The problem which makes the boundary line of upbringing and abuse ambiguous is pointed put by legally recognizing the parental right to discipline in recent years. To discipline has, in a background, the problem which has continued being recognized, without making business and a theory into accepted theory and having questioned them again to the interpretation which has made use of corporal punishment just since Meiji, noting that it is a private chastisement means. In order to go back to the origin and to study why such an interpretation has been justified, this paper focused on the Civil Code compilation process to the Meiji 23 Civil Code, and the parental right to discipline was analyzed historically in the first half of Article 822 of Civil Code 1 clause.
Consequently, the point of argument which should also be called start involving today's parental right to discipline at the time of the Meiji 23 Civil Code promulgation was shown.
In this stage, three characters of means for educating, punishment and recovering lost honor was given to the parental right to discipline. But, "beat" was made into the outside of the range to discipline before the Meiji Civil Code enforcement, and stopped it to negative recognition, and the right of chastisement, in the core of the parental right to discipline, was not positioned.
