This study attempts to reconsiderate the importance of Pierce Egan(1772-1849)in the study of English Sports History. The insufficient estimation to him seems to be ascribed to the obscurity of his social saturation degree like the social stratum-around him and his influence to the people as a sports writer. Therefore in order to clarify such a social saturation in those days, this study assumpted the width of reading public as the foundation of his supporters from his work's publication styles, the rate of people's reading ability, and reading circumstances then(1);and also judged the extent of Egan's effect to the society, and if contemporary people's criticism had been good or bad, through the amount of his publication issue, contemporary people's comments, and how he had contributed to compilation of the dictionary of language(2). Egan's reading public can be grasped as a considerably wide one from such a reader as bought a few penny chapbook or broadside to a reader who could buy an expensive novel book like C. Dicken's and W. Scott's ones. Egan's plentiful social influence and contemporary society's favourable comments to him are surely admitted by numerous issues of his publications, especially which can be seen in that of Life in London, the powerful social saturation of the caracters he produced, and the relationship between George IV or a landed aristocrat, and him. Some historians have considered Egan's assertion to 'sports' as a dogmatic one until now. But Egan seems to have received a high estimation in the early part of nineteenth century, which should not be ignored. What should be considered is the fact that the victorian value fixed after the Egan's era had that of the George IV's day conversed a minus one. It may be perceived that the nowadays study of sports history is located on the extended line from the Victorian era which had given a negative value to Egan. Therefore, in clarifying an actual state of popular sports:how people in the early nineteenth century were involved in sports, a positive valuation have to be given to Pierce Egan and the importance in reconsiderating his assertion or his works should be pointed out.

抄録全体を表示

It had taken more than 10 years since the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. Athletes in the USA brought a lawsuit, 'DeFrantz v. USOC', against the USOC decision of the boycott. The purpose of this study was to clarify the contents, issues and significance of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs, 25 athletes and one member of the Executive Board of defendant USOC, have moved for an injunction barring defendant USOC from carrying out a resolution, adopted by the USOC House of Delegates on April 12, 1980, not to send an American team to participate in the Games of the XXIInd Olympiard to be held in Moscow in the summer of 1980. Plaintiffs allege that in preventing American athletes from competing in the Summer Olympics, defendant has exceeded its statutory powers and has adridged plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The district court held that the athletes and Board member had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and therefore dismissed the complaint. (U. S. D. C. District of Columbia. May 16, 1980. )In this case, the athletes' rights were not acknowledged on statutory and constitutional standpoints. However, following points are considered to be significant:(1)There were argued the athletes' rights to pursue athletes' chosen occupation of athletic endeavor as well as personal rights of self-expression and travel. (2)It gave the public an opportunity to argue on issues raised between the decision of sport organization and atheletes' merits in their future carreers. (3)It was argued on the basis of a so-called 'Sport Law'.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the process to the revival of bullfighting show from prohibition during 1919-1928 in Ehime Prefecture. Bullfighting show was prohibited in 1919 by a prefectural ordinance in Ehime Prefecture. But still the people wouldn't stop it. Against this resistance the prefectural authorities established strict regulations in 1921. They intended to prohibit bullfighting show completely in the not too distant future. The people opposed to their intention, and then undertook the campaign for the revival of it together with several members of the prefectural assembly. The prefectural authorities wouldn't change their principle at the biginning of the campaign, but eventually they were forced to change their attitudes facing the swell of the campaign. Some members of prefectural assembly, who had raised the objection to bullfighting show, began taking part in the campaign actively, and the police relaxed enforcement of laws. The bullfighting show already the crucial problem of the prefectural government's more than only the amusement in a farm area. As the result of the campaign, Kichiziro Seike, for example, who had raised the objection to bullfighting show defeated in the 16th general election of the House of Representatives in 1928. Finally, the prefectural authorities were compelled to permit the show in January 1929, not stemming the tide of public opinion.

抄録全体を表示