- スポーツ史研究 (ISSN:09151273)
- vol.10, pp.23-40, 1997-03-31 (Released:2017-03-18)
"Kulturgeschichte des Tennis":the masterpiece of H.Gillmeister is becoming the focus of public attention as a writing which reforms the history study of tennis until now. Especially, the hypotheses by H.Gillmeister which disprove the established theory thus far thought to bring a big dispute in future. However, I had a great doubts in parts in the argument about origin of "Tennisspiel" which was presented by H.Gillmeister. H.Gillmeister says that the "Tennisspiel" which established in monastery, namely Je de Paume, have no relationship with the old "Handballspiel" up to that time. I think they are however greatly related. Above all, I think the "Pelotaspiel" of Basque is the prior form of Je de Paume. Therefore, I pointed out the contradiction in the hypothesis by H.Gillmeister, and developed my own opinion which take the place of them in main subject. As the result, I clarify that the origin of "Pelotaspiel" is much older than Je de Paume, and the Je de Paume was "designed" by following the procedures of "Christian rationalization" of "Pelotaspiel". The grounds are as follows. (1)"Pelotaspiel" can seek its origin in the sun belief of Basque race, (2)"Pelotaspiel" was effective as a training for pebble fight, (3)many young men of Basque were training in the monastery aiming at churchman, (4)Je de Paume is the one which eliminate "pagan property" of "Pelotaspiel" in monastery and alter to a completely new form of ballgame, (5)Joust and football were the hints at that stage. Further, the hypothesis, supporting evidence, and reasoning stated above are wanting in "conclusive factor" as materials for study, therefore, to pile up further dispute is needed. Also I expect it.