was a counselor of the second rank in the Imperial court of Japan. The role dates from the 7th century.
The role was eliminated from the Imperial hierarchy in 701, but it was re-established in 705. This advisory position remained a part of the Imperial court from the 8th century until the Meiji period in the 19th century.
This became a Taihà  Code office in the early feudal Japanese government or daijà Â-kan.
In the ranks of the Imperial bureaucracy, the Chà «nagon came between the Dainagon (major counselors) and the Shà Ânagon (minor counselors). Imperial honors included the sometimes creation of a temporary or .
The number of Chà «nagon has varied, from three in 705 to four in 756. There were eight in 1015; and in later years, there were up to ten Chà «nagon at one time.
Any exercise of meaningful powers of court officials in the pre-Meiji period reached its nadir during the years of the Tokugawa shogunate, and yet the core structures of ritsuryà  government did manage to endure for centuries.
In order to appreciate the office of Chà «nagon, it is necessary to evaluate its role in the traditional Japanese context of a durable yet flexible framework. This was a bureaucratic network and a hierarchy of functionaries. The role of Chà «nagon was an important element in the Daijà Â-kan (Council of State). The Daijà Â-kan schema proved to be adaptable in the creation of constitutional government in the modern period.
The highest positions in the court hierarchy can be cataloged. A dry list provides a superficial glimpse inside the complexity and inter-connected relationships of the Imperial court structure.
The next highest tier of officials were:
Other high-ranking bureaucrats who function somewhat flexibly within the Daijà Â-kan were;
The government ministries were eight semi-independent bureaucracies. A list alone cannot reveal much about the actual functioning of the Daijà Â-kan, but the broad hierarchical categories do suggest the way in which governmental functions were parsed:
Left
Right
The specific ministries above are not grouped arbitrarily. The two court officials below had responsibility for them as follows: