Learning Japanese History with ChatGPT, Night 2 - Part 13: Official Position or Vested Interest? The Decisive Difference Between Shugo and Jito

When discussing the institutions of the Kamakura Shogunate, "Shugo" and "Jito" are often lumped together. However, were these two institutions essentially of the same nature?

In this article, we will reorganize the institutional design of the Kamakura Shogunate from the perspective of "Shugo as an official position" and "Jito as a vested interest (right)."
First, we will confirm that the Shugo was not an entity established uniformly and simultaneously across the country, but rather an official position placed incrementally amidst the power dynamics between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate. At the same time, using the "Three Major Crimes" (Dahan Sankajo) indicated in the "Goseibai Shikimoku" (Joei Shikimoku) as a clue, we will clarify that the authority of the Shugo was limited to police powers and restricted military powers.

On the other hand, regarding the Jito, we will focus on the term "Jito-shiki" and organize what position it occupied within the "system of shiki" in medieval society—a multi-layered land governance structure where the Honke-shiki, Ryoke-shiki, and Gesu-shiki overlapped.Although the Jito was a local administrator equivalent to the Gesu-shiki, it was also a "dual-belonging" entity that was part of a master-servant relationship with the Shogunate. This point is the background for how the Jito took root in the land as a heritable vested interest.

Through this organization, it should become clearer in a three-dimensional way that the Kamakura Shogunate was not a "nationally unified government," but rather a "limited power entity" that relied on the medieval land governance order, such as the public land and manor system and the system of shiki, and shared governance with the Imperial Court.
*Approx. 8500 characters

Introduction

Last time, as part of a rough overview of the institutional history of the Kamakura Shogunate, we first focused on the "Shikken" (Regent).

The Shikken is considered to have been an institution that started with the dual wheels of the justification of "assisting the Shogun" and the authority of being a "relative of the head of the Shogun's family."

This is because the Shogun at the time, Fujiwara no Mitsutora (later Yoritsune), was merely a "Shogun-to-be" who had not even finished his coming-of-age ceremony, let alone received the Shogun's appointment, and was in a state of de facto "absence of an official Shogun."

This situation, similar to "Ema Yasutoki's succession to the Hojo family headship," suggests the possibility that the position of Shikken itself was an institution established under the strong backing and influence of Masako as the head of the Udaisho (Yoritomo) family. It can be said that the Tokuso family at this point was that unstable.

As an aside, as mentioned in the previous series, Mitsutora (Yoritsune) is "at least" a relative of Yoritomo. From Yoritomo's perspective, he was the "son of the daughter of the daughter of his older sister," and although it was quite borderline even by the standards of the time, it can be said that he satisfied the "bloodline of the Udaisho family." This point is one of the decisive differences from the later Miya-Shogun (Imperial Prince Shoguns).

Now, Yasutoki sought to stabilize the Shikken system by placing his uncle, Hojo Tokifusa, as the Rensho (Co-signer). This is considered to indicate the possibility that he used Tokifusa's authority as an elder of the Hojo family and his political track record to reinforce the legitimacy of Yasutoki's own family headship and his political persuasiveness.

In fact, as circumstantial evidence that there was no clear vertical relationship or difference in official position between the Shikken and the Rensho, I pointed out that Tokifusa continued to hold the economic base of Sagami no Kami (Zuryo). This suggests that the Rensho was in a position to guarantee effectiveness alongside the Shikken. Also, the aspect of creating authority and legitimacy by reproducing the brotherly division of important provinces by "Yoshitoki and Tokifusa," together with Yasutoki, who was Musashi no Kami, cannot be overlooked.

Furthermore, by delving into the position of Shikken, we confirmed that it had a role as an institutional buffer to mitigate the risks inherent in the Gokenin system from the beginning. This is because if the Shogun were to directly judge disputes between Gokenin, it could cause instability in the contractual relationship of "favor and service" with the losing Gokenin.

Based on the essence of this Shikken and the limitations of the function and scale of the Shogunate organization itself, we confirmed again that the Kamakura Shogunate existed as a police, military, and judicial organization to maintain the land governance order of medieval society, such as the public land and manor system and the system of shiki, while sharing governance with the Imperial Court as a "Samurai (Gokenin) Special Zone."

And regarding the fall of the Shogunate, I stated that a major factor can be found in the point that it exceeded its capacity as such a police, military, and judicial organization.

The preamble has become long, but this time, as planned, I would like to think about the institutional structure of "Shugo and Jito," which in a sense has directed the "image of the Kamakura Shogunate."

"Provinces" does not mean "nationwide"

First, when people hear "Shugo," many probably recall the explanations they have seen in textbooks and the like. For example, the entry for "Bunji no Chokkyo" on Wikipedia contains the following description.

It seems that explanations for the "Kamakura Shogunate's Shugo" are often given in a way that is roughly similar to this.

However, the most confusing part of this type of description is the word "provinces" (shokoku). If you interpret this directly as "the whole country," it could lead to a major misunderstanding.

I myself have seen many descriptions that lead people to interpret this kind of explanation as "Shugo were established throughout the country," and as a result, I believe that an image of the Kamakura Shogunate as if it were a unified national government has spread quite widely.

This may be a story that you, the readers, are already familiar with, but let's briefly untangle this misunderstanding here.

First of all, "provinces" is not necessarily synonymous with "the whole country." The so-called Ritsuryo provinces were divided into the "Five Home Provinces and Seven Circuits," totaling 68 provinces. Sometimes they are counted as 66 provinces, excluding the islands of Tsushima and Iki, and the fact that the Yamana clan in the early Muromachi period was called the "One-Sixth Clan" stems from the fact that they held the position of Shugo for 11 provinces among the family, based on this count of 66 provinces.

In conclusion, there was never a time throughout the Kamakura period when there were "66 to 68 Shugo." Although there were differences depending on the period, there were always about 4 to 6 provinces where "no Shugo was appointed." It is thought that these provinces were concurrently managed by the Rokuhara Tandai (or the Kyoto Shugo), or in the early stages, directly controlled by the Retired Emperor Go-Toba.

Particularly characteristic is Yamato Province, which was under the firm control of Kofuku-ji Temple, and no Shugo was appointed throughout the Kamakura period, or even after entering the Muromachi period (there was a nominal appointment for a time). It was Matsunaga Hisahide who later broke this Kofuku-ji control head-on with military force.

As such, Shugo were not "appointed to all provinces at once," nor was it a system that was comprehensively deployed from the beginning. There were also provinces that are thought to have been appointed later, against the backdrop of the balance of power between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate. From this, one can also read that the Kamakura Shogunate was not a "nationally unified government" that directly controlled the entire country.

What was a "Shugo" in the Kamakura period?

So, what kind of existence was a "Shugo" in the Kamakura period?

To state it first, even with the same word "Shugo," its nature is completely different from the Shugo of the Muromachi period. The Shugo of the Muromachi period were quite close to being the de facto rulers of a province, and to use a modern analogy, they were like a "prefectural governor, police chief, and private army commander all in one."

In contrast, if we were to describe the Shugo of the Kamakura period with the same metaphor, it would be more like a "police chief and regional battalion commander." In other words, it can be said that they were an "official position" that only exercised police power within the province and a very limited part of military power.

It might seem like I am stating the obvious every time, but let's check it step by step.

The point of "what a Shugo does" is said to have been reorganized in the "Goseibai Shikimoku (Joei Shikimoku)" enacted by Hojo Yasutoki. This is the regulation called the "Three Major Crimes (Daibon Sankajo)," which is almost always mentioned in textbooks and the like.

This is written in Article 3 of the Shikimoku, and the content is as follows.

These "urging the Great Guard," "investigating rebels," and "investigating murderers" are the so-called Three Major Crimes. Note that while there is currently debate about this name itself, it is not the subject of this article, so I will not go into it any further.

The "rebels" mentioned here refer to forces that resist the Imperial Court or the Shogunate with military force, and this clearly corresponds to the exercise of military power. On the other hand, investigating murderers and cracking down on night raids, robbery, mountain bandits, and pirates correspond to police power in modern terms.

Note that "night raids" does not refer to tactical night attacks, but mainly refers to the act of attacking houses at night to steal property, and is understood to be of the same nature as "robbery."

"Oban Saisoku" refers to the act of designating gokenin (shogunal retainers) who are on duty to guard the Imperial Court or the Inner Palace, and actually mobilizing and leading them to the site. It was not merely an order to "go quickly," but an important role that constituted "service" (hoko) as part of the "favor and service" (go-on to hoko) relationship for the gokenin.

Similarly, there was the "Kamakura Ban-yaku" (Kamakura guard duty), and in later years, the "Ikoku Keigo Ban-yaku" (foreign defense guard duty) was added to guard the coastal areas of Kyushu in response to the Mongol invasions.

In this way, the duties of the shugo during the Kamakura period were limited to acting as the "captain" of the gokenin within the province, carrying out police duties and military actions within a manageable scope. There was no such thing as tax collection rights or permanent personnel authority within the province, and it can be said that they were merely the "person in charge of the Kamakura Shogunate's local executive unit."

As a side note, the "province" referred to here is limited to the scope of a single ritsuryo province. If it is difficult to visualize, I believe it is not a major mistake to read it as "within the prefecture."

Important orientation of the Kamakura period shugo

However, there is another important continuation to Article 3 of the Shikimoku (Code of Judicature) introduced earlier.

Here, acts somewhat similar to those of the Muromachi period shugo are clearly listed as "prohibited items." The fact that they are prohibited by statutory law in this way means, conversely, that there were people who actually did them. And it means that it was an extremely disadvantageous act for the maintenance of the shogunate organization.

What the problem is, is as I stated in the previous article. The shogunate was an organization that existed to maintain the land governance order of medieval society, which included the "system of shiki (rights/offices)." For a shugo, who is at the end of that shogunate, to engage in acts that destroy that order themselves is, for example, like "the police becoming robbers."

It is natural for the shogunate to prohibit this, but what should be noted here is that the temptation to aim for "vested interests" was inherent in the position of "shugo" from the beginning.

In fact, Article 4 of the Shikimoku also prohibits shugo from arbitrarily confiscating land or property from criminals, and one can read how the shugo of the time were trying to line their own pockets by any means necessary.

Conversely, this also means that the position of "shugo" itself had almost no constant economic benefits. That is why one could think that gokenin who engaged in acts prohibited by the Shikimoku appeared.

Herein lies the decisive difference from the "jito." The jito was a "right" that was institutionally recognized to obtain economic benefits through local management, that is, a vested interest, and was one of the important foundations of the "issho" (one place) inherited by the family.

Basically, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the jito position is not revoked. On the other hand, regarding the shugo, as stipulated in Article 3 of the same Shikimoku,

As stipulated, they were beings who would be dismissed for "taking responsibility for violating the rules." From this point as well, we can confirm that the shugo in the Kamakura period was merely an "official position."

Reconfirming the "system of shiki"

By the way, I casually used the term "jito-shiki" (jito position) in the previous paragraph, but this is actually an important point.

The "system of shiki (rights/offices)," which has appeared from time to time in previous articles, was discussed in some detail in the previous series, but let us briefly review it here once more.

In history textbooks, this topic is often explained in sections related to the "Sekkanke period" (Regency period), specifically within the process of the establishment and development of what are called "shoen" (manors), particularly "donated manors."

First, as a result of the "Konden Einen Shizai Ho" (Law of Perpetual Ownership of Cultivated Land) officially recognizing private land, land reclamation progressed across various regions, which then developed into manors. To put this law in rather blunt terms, it was a system designed to "entrust land development to the private sector and secure new sources of revenue." Since it was an era of land taxation, where land was taxed, a manor was essentially nothing more than "land that bears the obligation to pay taxes."

Therefore, the developers of the land, known as kaihatsu ryoshu (developer-lords), would "donate" their land to higher-ranking authorities to escape taxation. This was a contractual relationship where they would "hand over nominal ownership of the land in exchange for paying a portion of the income every year." This is what would later be called "nengu" (annual tribute).

Because it was an era where "rule by man" was more prominent than "rule by law," the authorities who received the donation would designate the land as "tax-exempt (fuyu)," preventing the provincial governors (kokushi) from levying taxes. At this time, the higher-ranking person who received the donation was called the "ryoke" (manor lord), and the developer-lord who continued to manage the land locally while paying the tribute was called the "gesu" (local manager).

However, because the provincial governors continued to pressure the manors through various means, the ryoke would donate the land to even higher-ranking authorities. In other words, they would layer contracts where they "hand over nominal ownership and pay a portion of the income."

The Sekkanke (Regency families) were particularly popular as recipients of these donations from the ryoke, and here the manors gained the privilege of being "tax-exempt (fuyu)" as well as "prohibiting entry by provincial government officials (funiu)." Thus, the manors became, in effect, "national tax-free" land.

The highest-ranking nominal owner of the land was called the "honke" (main family), and the general understanding is that this established a land control structure of "honke - ryoke - gesu."

Admittedly, this is a highly simplified and popular explanation, and I should add that today, strong doubts are being raised about the very concept of "donated manors."

Nevertheless, broadly speaking, the understanding that "there are multiple layers of rulers for a single piece of land" is not far off the mark. This form of land control in medieval Japan is described as a "multi-layered land control structure."

And the honke, ryoke, and gesu are each called "honke-shiki," "ryoke-shiki," and "gesu-shiki," respectively. This "shiki" is a concept closer to "rights" than to "official position" in the modern sense, and each shiki could be inherited.

In other words, "jito-shiki" (the office/right of the jito) meant not only the "role of jito" but also the "rights as a jito," and it was also subject to inheritance.

In contrast, the shugo (constable) of the Kamakura period is basically not referred to as "shugo-shiki" (though it is not that the term is never used depending on the context).

This point is the basis for the classification mentioned last time: "shugo = official position" and "jito = vested interest (rights)."

The "Institutional Position" of the Jito

And because these "shiki" overlap as layers, forming a structure like a "mille-feuille," the aforementioned "multi-layered land control structure" is beautifully expressed as the "system of shiki."

So, where is the "jito-shiki" positioned in this system?

To state the conclusion first, the jito-shiki is functionally equivalent to the "gesu-shiki." In other words, the jito is merely an entity that belongs under the honke or ryoke and is responsible for the local management of the manor. In this respect, the jito played a role very similar to that of the gesu-shiki.

However, the decisive difference from the gesu-shiki is that the jito was ultimately an entity that was subordinate only to the "bakufu (shogun)."

It is true that the jito was in a position to pay annual tribute to the honke and ryoke. However, that was done strictly as an "agent," and it does not mean that the jito themselves were directly controlled as vassals of the ryoke or honke.

To understand this point, it is important to look at the 'Juei 2nd Year, 10th Month Imperial Decree,' which we have touched upon several times as a 'checkpoint' in the history of the establishment of the Kamakura Shogunate.

In fact, the original text of this decree has not survived, and our current understanding relies on contemporary aristocratic diaries such as 'Gyokuyo' and 'Hyakurensho.' It should also be added that 'Hyakurensho' is a later compilation of various records and, strictly speaking, constitutes a secondary historical source.

The content of the decree as it appears in 'Gyokuyo' is as follows.

The general meaning is that 'Yoritomo requested that for manors and public lands in the Tokaido, Tosando, and Hokuriku circuits,'the original rights holders should be able to hold them as before.'

In other words, it can be said that the Kamakura Shogunate was a power structure that, from its inception, held up the maintenance of the land governance order of medieval society—such as the 'public land-manor system' and the 'system of shiki (rights/offices)'—as its justification. And the Jito were the entities responsible for executing that order on the ground.

Thinking of it this way, we can understand the 'Jito-shiki' as an entity with a dual nature: it was positioned within the 'system of shiki' while simultaneously belonging to the master-servant relationship between the Shogunate and the gokenin (vassals), that is, the feudal governance structure.

Conclusion

Above, we have provided an overview of the basis for the classification of 'Shugo = official position' and 'Jito = vested interest (rights).'.

The Shugo of the Kamakura Shogunate were not established uniformly or at the same time across the country; rather, they were established to some extent 'gradually,' against the backdrop of the power balance between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate. We also confirmed that there were provinces where no Shugo were appointed at all.

Furthermore, from Article 3 of the 'Goseibai Shikimoku (Joei Shikimoku),' we can see that the authority of the Shugo was limited to the exercise of 'police power and limited military power,' specifically the 'Three Major Crimes'—namely, 'summoning for O-ban (guard duty),' 'adjudication of rebels,' and 'adjudication of murderers'—plus the suppression of night raids, robbery, mountain bandits, and pirates.

However, we can also read from the articles of the Shikimoku that there was an inherent movement aiming for 'vested interest' from this period onward. From this point, I pointed out the possibility that 'the official position of Shugo itself lacked constant economic benefits.'

Also, from the provisions of the Shikimoku, we confirmed that a Shugo could be dismissed for 'taking responsibility for violating rules,' and that they were nothing more than an official position as 'the person in charge of the Kamakura Shogunate's local executive unit.'

As a premise for this, we re-examined the 'system of shiki.' The medieval land governance structure was a multi-layered one where 'multiple layers of rulers existed on a single piece of land,' and it is understood with the image of 'honke-shiki,' 'ryoke-shiki,' and 'gesu-shiki' layered like a mille-feuille.

The 'Jito-shiki' was positioned as equivalent to 'gesu-shiki' within this system of shiki, while at the same time belonging to another system—the master-servant relationship between the Shogunate and the gokenin, or 'feudal governance'—making it, so to speak, a 'dual-belonging' entity.

In this sense, although their nature differs from that of the Shugo, the Jito can also be positioned as a 'local executive unit' for maintaining the land governance order of medieval society, such as the 'public land-manor system' and the 'system of shiki,' which were the reasons for the Kamakura Shogunate's existence.

From these points, it becomes clear that the Kamakura Shogunate was fundamentally an entity dependent on the 'medieval land governance order,' and it was a regime that could not have been established without the normal functioning of the Emperor and the Imperial Court, which were the basis for the 'public land-manor system' and the 'system of shiki.'

In this sense, we can understand the Kamakura Shogunate as a 'limited power structure' that primarily took on military and police functions in a 'shared governance with the Imperial Court.'

I am currently considering the topic for next time, but it will likely be either continuing the organization of institutional history a bit more, or finally beginning an examination with Hojo Tokimune as the main character. Or, it might be something completely different... (laughs)

Well then, look forward to the next installment.

*This text was created through a collaboration where I wrote the original draft, and ChatGPT performed fact-checking and rewriting (with some minor final manual edits).

[Related Links]