. Second, the history of negative association is striking because despite the fact that it consists of a series of actions and reactions, it displays a remarkable degree of continuity and agreement. This agreement can be seen on two levels. The first of these concerns the events that gave rise to each wave of action. The Peloponnesian War, the woes of Florence, and the English Civil War make for very different settings, and yet the means by which political associations are formed in each show the same fundamental elements of collective action at work. The second level, however, is even more surprising because it concerns the reactions. After all, Hobbes's agreement with Thucydides is to be expected.