THE OATH OF THE TENNIS COURT. 



FRED MORROW FL[NG. 



What was the significance of the Oath of the Tennis Court 

 of June 20th, 1789? Was it, as Professor Robinson maintains in 

 his interesting paper, ^ "in reality, only a slight although im- 

 portant advance beyond the state of affairs on June 19th?" 

 Does "the importance of this resolution lie in the fact that it 

 was the first distinct and formal recognition of the Assembly's 

 mission?" Is it true that "ail that is apparently novel in 

 the Tennis Court Oath is the clear enunciation that the estab- 

 lishment of a constitution is the essential task of the As- 

 sembly ?"2 



Or is Champion right when he affirms that this "fatal oath 

 was in truth a challenge hurled at the monarchy, a veritable 

 signal of insurrection; that the 20th of June opens the drama 

 that will end with the overthrow of the monarchy I"^ 



These interpretations are clearly quite antagonistic. Which, 

 then, is the true and which the false ? Champion is supported 

 by Aulard,^ Cherest^ and other French writers ; Professor Robin- 

 son, as far as my knowledge goes, stands alone. But such a 

 question cannot be settled by numbers nor by authority. Both 

 interpretations find support in the oath itself. The deputies 

 swore "never to separate * * * until the constitution of 

 the kingdom shall be established and placed on a firm founda- 

 tion." This would seem to justify the first interpretation. 

 But the opening words of the oath — "The National Assembly, 

 regarding itself as called upon to establish the constitution of 



1 Annual Report of Am. Hist. Association, 1894, pp. 541-547. 



2 Ibid, pp. 541, 543. 



3 Brette, A. : Le serment du jeu de paume. Paris, 1893. Avant pro- 

 pos by Champion, p. vi. 



4 Aulard, F. A.: Etudes et legons. Paris, 1893. p. 35. 



s Ch^rest, A.: La chute de I'ancien regime. 3 vols. Paris, 1884-1886,, 

 iii, 197. 



