What do you think?
Rate this book
The Dynamite Club: How a Bombing in Fin-de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror: How a Bombing in Fin-de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror
Distinguished historian John Merriman maintains that the Age of Modern Terror began in Paris on February 12, 1894, when anarchist Emile Henry set off a bomb in the Café Terminus, killing one and wounding twenty French citizens. The true story of the circumstances that led a young radical to commit a cold-blooded act of violence against innocent civilians makes for riveting reading, shedding new light on the terrorist mindset and on the subsequent worldwide rise of anarchism by deed. Merriman’s fascinating study of modern history’s first terrorists, emboldened by the invention of dynamite, reveals much about the terror of today.
290 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
About the author
John M. Merriman
33 books63 followersJohn Mustard Merriman was Charles Seymour Professor of History at Yale University. He earned his B.A. (1968) and Ph.D. (1972) at the University of Michigan. Merriman received Yale University’s Harwood F. Byrnes/Richard B. Sewall Teaching Prize in 2000, and was awarded a Docteur Honoris Causa in France in 2002, and the “Medal of Meritorious Service to Polish Education” (Medal Kimisji Edukacji Narodowej) awarded by the Ministry of Education of Poland in 2009.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
October 30, 2010
It is a minor thing, but I need to take issue with the subtitle--the bombing that is at the center of the book did not "ignite" the age of modern terror-the author himself discusses previous anarchist bombings which inspired Emile Henry's attack on the Cafe Terminus. What stood out about the Henry bombing was the bomber himself--a highly intelligent, educated, well-liked and bourgeois young man--not the typical anarchist.
The main lesson, it seems, to be taken from the book is that if an impoverished and ignored populace strikes out from desperation, the worst thing a government can do is to make them more desperate. The author makes clear that the more the government struck back, the more they incited the radicals and inspired other people to join in. The danger of creating martyrs is a long-known one. But Merriman also shows that if you start arresting and punishing the innocent from paranoia, the innocent will no longer have any reason to avoid guilt.
Overall, a very readable look at the nineteenth-century anarchist movement, one man's turn to terrorism, and the deplorable and inhumane conditions out of which both sprung.
The main lesson, it seems, to be taken from the book is that if an impoverished and ignored populace strikes out from desperation, the worst thing a government can do is to make them more desperate. The author makes clear that the more the government struck back, the more they incited the radicals and inspired other people to join in. The danger of creating martyrs is a long-known one. But Merriman also shows that if you start arresting and punishing the innocent from paranoia, the innocent will no longer have any reason to avoid guilt.
Overall, a very readable look at the nineteenth-century anarchist movement, one man's turn to terrorism, and the deplorable and inhumane conditions out of which both sprung.
December 19, 2019
In the funniest chapter in this book, we read about the fugitive anarchists from across Europe who fled to London for sanctuary, hotly pursued by the police of pretty much every continental power, until certain parts of London crawled with informers, undercover policemen, agents provocateurs and even the occasional Actual Anarchists, one of whom indignantly tried to prove his genuine anarchist credentials by claiming to have shot at the King of Belgium.
Turns out that whole THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY thing has a lot more truth than I ever thought.
Apart from the rather strained subtitle and introduction trying to link the fin-de-siecle anarchists to modern terrorism (which: meh), this book is a detailed and scholarly history of anarchist terror focusing on 1890s Paris, which for several years early in the decade was paralysed by a seemingly unstoppable series of bombs and assassinations.
After having read several books this year on the horrific conditions faced by many working class people of the period, usually with little to no hope of improving their situation (at the time this book covers, working men did not have the vote and employers were not legally liable for industrial accidents, for instance) it's hardly surprising that the anarchist message, however extremist, found plenty of open ears.
The book helpfully focuses mostly on the history of the people and their own ideologies, but I appreciated the two points that bookend this book. First, Merriman points out that terrorism originated in ancient Rome and again in revolutionary France specifically as a tool of the state to enforce the compliance of the masses. He insists on identifying two major streams of terrorism: pro-establishment and anti-establishment, and discusses how the two have a symbiotic relationship. By the end of the book, we learn how anarchism faded away not under tougher government response but when the governments realised they needed to stop persecuting anyone who'd ever passed the time of day with an anarchist's third cousin on the street. (The main exception? Spain, where the government continued to repress anarchism with every force at its disposal, resulting in a vigorous anarchist movement into WWII).
An excellent read.
Turns out that whole THE MAN WHO WAS THURSDAY thing has a lot more truth than I ever thought.
Apart from the rather strained subtitle and introduction trying to link the fin-de-siecle anarchists to modern terrorism (which: meh), this book is a detailed and scholarly history of anarchist terror focusing on 1890s Paris, which for several years early in the decade was paralysed by a seemingly unstoppable series of bombs and assassinations.
After having read several books this year on the horrific conditions faced by many working class people of the period, usually with little to no hope of improving their situation (at the time this book covers, working men did not have the vote and employers were not legally liable for industrial accidents, for instance) it's hardly surprising that the anarchist message, however extremist, found plenty of open ears.
The book helpfully focuses mostly on the history of the people and their own ideologies, but I appreciated the two points that bookend this book. First, Merriman points out that terrorism originated in ancient Rome and again in revolutionary France specifically as a tool of the state to enforce the compliance of the masses. He insists on identifying two major streams of terrorism: pro-establishment and anti-establishment, and discusses how the two have a symbiotic relationship. By the end of the book, we learn how anarchism faded away not under tougher government response but when the governments realised they needed to stop persecuting anyone who'd ever passed the time of day with an anarchist's third cousin on the street. (The main exception? Spain, where the government continued to repress anarchism with every force at its disposal, resulting in a vigorous anarchist movement into WWII).
An excellent read.
December 16, 2023
France was so often a trendsetter in the 19th and 20th centuries that it is no surprise that it also pointed the way toward modern terrorism. This excellent book by John Merriman focuses on the case of Émile Henry, a disillusioned son of the upper classes whose father was exiled after the Commune. Henry became an anarchist, in the sense of the late 19th century, a believer in a utopian world of shared wealth without government. Where his brothers and sister in the movement favored heads of state and royalty for their bombings, Henry chose a cafe, thus becoming one of the first political activists to target random innocents.
Merriman does a fine job of showing how an intelligent and sensitive young man could be compelled to perform such an action -- staggering economic disparity, a sense of futility, and the feeling that the crimes of the state were the source of prosperity for the wealthy -- but he also shows the horrific effects of random violence on undeserving victims and the inevitable backlash of brutal oppression such acts engender. Like Merriman's other fine books, this one gives just enough detail on the world around the actions to make even obscure points completely clear.
Valuable reading and important history to know and understand.
Merriman does a fine job of showing how an intelligent and sensitive young man could be compelled to perform such an action -- staggering economic disparity, a sense of futility, and the feeling that the crimes of the state were the source of prosperity for the wealthy -- but he also shows the horrific effects of random violence on undeserving victims and the inevitable backlash of brutal oppression such acts engender. Like Merriman's other fine books, this one gives just enough detail on the world around the actions to make even obscure points completely clear.
Valuable reading and important history to know and understand.
September 24, 2022
I liked this, but it's mostly narrative history, although it's good narrative history. JM tells the story of Emile Henry as a way of exploring the age of anarchist terrorism in Europe in the late 1800s. This was a wave of loosely connected (they were anarchists, after all), individuals and small croups who carried out bombings and assassinations against bourgeois and aristocratic targets, including heads of state like William McKinley. JM explores the debate within anarchism (among figures like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin) about whether terrorism would advance their goals. Some believed that terrorism, especially focused attacks on the elite, would provoke a reaction by the elite that would play into their hands while serving as "propaganda of the deed," or dramatic public events that draw people toward the cause. Others argued that terrorism was a poor substitute for mass action and that it was unlikely to awaken the masses to support anarchist goals. The age of anarchist terror declined relatively quickly, but it was a real menace for a while that prompted an international counter-terrorism effort and a lot of sweeping arrests and violations of constitutional rights.
JM explores these dynamics through Emile Henry, who launched 2 deadly terrorist attacks in the 1890s when he was only about 20 years old. Henry was radicalized in large part by living among the destitute of Paris and engaging with some anarchist theory, but he also appeared to be pretty unhinged and deeply, psychotically hateful. Some of that hatred might have been self-loathing, as Henry was not from a working-class background but the bourgeoisie itself. It isn't all that clear what Henry meant to accomplish with these attacks; the primary driving motive seemed to be his quest for meaning and emotional fulfillment as part of a larger cause. He made little effort to defend himself at his trial beyond spouting anarchist slogans. He was guillotined and forgotten, although if you read about anarchist terrorism in that time period you may have encountered his name before.
Hence the issue with this book. While it is well researched, concise, and engaging, it isn't terribly original and doesn't have much of an argument. I wouldn't say I learned a ton of new stuff, although to be fair I have been reading and writing about terrorism for several years now. The biggest argument for the history of terrorism broadly speaking is that Henry signified a new shift in terrorist strategy because he attacked random people in a symbolic location (diners in an upscale cafe) rather than specific members of the elite. The Russian terrorist groups Narodnya Volya, for example, had attacked specific members of the ruling class, including Czar Alexander the II. This is an important shift, but I'm not sure if Henry really signaled such a watershed. There were mass casualty attacks before him by anarchists (in a Spanish opera, for instance) and after (Teh Wall Street bombing in the 1920s), and prominent assassinations also preceded and followed Henry's Cafe Terminus attack. This isn't an attempt to discredit what JM is saying; rather, it's just that this book isn't thoroughly situated in the literature. Also, for a book written in the 2000s, there wasn't an effort to compare Henry to the backgrounds and mentalities of modern terrorists, which would have been fascinating.
So this is a totally fine and interesting book that tells a good story, but the "so what" question remains a little hazy.
JM explores these dynamics through Emile Henry, who launched 2 deadly terrorist attacks in the 1890s when he was only about 20 years old. Henry was radicalized in large part by living among the destitute of Paris and engaging with some anarchist theory, but he also appeared to be pretty unhinged and deeply, psychotically hateful. Some of that hatred might have been self-loathing, as Henry was not from a working-class background but the bourgeoisie itself. It isn't all that clear what Henry meant to accomplish with these attacks; the primary driving motive seemed to be his quest for meaning and emotional fulfillment as part of a larger cause. He made little effort to defend himself at his trial beyond spouting anarchist slogans. He was guillotined and forgotten, although if you read about anarchist terrorism in that time period you may have encountered his name before.
Hence the issue with this book. While it is well researched, concise, and engaging, it isn't terribly original and doesn't have much of an argument. I wouldn't say I learned a ton of new stuff, although to be fair I have been reading and writing about terrorism for several years now. The biggest argument for the history of terrorism broadly speaking is that Henry signified a new shift in terrorist strategy because he attacked random people in a symbolic location (diners in an upscale cafe) rather than specific members of the elite. The Russian terrorist groups Narodnya Volya, for example, had attacked specific members of the ruling class, including Czar Alexander the II. This is an important shift, but I'm not sure if Henry really signaled such a watershed. There were mass casualty attacks before him by anarchists (in a Spanish opera, for instance) and after (Teh Wall Street bombing in the 1920s), and prominent assassinations also preceded and followed Henry's Cafe Terminus attack. This isn't an attempt to discredit what JM is saying; rather, it's just that this book isn't thoroughly situated in the literature. Also, for a book written in the 2000s, there wasn't an effort to compare Henry to the backgrounds and mentalities of modern terrorists, which would have been fascinating.
So this is a totally fine and interesting book that tells a good story, but the "so what" question remains a little hazy.
September 9, 2014
Recommended for history geeks
Spoiler alert: This is a story about the European anarchist environment in the late 1800s, a man - Emile Henry - who believed in certain anarchist tenets, how he decided to take action against the bourgeoisie, and his fate. It is not an argument clearly illustrating how the anarchist bombings relate to the age of modern terror, nor is it a depiction of a 'war on terror.'
A pet peeve of mine is an attempt to sell more books through misleading titles and cover-jacket write-ups. So I was irked to get to the end of this book without having read a supporting argument for "How a Bombing in Fin-de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror." I also missed the "fascinating story of a long-forgotten 'war on terror' that has much in common with our own."
There was some interesting information presented in this book, but in the end I have trouble finding a good reason for why I read it. I thought it would show the links between 19th and 21st century terrorism, but it didn't. Once I read 50 pages or so, I thought it might explore the psychology behind terrorism. It did, but only a little. Mostly, though, it was not analysis so much as a story, and not a very gripping one at that. Thus I can only recommend it to readers who love to learn and absorb information about history, for their own critical thinking stores, I would hope.
Spoiler alert: This is a story about the European anarchist environment in the late 1800s, a man - Emile Henry - who believed in certain anarchist tenets, how he decided to take action against the bourgeoisie, and his fate. It is not an argument clearly illustrating how the anarchist bombings relate to the age of modern terror, nor is it a depiction of a 'war on terror.'
A pet peeve of mine is an attempt to sell more books through misleading titles and cover-jacket write-ups. So I was irked to get to the end of this book without having read a supporting argument for "How a Bombing in Fin-de-Siècle Paris Ignited the Age of Modern Terror." I also missed the "fascinating story of a long-forgotten 'war on terror' that has much in common with our own."
There was some interesting information presented in this book, but in the end I have trouble finding a good reason for why I read it. I thought it would show the links between 19th and 21st century terrorism, but it didn't. Once I read 50 pages or so, I thought it might explore the psychology behind terrorism. It did, but only a little. Mostly, though, it was not analysis so much as a story, and not a very gripping one at that. Thus I can only recommend it to readers who love to learn and absorb information about history, for their own critical thinking stores, I would hope.
December 14, 2015
This is one of the most fascinating history books I have read in awhile. I have come across brief references to the pre-WWI anarchist movement in plenty of other non-fiction books, but I could never really find a clear explanation of what it was and what it was about. This book goes a long way toward clarifying that. The historical parallels to Jihadi extremism and the recent Paris attacks are incredible, and this seems to be a clear case of the maxim about those who forget history. I would really recommend everyone get this book and read it NOW!
August 20, 2019
A very entertaining book that served as an introduction to the Anarchy movement and the factors behind its birth. Great read to combine with Larson's "Devil in the White City"
April 23, 2021
Interesting topic but too much 'filler' material makes it longer than needed.
August 25, 2021
Next to nothing to do with modern terror (a claim used to try and sell more books?) but an enthralling book about terroristic anarchism in late 19th century France.
June 29, 2022
Interesting but somewhat flat study of a largely forgotten period of French and European history.
January 14, 2023
France was a shithole
October 13, 2012
This is a highly readable account of the anarchists in France at the end of the 19th century. Merriman builds his book around the development of Émile Henry, a sensitive and educated young man, into someone driven to violent acts by an radical ideology that seeks to address the injustices of society. The culmination of Henry's outrage at the injustices he witnesses occurs when he throws a bomb into the Café Terminus, wounding and killing ordinary people just enjoying themselves. Yet, to Henry these innocents represented the bourgeois elite who keep the workingman in poverty. Merriman had to distill a great deal of information from many sources to write this highly readable history.
The French belle époque was period of prosperity only for some, as Merriman makes clear. It was a time of great misery for many of the poor working class. This misery gave rise to a philosophy that advocated abolishing the state by any means necessary. In targeting civilians, and seeing arrest and execution for these acts of violence as a form of martyrdom, in bringing about a heavy handed repression by the government which served to increase their number, these anarchists became the first terrorists of the modern age.
Merriman sticks to a history of this particular period. He does not make blanket statements and comparisons to terrorism in the 21st century. If the reader finds such parallels, he or she is free to do so.
The French belle époque was period of prosperity only for some, as Merriman makes clear. It was a time of great misery for many of the poor working class. This misery gave rise to a philosophy that advocated abolishing the state by any means necessary. In targeting civilians, and seeing arrest and execution for these acts of violence as a form of martyrdom, in bringing about a heavy handed repression by the government which served to increase their number, these anarchists became the first terrorists of the modern age.
Merriman sticks to a history of this particular period. He does not make blanket statements and comparisons to terrorism in the 21st century. If the reader finds such parallels, he or she is free to do so.
July 24, 2011
As pointed out in yesterday's book on Ellis Island, asking emigrants point blank if they were anarchists didn't yield very good return, but this book underscores why governments kept trying. John Merriman, a master of 19th century France, reconstructs the context of the movement, including gems like the probability that most anarchist cells were inadvertently funded by agent provocateurs, the prevalence of food nicknames (Biscuit, Sauerkraut, Macaroni) and the sheer number of sad pickup lines in the English-for-Exiles phrase book made by Kropotkin ("Beautiful Comrade, I am from a very oppressed people"). All leading to the moment in 1894, in which Emile Henry decided not to assassinate a political figure or destroy capitalist property, but to pitch a bomb into a crowded cafe full of civilian collateral casualties
September 7, 2014
Merriman has drawn deeply from contemporary archives to fashion and engrossing portrait of anarchism in lat 18th century France by focusing on the life and career of Emile Henry, responsible for the bombing of an upscale Parisian restaurant. In the course of laying out his story, the author expands to cover cohorts, the working of fellow anarchists in England, Germany, Russia and elsewhere. It's all a fascinating, delightful, complete survey of a political/social movement which, for much different reasons, is echoed in our present day.
December 4, 2014
Interesting discussion of the beginning of terrorism against the general public in the hands of French anarchists. Delineates for me the argument that I've seen made re: Les Miserables and the revolutionaries-as-terrorists; they are not and cannot be considered terrorists in the same vein, as their uprising is directed at state and not populace in a period when they do not have the franchise.
October 5, 2014
An interesting survey which benefits from detailed pockets within the narrative that aren't exactly crucial to the instance of one Emile henry, anarchist, but are valuable in a broader cultural and historical context.
December 21, 2016
Very engaging, along with his Yale lectures on line on YouTube, I was hooked. The new laws of the turn of the century in France reminded me of the laws passed in the USA after 9/11. Now I'm gonna start reading about the Paris Commune, "Massacre "
March 10, 2019
The title promises something the book does not deliver. The book does not tell you how a bombing in Fin-de-Siecle Paris ignited the age of modern terror. It's the history of a guy in the 19th century who blew up a bar. Interesting history book if you care about the era.
Want to read
February 27, 2009More grist for my newfound "class war and anarchy!!" mill.
May 5, 2011
history the way it should be done
December 6, 2014
Sometimes interesting but a little too "here is a case study that explains everything!" for my taste.
May 12, 2015
Not bad, not wholly convincing in it's argument on anarchism but fills a gap in my knowledge regarding this part of history.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews