As to relationship between the argument about origin
      of "Tennisspiel" and the "Pelotaspiel" of Basque
    ―Coment on the hypothesis by H. Gillmeister, Part 1.―

     Masahiro INAGAKI (Nara University of Education)


   "Kulturgeschichte des Tennis" : the masterpiece of HL Gillmeister is becoming the fo-
cus 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 devel-
oped 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. @"Pelotaspiel" can seek its origin in the sun belief of Basque
race, A"Pelotaspiel" was effective as a training for pebble fight, Bmany young men of
Basque were training in the monastery aiming at churchman, CJe de Paume is the one
which eliminate "pagan property" of "Pelotaspiel" in monastery and alter to a completely
new form of ballgame, DJoust 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.