# Era of Attacks

Part of a series on :
Anarchism :
Glossary
History
Outline :
Schools of thought
Black
Feminist
Green
Primitivist
Social ecology
Total liberation
Individualist
Egoist
Market
Philosophical
Mutualist
Queer
Religious
Christian
Jewish
Social
Collectivist
Parecon
Communist
Magonism
Without adjectives
Methodology
Counter-economics
Illegalism
Insurrectionary
Pacifist
Platformism
Relationship
Syndicalist
Synthesis :
Theory
Practice
Anarchy
Anarchist Black Cross
Anarchist criminology
Anationalism
Anti-authoritarianism
Anti-capitalism
Anti-militarism
Affinity group
Autonomous social center
Black bloc
Classless society
Class struggle
Consensus decision-making
Conscientious objector
Critique of work
Decentralization
Deep ecology
Direct action
Free love
Freethought
Horizontalidad
Individualism
Law
Mutual aid
Participatory politics
Permanent autonomous zone
Prefigurative politics
Proletarian internationalism
Propaganda of the deed
Refusal of work
Revolution
Rewilding
Sabotage
Security culture
Self-ownership
Social ecology
Sociocracy
Somatherapy
Spontaneous order
Squatting
Temporary autonomous zone
Union of egoists
Voluntary association
Workers' council :
People
Alston
Armand
Ba
Bakunin
Berkman
Bonanno
Bookchin
Bourdin
Chomsky
Cleyre
Day
Durruti
Ellul
Ervin
Faure
Fauset MacDonald
Ferrer
Feyerabend
Giovanni
Godwin
Goldman
González Prada
Graeber
Guillaume
He-Yin
Kanno
Kōtoku
Kropotkin
Landauer
Liu
Magón
Makhno
Maksimov
Malatesta
Mett
Michel
Most
Parsons
Pi i Margall
Pouget
Proudhon
Raichō
Reclus
Rocker
Santillán
Spooner
Stirner
Thoreau
Tolstoy
Tucker
Volin
Ward
Warren
Yarchuk
Zerzan :
Issues
Animal rights
Capitalism
Education
Love and sex
Nationalism
Religion
Violence :
History
French Revolution
Revolutions of 1848
Spanish Regional Federation of the IWA
Paris Commune
Hague Congress
Cantonal rebellion
Haymarket affair
International Conference of Rome
Trial of the Thirty
International Conference of Rome
Ferrer movement
Strandzha Commune
Congress of Amsterdam
Tragic Week
High Treason Incident
Manifesto of the Sixteen
German Revolution of 1918–1919
Bavarian Soviet Republic
1919 United States bombings
Biennio Rosso
Kronstadt rebellion
Makhnovshchina
Amakasu Incident
Alt Llobregat insurrection
Anarchist insurrection of January 1933
Anarchist insurrection of December 1933
Spanish Revolution of 1936
Barcelona May Days
Red inverted triangle
Labadie Collection
Provo
May 1968
Kate Sharpley Library
Carnival Against Capital
1999 Seattle WTO protests
Really Really Free Market
Occupy movement :
Culture
A las Barricadas
Anarchist bookfair
Anarcho-punk
Anarchy in the U.K.
Arts
DIY ethic
Escuela Moderna
Films
Freeganism
Infoshop
Independent Media Center
The Internationale
Jewish anarchism
Lifestylism
May Day
"No gods, no masters"
Popular education
"Property is theft!"
Radical cheerleading
Radical environmentalism
Self-managed social center
Symbolism :
Economics
Communization
Cooperative
Cost the limit of price
Decentralized planned economy
Free association
General strike
Gift economy
Give-away shop
Labour voucher
Market socialism
Mutual bank
Mutual credit
Social ownership
Wage slavery
Workers' self-management :
By region
Africa
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
French Guiana
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea
Latvia
Malaysia
Mexico
Monaco
Mongolia
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Romania
Russia
Serbia
Singapore
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Timor-Leste
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam :
Lists
Anarcho-punk bands
Books
Fictional characters
Films
Jewish anarchists
Musicians
Periodicals :
Related topics
Anti-corporatism
Anti-consumerism
Anti-fascism
Anti-globalization
Anti-statism
Anti-war movement
Autarchism
Autonomism
Communism
Definition of anarchism and libertarianism
Dual Power
Labour movement
Left communism
Left-libertarianism
Libertarianism
Libertarian socialism
Marxism
Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner
Situationist International
Socialism
Spontaneous order :
Anarchism portal
Politics portal :
vte :
The Era of Attacks (French: Ère des attentats), or the anarchist campaign of attacks from 1892 to 1894, was a terrorist campaign undertaken by various anarchist circles and actors initially against the French Third Republic, before spreading internationally. It witnessed the opposition between two tendencies within anarchism—individualist anarchists and communist anarchists—and produced the emergence of indiscrimate terrorism in the modern world. In France, the period began with the Saint-Germain bombing in March 1892 and ended with the massacre of anarchist convicts in October 1894.
This period was marked by great political, economic, and social instability, which pushed the anarchists to radicalize, notably with the development of the idea of 'propaganda of the deed' and the advent of more accessible methods for producing explosives, such as dynamite. After the Fourmies shooting and the Clichy affair (1891)—with the army firing on protesters in the first instance and the police engaging in a shootout with anarchists in the second—they entered into open conflict with the French state, that is, the Third Republic, which was perceived as the embodiment of the bourgeoisie and as an authoritarian regime. This dynamic spread and followed a parallel trajectory in other countries, such as Spain with Paulí Pallàs or Santiago Salvador (1893) and the United States with Alexander Berkman (1892). It also influenced broader struggles, such as anti-colonial movements, as in the takeover of the Ottoman Bank (1896) by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF).
This period also experienced significant waves of social panic, fueled by the press. It led the Third Republic to engage in a power struggle with the anarchists by curtailing liberties and targeting them with the 'lois scélérates' ('vilainous laws') (1893–1894). French literature was also profoundly impacted, with a number of intellectuals taking an interest in anarchism through these attacks—figures such as Stéphane Mallarmé and Pierre Quillard—as well as with the literary creation of the figure of the 'anarchist terrorist'. These events compelled Western states to lay the foundations for international police cooperation by participating in the International Conference of Rome for Social Defense against the Anarchists (1898), a precursor to Interpol.
Historians such as John M. Merriman argue that the anarchist terrorism of this period—which resulted in at most 60 deaths worldwide—should be reexamined and put in relation to state terrorism, whose single Semaine sanglante caused 260 times as many victims in one week.

## Chronology

Establishing an exact timeline for this period is challenging, but Mireille Piarotas considers that, specifically in France, it began with the Saint-Germain bombing in March 1892 and concluded with the massacre of anarchist convicts in October 1894. For Vivien Bouhey, the period in question is broader, spanning from 1890 to 1894, without any clear event-based boundaries.

## Context
### Birth and development of anarchism

In the 19th century, the anarchist movement took shape. It emerged under the same conditions that saw the birth of socialism and Marxism—namely, the industrial revolution in Western Europe and the United States, which led to a massive rural exodus to urban centers. The development of heavy industry, urbanization, and, more broadly, capitalism brought about significant changes in Western societies, which later extended to the entire world.
Within this context, a number of thinkers and revolutionaries, including Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865), Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), and Peter Kropotkin (1842–1921), defined an ideological framework. While their ideologies varied and their versions of anarchism did not necessarily align on all points, they shared a commitment to abolishing all forms of domination perceived as unjust. This included economic, political, religious, domestic, and other forms of oppression, depending on the texts.
The state was a primary target of anarchist thought, as it was seen as the entity that supported and exercised many of these dominations through its police, army, and propaganda. The Third Republic, established after the defeat of the Paris Commune, turned away from addressing social issues, which allowed the anarchist movement to grow and take deeper root in France.

### State repression, evolutions and the 'coming vengeance'

The anarchist social environment was in a very precarious situation in the early 1890s. It was subjected to significant state repression in the 1870s and especially the 1880s, with increased surveillance of anarchists, harsher sentences, the banning of their press, and numerous trials targeting them and, more broadly, far-left movements. In France specifically, this led to significant transformations within anarchist circles, which became increasingly radicalized in response to this repression and adopted new organizational methods. While anarchists had previously gathered in relatively large groups, the movement tightened around itself to evade the police, leading to the disappearance of such groups. They were replaced by sometimes nameless groups composed of only a few militants. Meeting places, which had previously been in halls rented by activists, also changed, with anarchists now gathering in more private spaces, such as homes. These developments made state surveillance of anarchists more complicated and, more generally, allowed for the emergence of the phenomenon of the lone wolf within anarchist and terrorist actions. Police was caught off guard by these changes and struggled to track all the new groups, organizations, and informal gatherings that continued to emerge as repression intensified.
In addition to these internal developments within the anarchist movement in France, neighboring states often acted similarly toward the anarchists within their borders, which led anarchist militants in Europe to develop significant mobility. The exile or flight of a large number of them thus contributed to the rapid spread and evolution of their ideas across Europe.
Moreover, the repression triggered a series of traumatic reactions within anarchist circles and among anarchist actors, who were gradually isolated from other leftist movements, such as the socialists. In this repressive context, a certain number of anarchists came to believe that vengeance against the bourgeoisie, magistrates, police officers, or any other target perceived as responsible for this violence was legitimate.
This tension erupted on 1 May 1891, during International Workers' Day, in two pivotal events. The first took place in the town of Fourmies, where textile workers' wages had dropped by 20% over a few years, leading to discussions about launching a strike. A group of a few hundred people, led by Maria Blondeau, gathered in front of Fourmies' church, where they encountered the army. After clashes between the groups, the commanding officer gave the order to fire on the crowd, only stopping when priests intervened. Ten people were killed by the army, including a child.
That same day, a small group of anarchists marched toward Clichy. On their way, they encountered four policemen, leading to a confrontation. Some of the anarchists entered a nearby bar to buy something to drink. Shortly after, the police stormed the bar to seize what they considered a "seditious symbol"—a red flag carried by the group. Gunfire was exchanged. Three members of the group, Henri Decamps, Charles Dardare, and Louis Léveillé, refused to surrender and were struck with sabers. They were then taken to the Clichy police station, where they were pistol-whipped and kicked before being left without medical treatment or water. In August, during their trial, the prosecutor sought the death penalty for all three. Two of them received harsh sentences—five and three years in prison.
These two events further radicalized anarchists in France. A group in the 15th arrondissement of Paris began calling themselves "Vengeance for Fourmies". In December 1891, the first anarchist attack was thwarted when three bombs were discovered at the Clichy police station. Jean Grave, himself a witness to the period, described the shock caused by the Clichy affair among anarchists, writing:
   Arrests and convictions followed their course, only increasing the exasperation of the anarchists. The unjust condemnation of the Clichy demonstrators, in particular, had brought this exasperation to its peak. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Several comrades, out of solidarity, resolved to avenge their companions.

### Limits of language, propaganda of the deed, oppositions

In 1877, the revolutionary Andrea Costa developed the concept of propaganda of the deed, a strategy aimed at spreading ideas by replacing words with actions in revolutionary struggles. He defended this idea before a conference of Italian revolutionaries, including a young Errico Malatesta. The concept spread within anarchist circles and was later taken up by Peter Kropotkin, who defended it in Le Révolté in 1880 with these words:
   Since action has given birth to revolutionary ideas, it is again through action that their generalization must be ensured [...]. What we need, then, is action—action and always action. Through action, we work simultaneously for theory and practice, because it is action that generates ideas and also spreads them throughout the world. [...] But what kind of action should we take? Parliaments? Municipal councils? No, a thousand times no! Our action must be permanent revolt—through speech, through writing, through the dagger, the rifle, dynamite [...]. Everything is good for us outside of legality.
Propaganda of the deed was also a way for anarchists to go beyond what they saw as the impotence of language to describe the reality they faced in modernity. Uri Eisenzweig describes this intellectual evolution as follows:
   This conception of language as a positive, transparent medium—whether or not 19th-century anarchism was fully aware of it—it was logically bound to reject, if it wanted to philosophically justify its resistance to all political mediation. [...] Hence, the almost inevitable temptation of the anarchist attack: the questioning of the denotative power of words almost necessarily generated the correlative notion of an act of communication of a non-linguistic order.
Some anarchist theorists abandoned propaganda of the deed as early as 1883, as Kropotkin came to see this method as too violent and indiscriminate. However, this tactic was later adopted both by individualist anarchists during the so-called "era of attacks" and by public opinion and the media, particularly the press, which found in the label "anarchist" a convenient categorization for this emerging form of terrorism.
In reality, anarchists were divided on this issue, and two tendencies began to emerge within the movement. On one side were the individualist anarchists, who advocated for the centrality of the individual in the revolutionary struggle and viewed organizations like unions with great suspicion. On the other side were the anarchists communists, who preferred to consider the anarchist struggle from the perspective of the masses. Although these two tendencies were closely related, and militants could move between both ideological currents, the split began to take shape in the early 1890s, particularly in response to repression and the influence of Italian Galleanist militants, who encouraged Parisian anarchists to support terrorist methods. Whereas anarchists like Kropotkin saw propaganda of the deed as a method primarily intended to spark mass reactions leading ultimately to anarchist revolution, individualist anarchists of this period adopted propaganda of the deed without necessarily attaching it to this aspect of mass mobilization. Anarchist communists, on the other hand, sought to integrate into broader anarchist struggles, participating in organizations such as unions (anarcho-syndicalism) or large action groups. Despite this emerging distinction within anarchist circles, in December 1890, French intelligence services identified the radical evolution of anarchists and noted that, at that time, most French anarchists supported propaganda of the deed:
   By common agreement, anarchists now recognize that the current organization of their groups leaves much to be desired; indeed, it has become apparent that revolutionary propaganda has so far been purely theoretical: as for propaganda by the deed, it has always been nonexisten—precisely what they now seek to remedy. To this end, it has been decided to create closed groups in various districts of the capital, composed of only eight to ten comrades, all of whom know each other well and are determined to act—not through writings and speeches, but through deeds. These small committees would first focus on the fabrication of explosive devices; then, following the example of Padlewski, they would carry out some executions. Additionally, each group would meet clandestinely in a location known only to the initiates. The date and time of the meeting would be set in advance.
The opposition between anarchists like Kropotkin and Jean Grave—who had come to reject propaganda of the deed—and anarchist terrorists, often linked to the individualist anarchist movement, such as Ravachol, became evident in the declining sales of Le Révolté in the 1890s. This journal was surpassed by L'En-dehors and Le Père Peinard, two more radical anarchist newspapers.
If the Era of Attacks was crucial for the ideological and practical trajectories that these two tendencies would later take, in reality, the conflicts within the anarchist movement were overshadowed by state repression during this period. Thus, instead of witnessing an increasing division between these two factions—a process already set in motion in the 1880s—the Era of Attacks actually saw a rapprochement and identification between the two groups. According to Vivien Bouhey, this period was marked by a 'sacred union' between these two anarchist orientations, as they gathered and supported each other in response to escalating repression. Therefore, while the distinctions between individualist anarchists and communist anarchists should not be forgotten, these two tendencies came closer together during this period rather than continuing on their divergent paths.

## Events
### 1892: Explosions and fears
#### Ravachol and Meunier

On 29 February 1892, a bombing targeted an elite residence on Rue Saint-Dominique, causing neither casualties nor significant damage. Nine days later, on 7 March 1892, the Saint-Germain bombing took place, carried out by 'Ravachol's band' a group consisting of François Koenigstein (Ravachol), Rosalie Soubère (Mariette), Joseph Jas-Béala (Béala), and Charles Simon (Biscuit). The militants targeted the home of Edmond Benoît, the judge in the Clichy affair. However, they missed their target and fled; since Ravachol did not know the exact floor where the judge resided, he placed the bomb in the middle of the building. This attack resonated in the French press and public opinion: it symbolically marked the beginning of the Era of Attacks and already reflected certain developments in terrorism during this period. It also saw the birth of the Ravachol myth and inspired other anarchists.
Four days later, on 11 March 1892, another anarchist, Théodule Meunier, began his own attacks by setting off a dynamite stick outside the Lobau barracks in the 4th arrondissement. Ravachol, dissatisfied with the failure of his attack on the judge, planned another assassination—this time targeting the prosecutor who had sought the death penalty for the Clichy anarchists. With Cookie’s help, he prepared a new bomb containing 120 sticks of dynamite. However, information from a police informant led to Cookie and other anarchists being arrested before they could carry out the attack, though Ravachol himself managed to escape.
On 27 March 1892, Ravachol placed his bomb in the building where prosecutor Bulot lived and then fled. The explosion injured seven people but did not harm Bulot, who was not present at the time. A few days later, Ravachol was arrested after being denounced by Very, the very owner of Le Very café, where he had been staying. The attacks and Ravachol’s arrest threw France into turmoil. Many foreign tourists staying in Paris chose to leave for safety reasons, while the anarchist press in the years following began publishing guides on how to make bombs and poison, such as La Salute è in voi.
On the eve of Ravachol’s trial, 25 April 1892, a bomb exploded at Le Very, targeting the café owner who had turned him in. Two people were killed, including the owner. The bomb had been placed by Théodule Meunier and Jean-Pierre François (Francis). Ravachol’s trial was assigned to the same prosecutor, Bulot, whom he had previously tried to assassinate. He was initially sentenced to life in prison but was retried in June of that year and condemned to death for a prior murder and other crimes he had likely not committed. He was guillotined on 11 July 1892, without ever revealing the location of the remaining dynamite, which the authorities never found.
Contrary to the intended effect of his execution, Ravachol’s death elevated him to the status of a martyr among anarchists. In the months following his attacks and execution, Parisian society was gripped by a panic-stricken fear of further anarchist attacks, fearing that new incidents would occur at any moment. This fear was heightened by the authorities' knowledge that workers in the suburbs of Paris had access to dynamite and were smuggling it from their workplaces for planned attacks.
Meanwhile, similar dynamics unfolded in the United States. Anarchist Alexander Berkman attempted to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick for his role in suppressing the Homestead strike.

#### Repression and Malatesta’s criticism

Throughout France, hundreds of anonymous letters were sent in the following months, announcing planned attacks or threatening landowners. The Third Republic used these bombings as justification to intensify repression against anarchists. The government expanded its network of informants, began seizing anarchist publications, conducted widespread raids, and granted full power to the Parisian police. In this context, law enforcement carried out significant arrests, such as the detention of sixty-six individuals suspected of advocating propaganda of the deed in April 1892. The authorities also expelled foreign anarchists, including Errico Malatesta.
In reality, Malatesta’s expulsion deprived the regime of a potential means to ease tensions. The Italian revolutionary opposed propaganda of the deed, as he outlined in an article titled A Little Theory, published in August 1892. In this piece, he criticized individualist anarchists for their reliance on it. While he acknowledged that terrorism and other revolutionary methods would be justifiable, he insisted that anarchists should not act “beyond the limits of necessity”. Instead, he argued that they should operate like surgeons, targeting specific enemies while avoiding unnecessary suffering. For Malatesta, anarchist struggle was inherently violent in the preparation for revolution, but he warned that “hatred does not produce love, and one cannot rebuild the world through hatred”. His stance showed the divide within anarchist circles between individualist anarchists and communist anarchists.

#### Radicalization of Henry and the Carmaux-Bons Enfants bombing

Alongside these developments, Émile Henry, initially an anarchist opposed to Ravachol’s methods, gradually became radicalized over the course of 1892. He strongly disagreed with Malatesta after reading his article and responded in a reply published in the same newspaper, L'En-dehors by Zo d'Axa. In his response, Henry emphasized that Malatesta had always called for violent and revolutionary actions, that he risked establishing new hierarchies through the anarchist organizations he sought to create, and, most importantly, that he would attempt to impose limits on individual freedom, the very foundation of anarchism. He stated:
   Will future Ravachols have to submit their plans for approval to a sort of Grand Tribunal, where Malatesta or someone else will sit in judgment, deciding whether the acts are appropriate or not?
Henry thus became progressively radicalized, drawing inspiration from a tirade by the anarchist Souvarine in Germinal, a novel by Émile Zola, which influenced him. In this passage, the fictional character declares:
   'Nonsense!' repeated Souvarine. 'Your Karl Marx is still clinging to the idea of letting natural forces take their course. No politics, no conspiracies, right? Everything out in the open, solely for wage increases... Spare me your evolution! Set fire to the four corners of the cities, mow down the people, raze everything to the ground, and when nothing remains of this rotten world, perhaps a better one will emerge.'
Above all, Henry also reacted to the brutal dismissal of Jean-Baptiste Calvignac, a socialist and trade unionist working at the Carmaux mine, after his election as mayor of Carmaux, a large-scale strike erupted within the mine and its associated glassworks. What began as a small local movement quickly spread and gained national attention, including from prominent socialists, like Jean Jaurès. This prompted the government to send in the army to force the workers to return to work. Although the social movement was not over and would, in fact, continue after Henry's death, he saw the moment when President Émile Loubet brought in the army as proof that peaceful methods would not work. He then decided to take action and carry out an attack targeting the headquarters of the Compagnie minière de Carmaux in Paris. The fact that the building he targeted was entirely occupied by members of the bourgeoisie reassured him, as he believed he would not be killing any innocents. Furthermore, if the police were alerted to the attack and managed to seize the bomb, it would be the officers who would die instead—an outcome Henry considered equivalent. The individualist anarchist was clear in his stance:
   The entire bourgeoisie lives off the exploitation of the unfortunate, and it should pay for its crimes as a whole [...] Either I would kill the rich, or I would kill the police.
After coordinating with other anarchists, Henry sent a parcel bomb to the company's headquarters at 11 Avenue de l'Opéra, which arrived on the morning of the 8 November 1892. The parcel contained a tilt-sensitive bomb, a type never before used except by Russian nihilists, making it particularly lethal. The building's concierge took possession of it and handed it over to the police. The bomb exploded at the police station on Rue des Bons-Enfants at 11:37 a.m., killing four police officers and a company worker.
News of the attack reached London, where Kropotkin, Malatesta, and Charles Malato appeared shocked by the events. Meanwhile, Henry managed to escape to the United Kingdom and was initially ruled out as a suspect. The police even broke into his room in his absence but found nothing to incriminate him. The anarchist press seized on the event to support him, with Le Père Peinard even noting that the employee was among the victims because the police had refused to move the package themselves, deeming the act "beneath them". Henry’s independence from traditional anarchist circles made it more difficult for the police to track or identify him, as their informants within anarchist organizations were unable to recognize or locate him at first.
In London, he was initially suspected of being a police informant, notably by Louise Michel. Henry engaged in polemics against anarchists in the city who rejected propaganda of the deed.

### 1893-1894: Continuation of attacks, lois scélérates, and the birth of indiscrimate terrorism
#### Continuation of attacks and birth of indiscriminate terrorism

In April 1893, Henry supported the Belgian general strike of 1893, during which the Belgian regime wavered after refusing to grant universal male suffrage. The anarchist took part in the riots that accompanied the strike and allegedly fired on the police, later expressing surprise at not having been arrested. The situation deteriorated further, and tensions spread. On 24 September 1893, in response to the torture and execution of anarchist militants in Spain, Paulí Pallàs threw two bombs at Arsenio Martínez Campos. However, he missed his target, instead killing a soldier and five civilians. He was subsequently executed.
In this Spanish-French context, two attacks occurring just days apart in November 1893 are considered the first instances of mass or "indiscriminate" terrorism. The first took place in Barcelona on 7 November 1893, when Santiago Salvador Franch threw two bombs into the bourgeois people of the Gran Teatre del Liceu, killing twenty people. A few days later, on 13 November 1893, Léon Léauthier stabbed a man named Rista Georgevitch simply because he "looked bourgeois". Georgevitch himself did not understand why he was being attacked, his first words after being stabbed being: 'Ah, this is too much, I don’t know this man'.
These two initial indiscriminate attacks were met with public and media panic, with some newspapers recognizing the unprecedented nature of these acts. They marked a significant shift in terrorism: the general public had now become a target.
On 9 December 1893, Auguste Vaillant attacked the Chamber of Deputies with a bomb, though this was a more traditional form of anarchist terrorism, aimed at state representatives and the bourgeoisie. During his trial, Vaillant defended his attack, declaring that his bomb was 'the cry of an entire class demanding its rights'. His lawyer echoed this sentiment, stating: 'If the deputies do not care about the unfortunate, the unfortunate will take care of the deputies'. Vaillant was sentenced to death and subsequently executed.
On 12 February 1894, seeking to avenge Vaillant and now embracing the concept of mass terrorism, Émile Henry carried out the bombing of the Café Terminus, before being arrested, tried, and executed. These three attacks—by Salvador Franch, Léon Léauthier, and Émile Henry—were followed by highly publicized trials, during which the new nature of this form of terrorism was openly acknowledged. Henry declared that he had intended to 'shoot in the pile', while Salvador Franch stated:
   I had declared war on the bourgeoisie and wanted to exterminate as many of these individuals as I could. The bourgeoisie condemned me to starve, and I wanted to take revenge on these traitors. I sought to dissolve society through fear. My vengeance is not directed at anyone personally but at the bourgeois entity as a whole.
During his trial, Franch also declared, 'I felt capable of exterminating the bourgeoisie en masse by myself', a statement that deeply shocked the courtroom audience. Anarchist circles recognized the unprecedented nature of these attacks. For instance, Sébastien Faure, commenting on the Café Terminus bombing in La Presse, wrote:
   What may be surprising at first glance about last night’s explosion is the choice of location made by its perpetrator. To me, this attack is linked to the execution of Vaillant; it marks the beginning of reprisals. Yet this Breton [Henry’s name was not yet known] chose a café frequented by peaceful bourgeois instead of targeting politicians, magistrates, or Deibler [the executioner]—in short, anyone directly or indirectly responsible for Vaillant’s execution.
Gilles Ferragu describes the evolution of terrorism as follows, reflecting on these changes in perspective:
   By striking 'at random', Émile Henry redefines the parameters of the attack, ultimately surpassing the old pattern of tyrannicide in favor of modern terrorism, in that it blindly targets a society defined both as a target and as an objective enemy (the 'bourgeoisie'). The very formulation used by Henry to describe his act reflects his political vision. From a social echo standpoint, as seen through its media resonance, the result is striking, defining for a long time the canons of terrorist dramaturgy and the stages of their treatment by the media: attention shifts from the victims to the investigation, then focuses on the terrorist and their trial, ultimately leading to the restoration of order through execution.
A few months after the bombing of the Café Terminus, Sante Geronimo Caserio assassinated French President Sadi Carnot by stabbing him, and was subsequently sentenced to death.

#### Lois scélérates (villainous laws)

Following the attacks by Vaillant and Sante Geronimo Caserio, the French Chamber of Deputies passed a series of three laws between December 1893 and July 1894. These laws, nicknamed the "lois scélérates" (villainous laws), aimed to intensify the repression of anarchism in a dynamic of escalating crackdown. Anne-Sophie Chambost provides insight into their novelty, writing:
   The 'marmite' of Vaillant on 9 December 1893 intensified repression to such an extent that the laws seemed to be the result of a politically opportunistic exploitation, which mistreated the principles of criminal law (presumption of innocence and the principle of proportionality of sentences). In order to exclude anarchist propaganda from the scope of press law (which was relatively liberal), the law of 12 December 1893 amended the law of 29 July 1881 in its Articles 24, 25, and 49 (creating the offense of glorifying acts deemed to be crimes, to target direct and indirect provocations; increasing penalties for provocations that did not lead to action; removing certain restrictions from the 1881 law regarding seizures and preventive arrests); the law of 18 December 1893 amended Article 265 of the Penal Code (associations of wrongdoers) to prosecute any form of agreement made to prepare or commit attacks on people or property (even in the absence of execution); after the attack by Caserio against President Carnot, the law of 28 July 1894 targeted anarchist activities by banning anarchist or anti-militarist propaganda, regardless of its form: in addition to public propaganda and press offenses, the legislator added private propaganda; the law also modified the jurisdictional rules set by the press law (substituting the correctional police court for the assize court).

## Legacy
### Influences
#### Literature

The period and the anarchist attacks that took place during it had a lasting influence on literature. In France, authors such as Stéphane Mallarmé, Pierre Quillard, and Paul Adam became interested in anarchism through these attacks. According to Eisenszweig, this interest is quite limited and focuses more on the attacks themselves than on anarchism as such. He argues, for example, that Mallarmé remained on the margins of anarchist ideology and was primarily interested in it through the lens of terrorism.

#### International police cooperation

To address the issues raised by these developments, Western states convened the International Conference of Rome for Social Defense against the Anarchists (1898), a meeting of Western police forces aimed at coordinating the fight against anarchism. This marked the beginnings of European police cooperation and heralded the creation of Interpol.

##### Influence on other terrorisms

The methods developed by Western anarchists during this period spread beyond Europe, notably to the Ottoman Empire, where they influenced the early acts of terrorism by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), such as the Ottoman Bank takeover (1896) and the Nejuik Operation (1905).

## Analysis
### Typology

According to Hélène Millot, the anarchist attacks of this period can be divided into three main categories. The first category, which is also the most numerous, involves attacks targeting symbols of power – capital, the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, the military, or the managing class. The second category consists of acts of revenge, and the third concerns attacks that fit within the logic of indiscriminate terrorism.
The idea that the attacks characterizing this period were mostly individual acts is criticized by Bouhey, who notes that, on the contrary, many attacks were organized by small groups rather than completely isolated militants.

### Nuances

According to John M. Merriman, when analyzing this period and its stakes, as well as the anarchist actors involved in terrorism at that time, one must not forget that this represents only a minimal part of the terrorism of the era. Thus, state terrorism—which predates the emergence of revolutionary terrorism—caused far more victims than anarchist terrorism. During the 1890s, anarchists killed, worldwide, at most sixty people and injured two hundred. In contrast, he points to state terrorism, of which the single Semaine sanglante (15,000 deaths) produced approximately 260 times as many victims.