[History] "Kubo" and "Ogogi": The Evolution of Power Structures as Seen in the Titles of Samurai Governments

Introduction

In Japanese history, the question of how the heads of samurai governments were addressed is not merely a matter of honorifics or common names. It is a mirror that reflects the political structures, social perceptions, and the nature of legitimacy of power in each era. Differences in titles—such as the "Kamakura-dono" of the Kamakura Shogunate, the "Kubo-sama" of the Muromachi Shogunate, and the "Ogogi" or "Ue-sama" of the Edo Shogunate—serve as clues to understanding the nature of these regimes and how the people of those times perceived power.
Titles can sometimes anticipate changes in institutions, and at other times, they become established as a way of confirming those changes after the fact. Tracing the evolution of these names provides an extremely effective perspective for deciphering the process by which samurai governments transformed from "private leaders" into "public rulers."
In this paper, I will focus on the titles "Kubo" and "Ogogi," examining from an institutional history perspective how they were established, how they permeated society, and what they symbolized. By comparing the three shogunates—Kamakura, Muromachi, and Edo—I will clarify the political and institutional contexts behind these titles and depict the evolution of samurai governments from the perspective of their nomenclature.

1. The "Kamakura-dono" and the Emergence of "Kubo" in the Kamakura Shogunate

In the Kamakura Shogunate, the shogun was called "Kamakura-dono." This title originated from Minamoto no Yoritomo establishing his base in Kamakura, and it is an honorific formed by attaching "dono" (lord) to a place name. It was a title rooted in the master-servant relationship of the gokenin (vassals), who viewed the shogun as the "lord in Kamakura," and it was not an institutional official title. In other words, "Kamakura-dono" was a name for a "private lord" from the perspective of the vassals.
The political system of the Kamakura Shogunate was based on a master-servant system of warrior bands with Minamoto no Yoritomo at the top. Although the shogun was appointed Seii Taishogun by the Imperial Court, his authority was strictly positioned within the framework of the Court, and the shogunate's rule was supported by the master-servant relationships with gokenin centered in the eastern provinces. While shugo (constables) and jito (land stewards) were established in 1185, extending influence to the western provinces, this was limited to military and police intervention and did not fundamentally change the governing structure of the provincial government offices (kokuga) or manors (shoen).
Under these circumstances, titles like "Kubo" or "Kogi" did not become institutionally established. However, there were exceptional instances where the term "Kubo" appeared. Around 1283, Adachi Yasumori, in order to counter the private control of the Hojo Tokuso family, attempted an institutional reorganization by calling the imperial prince shogun, Prince Munetaka, "Kubo," the vassals "Kubo-hitobito," and the shogun's lands "Kubo-goryo." This is thought to have included a political intent to redefine the shogun's authority as "public" and counter the private power of the Hojo clan.
However, this "Kubo" concept did not become institutionally established; rather, it was buried as the Hojo clan's Tokuso autocracy was strengthened. The shogun remained a symbolic existence, and actual power was seized by deliberative bodies such as the Shikken (regent), Rensho (co-signer), and Hyojoshu (councilors), and further by the Tokuso family's retainers (miuchibito). Under such a structure, there was little soil for recognizing the shogun as the "embodiment of public power," and titles like "Kogi" or "Kubo" were not widely used.
The characteristic of titles in the Kamakura Shogunate was that they were rooted in the image of the shogun as a "leader of a master-servant system," and there was little self-awareness or institutional backing as the head of national public power. This point would create a major difference from the later Muromachi and Edo shogunates.

2. The Institutional Establishment of "Kubo" in the Muromachi Shogunate and Its Meaning

In the Muromachi Shogunate, the background to the widespread use of "Kubo" as a title for the shogun was the intention of the Ashikaga shogunal family to emphasize their ritual relationship with the Imperial Court and position the shogun's authority as "public." This title is thought to have carried an institutional meaning indicating the shogunal family's social standing and political legitimacy, rather than being a mere honorific.
The term "Kubo" originally derives from the concept of "oyake" (public), which referred to the Emperor or the Imperial Court in ancient Japan. In the medieval period, it came to be used as a term referring to an entity that embodied national governing power, and there were examples in the Kamakura period where the title "Kubo" was attempted for imperial prince shoguns. However, it did not reach institutional establishment, and it was not until the Muromachi period that it took on substantial meaning.
In the Muromachi Shogunate, which was established after the turmoil of the Northern and Southern Courts, Ashikaga Takauji was appointed Seii Taishogun in 1338, laying the foundation for the shogunate. During this period, while emphasizing the relationship with the Imperial Court, the custom of calling the shogun "Kubo" was gradually formed. In "Teijo Zakki," written by the Edo-period hatamoto Ise Sadatake, there is a description stating that Takauji was granted the "Kubo" title by the Imperial Court, but it is also said that Takauji himself tried to decline it. In any case, it is certain that the title "Kubo" was recognized as a term indicating the shogun's ritual status.
This title became institutionally established starting in the era of the third shogun, Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. Even after Yoshimitsu transferred the shogunal position to his son Yoshimochi in 1394, he was appointed Daijo-daijin (Chancellor of the Realm) and reigned as the de facto supreme authority. Because his residence, the "Hana no Gosho," was located in Muromachi, Kyoto, the common name "Muromachi-dono" for the shogun was also born, but in ritual and public settings, the title "Kubo-sama" came to be used.
In addition, "Kubo" was also used in titles such as Kamakura-kubo, Koga-kubo, Horikoshi-kubo, and Oyumi-kubo, which were established when branches of the shogunal family went to the provinces. These branches were positioned as entities that embodied the authority of the shogunal family even in the provinces, indicating that the term "Kubo" held institutional meaning.
However, the governing system of the Muromachi Shogunate was not centralized. The shogunate established its base in Kyoto and organized institutions such as the Mandokoro (Administrative Board), Samurai-dokoro (Board of Retainers), and Monchujo (Board of Inquiry), but actual governance relied heavily on the cooperation of the shugo daimyo. The shugo seized authority over military, police, taxation, and judicial matters in each province, gradually building their own governing systems called the "shugo-ryogoku" system.
Under such a structure, a system where the shogun's orders reached the entire country uniformly could not be established, and the shogunate had a strong character as a coalition government of powerful shugo. Therefore, a title like "Ogogi," which captures the shogun as the "head of a public governing organization," did not emerge, and it can be said that "Kubo" remained merely a ritual and status-based honorific.

3. The Establishment of "Ogogi" in the Edo Shogunate and Its Institutional Background

In the Edo Shogunate, the establishment of the title "Ogogi" clearly tells of the significant transformation in the nature of the samurai government. This term does not refer to the shogun as an individual, but is a title that captures the entire shogunate regime as a "public power," and it was a word that succinctly expressed the essence of the political system of the Edo period.
The term "Ogogi" has meant "Kogi," or "public matters," since the medieval period, and has been used as a term referring to national government affairs or rulings. However, entering the Edo period, this word became established as a proper noun referring exclusively to the shogunate. For example, expressions such as "Ogogi no osadame" (the shogunate's regulations) and "Ogogi no osata" (the shogunate's rulings) meant the shogunate's laws or rulings, and were accepted by commoners and daimyo alike as "national orders."
The background to the establishment of such a title lies in the fact that, unlike the previous two shogunates, the Edo Shogunate's governing system was clearly institutionalized as a centralized national power. Tokugawa Ieyasu was appointed Seii Taishogun in 1603 and opened the shogunate in Edo, but the reality of his rule had the character of the head of an administrative organization governing the entire country, rather than just a leader of a warrior band.
The Edo Shogunate established the bakuhan system to control daimyo across the country, and through the alternate attendance system (sankin-kotai), the "one castle per province" law, and the Laws for Military Houses (Buke Shohatto), it exerted influence even over the military, finances, and personnel of the various domains. Furthermore, it placed shogunate-controlled lands (tenryo) across the country and conducted direct rule through daikan (local magistrates) and gundai (district magistrates). Moreover, it developed a central bureaucracy such as the kanjo-bugyo (finance magistrates), jisha-bugyo (temple and shrine magistrates), and machi-bugyo (town magistrates), building a system that applied laws nationwide.
Under such institutional development, the shogunate functioned not just as a samurai government, but as a "public power" that centrally handled the nation's administration, judiciary, and military. Under such a system, while the shogun as an individual was called "Ue-sama" or "Taiju-sama," calling the entire system of the shogunate "Ogogi" became established as a natural linguistic habit.
Also, the Edo Shogunate theorized its own legitimacy through the "Taisei Inin-ron" (theory of the delegation of great government). This is the idea that the shogun was entrusted with "great government" (national government) by the Emperor, and it became the ideological pillar supporting the legitimacy of the shogun's nationwide rule. In 1788, in the "Okokoroe no Kajo" presented by the Roju Matsudaira Sadanobu to Shogun Tokugawa Ienari, the phrase "the sixty-odd provinces are entrusted by the Imperial Court" can be seen, indicating that this theory was shared within the shogunate as well.
Thus, the title "Ogogi" in the Edo Shogunate permeated the entire society against the backdrop of the shogunate being institutionally established as the nation's public power. For commoners as well, "Ogogi" was synonymous with "O-kami" (the authorities), and it functioned as a term symbolizing the shogunate as the source of order and justice.

4. The Permeation of the "Ogogi" Concept into Commoner Society and Its Social Function

In the Edo period, the title "Ogogi" permeated widely not only among the samurai class but also into commoner society, including townspeople and farmers. The background to this term becoming established among commoners is the fact that the Edo Shogunate's governing system was deeply involved in the daily lives of commoners. The shogunate functioned as a national organization that centrally handled not just military affairs, but also administration, judiciary, religion, and diplomacy, and its existence was extremely familiar to commoners as well.
For townspeople, the town magistrate's office functioned as an agency handling daily administration, public order maintenance, and litigation. The rulings of the town magistrate were accepted as "Ogogi no osata," and their legitimacy was almost never questioned. In farming villages as well, the daikan and gundai offices handled the collection of land taxes and the supervision of village administration, and farmers lived according to "Ogogi no osadame." It is thought that this accumulation of administrative contact caused the term "Ogogi" to become established in the vocabulary of commoners.
Also, in religious life, such as the submission of religious census registers (shumon-aratame-cho) and the temple-guarantee system (terauke-seido), the shogunate's involvement was deep, and commoners were placed in a situation where even their way of faith was regulated by "Ogogi no okite" (the shogunate's laws). Through this, the shogunate came to be recognized not just as a political power, but as an entity forming the foundation of social order. For commoners, "Ogogi" was not a distant existence, but something accompanied by the realization of being "O-kami" that was directly involved in their daily lives.
The term "Ogogi" also frequently appears in popular culture such as literary works, kusazoshi (illustrated storybooks), and rakugo. For example, in Ihara Saikaku's "Saikaku Oyakazu" (1681), the expression "this register has been submitted to Ogogi-sama" can be seen, indicating that commoners recognized the shogunate as a "public power." Also, it is noted that while Edo townspeople called the shogun "Kubo-sama," town headmen and merchants used "Ogogi" in formal situations, and that the use of the terms was differentiated according to the social context.
Furthermore, in the provinces, the government offices of the domains were sometimes also called "Kogi." For example, in the Kaga Domain, there were cases where the government office of the daimyo Maeda family was called "Kanazawa-kogi." Because such usage was born, the shogunate was sometimes called "O-kogi" (the Great Public) to distinguish it. This indicates that the recognition that the shogunate was the sole "public power" overseeing the various domains was shared even in provincial society.
Thus, the title "Ogogi" permeated deeply into commoner society against the backdrop of the Edo Shogunate being institutionally established as a national government. It is not merely a matter of words, but also proof that commoners accepted the shogunate as the "embodiment of public order" and felt its existence in their daily lives. The shogunate's orders were understood as "Ogogi no osadame," carrying legal and moral legitimacy, and had become an important element forming the behavioral norms of commoners.

5. Institutional and Social Differences Between "Kubo" and "Ogogi"

The two titles "Kubo" and "Ogogi" have both been used as terms referring to the head of a samurai government or the government itself, but there are decisive differences in their meaning and institutional background. The two are not merely chronological paraphrases; they are titles that reflect differences in the nature of the regimes and governing structures, and they symbolize the state of power in each era.
First, "Kubo" became established in the Muromachi Shogunate as an honorific referring to the shogun as an individual. This term indicated the shogunal family's social standing and ritual status, and it was often used in contexts emphasizing the relationship with the Imperial Court. For example, after 1394, when Ashikaga Yoshimitsu was appointed Daijo-daijin, the shogun's status came to be formally recognized as "courtier-like," and the title "Kubo-sama" came to be used ritually. This meant that the shogun was positioned as an existence equivalent to the Emperor, and regardless of the presence or absence of actual political power, it indicated authority as a social standing.
On the other hand, "Ogogi" was used in the Edo Shogunate as a term referring not to the shogun as an individual, but to the entire shogunate regime. The background to the establishment of this term is the fact that the Edo Shogunate was institutionalized as a centralized administrative organization governing the entire country. The shogun was called by honorifics for individuals such as "Ue-sama" and "Taiju-sama," but when referring to the shogunate's orders, systems, or the entire government office, the term "Ogogi" was used. This indicates that the shogunate functioned as the nation's public power, not just as a leader of a warrior band.
This difference is also expressed in the subjects who used the titles. While "Kubo" was mainly used by the court noble and samurai classes in ritual contexts, "Ogogi" was a term used daily by a wide range of social strata, including commoners. For townspeople and farmers, "Ogogi" was synonymous with "O-kami," and it functioned as a term symbolizing the shogunate as the source of order and justice. In contrast, "Kubo" was strictly a term indicating the shogunal family's status, and it can be said that it was a somewhat distant existence in the linguistic sense of commoners.
Also, the presence or absence of institutional backing is an important difference. The Muromachi Shogunate had a strong character as a coalition government of shugo daimyo, and a centralized governing system was not established. There was no system where the shogun's orders reached the entire country uniformly, and shugo in various places developed their own domain rule. Therefore, there was little soil for capturing the shogun as a "public ruler of the nation," and there was no room for a title like "Ogogi" to be established.
In contrast, the Edo Shogunate controlled the various domains under the bakuhan system and built a system of direct rule over the entire country through shogunate-controlled lands. The shogunate's laws were applied nationwide, and a bureaucratic organization such as the kanjo-bugyo and machi-bugyo was developed. Under such institutional development, the shogunate clarified its character as a "public power," and the title "Ogogi" was justified both institutionally and socially.
Thus, while "Kubo" and "Ogogi" are both terms referring to the shogun or the shogunate, they differed greatly in their meaning, usage context, institutional background, and degree of social permeation. The difference in titles is not merely a matter of words, but reflects the difference in the nature of the regimes themselves, and provides an essential perspective for understanding the evolution of samurai governments.

6. Modern Analogies Seen in "Shusho" and "Sori" and the Institutional Meaning of Titles

When thinking about the relationship between "Kubo" and "Ogogi" by bringing it to the modern day, an analogy is often drawn with the distinction between "Shusho" (Prime Minister) and "Sori" (Premier). Indeed, it can be said that there is a certain commonality in that different titles are used depending on the context or institutional background, while both refer to the same person in power. However, a careful comparison is necessary regarding their meaning and institutional backing.
In modern Japan, "Shusho" is a common name referring to the head of the Cabinet, and the official official title is "Naikaku Sori Daijin" (Prime Minister). According to Article 66 of the Constitution of Japan and Article 2 of the Cabinet Law, the Prime Minister is designated as the head of the Cabinet, bears executive power, and is appointed by the Emperor based on the designation of the Diet. In other words, "Sori" is an institutionally and legally defined job title, and "Shusho" is used as a common term referring to it daily.
In this respect, the relationship between "Shusho/Sori" can be said to be closer to the relationship between "Ogogi/Shogun as an individual (Ue-sama/Taiju-sama)." That is, it is a difference in titles indicating power in different dimensions: individual and institution, symbol and organization. "Kubo" was a ritual honorific for the shogun as an individual, and "Ogogi" was a term referring to the entire system of the shogunate. In contrast, "Shusho" is a common title, and "Sori" is an official name backed institutionally. Both agree in that they refer to the same person, but the institutional weight is in "Sori."
Also, there is a difference in the situations where they are used. In newspapers and news reports, "Shusho" is often used, and in Diet broadcasts and official documents, there is a tendency for "Sori" or "Naikaku Sori Daijin" to be used. This indicates that titles are used differently between institutional contexts and social contexts, and it has a structure that runs through the distinction between "Ogogi" and "Ue-sama" in the Edo period.
However, there is also a decisive difference between the relationship of "Shusho/Sori" and the relationship of "Kubo/Ogogi." That is, while modern titles are all used within a national organization backed institutionally, "Kubo" was used ritually and customarily while lacking institutional backing. It was not until the stage of "Ogogi" in the Edo Shogunate that the shogun's authority was institutionally backed and his status as the "head of the nation's public power" was established.
Thinking in this way, the relationship between "Kubo" and "Ogogi" is not a mere paraphrase like the modern "Shusho" and "Sori," but might be closer to the relationship between "Shusho" and "Government" or "Shusho" and "Cabinet." The difference in titles is not merely a choice of words, but is located at the intersection of institutions and social perception, and the structure of power and the nature of legitimacy are engraved there.

Conclusion

Titles are born at the point where the institutions of the era and the perceptions of society intersect. The evolution of the words "Kamakura-dono," "Kubo," and "Ogogi" reflected how samurai governments positioned themselves and how society accepted them. The difference in names is not merely a choice of words, but is also an institutional trace indicating the structure of power and the nature of its legitimacy.
Even in the modern day, we capture power between institution and individual, form and substance, while distinguishing between titles such as "Shusho" and "Sori." Deciphering the institutional context behind titles should provide an effective perspective not only for understanding history but also for thinking about the state of current politics and society.
Words are the shadow of institutions, and they also shape the contours of institutions. Tracing the evolution of titles is the work of unearthing the logic of institutions buried in history, and the boundaries of "public" and "private" for each era are engraved there. Observing how those boundaries were drawn and how they have changed will become a clue for rethinking the relationship between institutions and society.