EMPERORS

Order of Succession Name Date

97th Sovereign Go-Murakami A.D. 1339-1368

98th Chokei 1368-1372

99th Go-Kameyama 1372-1392

100th Go-Komatsu 1392-1412

101st Shoko 1412-1428

102d Go-Hanazono 1428-1465

103d Go-Tsuchimikado 1465-1500

104th Go-Kashiwabara 1500-1526

105th Go-Nara 1526-1557

106th Okimachi 1557-1586

107th Go-Yozei 1586-1611

THE sovereigns of the Northern Court, not being recognized as
legitimate by Japanese annalists, are excluded from the above list.
Go-Komatsu, however, is made an exception. He reigned from 1382 to
1392 as representing the Northern Court, and thereafter, the two
Courts having ceased their rivalry, he reigned undisputed until 1412.
It has further to be noted that many histories make the number of
sovereigns greater by two than the figures recorded in the lists of
this volume. That is because the histories in question count as two
the Empresses Kogyoku (642-645) and Saimei (655-661), although they
represent the same sovereign under different names, and because they
adopt a similar method of reckoning in the case of the Empresses
Koken (749-758) and Shotoku (765-770), whereas in this volume the
actual number of sovereigns is alone recorded.

THE COURT

The interval between the close of the fifteenth century and the end
of the sixteenth is set apart by Japanese annalists as the most
disturbed period of the country's history and is distinguished by the
term Sengoku Jidai, or the Epoch of Wars. It would be more accurate
to date the beginning of that evil time from the Onin year-period
(1467-1469); for in the Onin era practical recognition was extended
to the principle that the right of succession to a family estate
justifies appeal to arms, and that such combats are beyond the
purview of the central authority. There ensued disturbances
constantly increasing in area and intensity, and not only involving
finally the ruin of the Ashikaga shogunate but also subverting all
law, order, and morality. Sons turned their hand against fathers,
brothers against brothers, and vassals against chiefs. Nevertheless,
amid this subversion of ethics and supremacy of the sword, there
remained always some who reve