Every version of The Investiture of the Gods features a character called Xibo Hou — Lord of the West — who is none other than King Wen of Zhou, Ji Chang. But what does "Xibo Hou" actually mean? Some believe that the "Bo" (伯) here refers to a peerage rank, and since no such rank existed under the Shang dynasty, this title must be pure fiction by the novelist. This is incorrect. The "Xibo Hou" we know comes from the Ming-dynasty novel The Investiture of the Gods. Its authorship is disputed, but the author demonstrated such familiarity with Shang-Zhou history that they were clearly a scholar of considerable cultivation. The term "Xibo Hou" thus represents a widespread cultural understanding — it was not simply invented by a novelist.
In this essay, we will not conduct a philological study of the origins of "Xibo Hou." Instead, we will take the term at face value. The key lies in understanding "Bo" (伯). A "Bo" was the chief among feudal lords, one who exercised the power of military campaigns on behalf of the Son of Heaven. A Bo governing a province was called a "Zhou Bo" (also known as a Zhou Mu, akin to a regional governor in later dynasties); a Bo governing a quadrant was called a "Fang Bo." Ji Chang was the Fang Bo of the western quadrant — hence "Xibo" (Lord of the West). As for "Hou," that is because Ji Chang was a feudal lord. Whether or not the title "Xibo Hou" was actually used in his time, the later usage of this term, while debatable, is not unreasonable. So why draw attention to "Xibo Hou"? Because of an interest in the hegemonic politics of the Spring and Autumn period. Today, the Chinese character "Ba" (霸, hegemon) is used so commonly that its meaning seems self-evident. But what does "Ba" actually mean? What did the feudal lords' "claiming hegemony" and "contending for hegemony" mean to people of that era? Let us begin by tracing the conceptual origins of the "Five Hegemons." The notion of the Five Hegemons reportedly originates from the Zhuangzi, "The Great Ancestral Teacher": "Pengzu obtained it, reaching back to the age of Yu and forward to the Five Bo." Note that the text says "Bo" (伯), not "Ba" (霸) — in fact, "Ba" is simply "Bo." They are the same word. References to the "Five Bo" appear frequently in pre-Qin texts: "Duke Mu employed him, and he became as powerful as the Five Bo, dispensing the six ministries." — Xunzi, "Cheng Xiang." "He refuted all arguments against the Six Kings and Five Bo." — Lüshi Chunqiu, "Dangwu." Even in the Han dynasty, both the Book of Han and the Baihu Tong use the character "Bo" when referring to the Five Hegemons. The writing of "Bo" as "Ba" was likely a phonetic loan. The Kangxi Dictionary provides the authoritative explanation: "Ba" is a title of governance, originally "Bo"; the pronunciation shifted to "Ba." Also called Zhou Bo or Fang Bo — the chief among feudal lords — whose official duty was to convene the lords and attend the Son of Heaven, effectively ruling on behalf of the Son of Heaven. So it is clear: the "Five Ba" are the "Five Bo" — five chiefs among feudal lords who exercised certain powers on behalf of the Son of Heaven. Duke Wen of Jin (Chong'er) was reportedly granted the title of "Hou Bo" (Lord-Chief) after restoring the Zhou royal house — a position documented in the Book of Documents as "chief among lords." However, this investigation so far has only dealt with formal questions without touching on the substantive issue: what was a "Bo" in the social, cultural, and even international political system of the time? First is the question of legitimacy: was a "Bo" always formally invested by the Son of Heaven? Or could one claim the title simply by exercising certain powers and establishing a certain order? The roster of the Five Hegemons has always been debated. The two most popular lists come from the Shiji Suoyin and the Xunzi, respectively: Shiji Suoyin: Duke Huan of Qi, Duke Xiang of Song, Duke Wen of Jin, Duke Mu of Qin, King Zhuang of Chu. Xunzi, "Wang Ba": Duke Huan of Qi, Duke Wen of Jin, King Zhuang of Chu, King Helü of Wu, King Goujian of Yue. Among these, Duke Wen of Jin received the formal title of "Hou Bo." Whether Duke Huan of Qi was specifically invested as a "Bo" is uncertain, but he did receive rewards from the Son of Heaven, so his claim at least went through proper channels. Whether Duke Xiang of Song and Duke Mu of Qin held heaven-sanctioned authority as Bo is even more doubtful. As for King Zhuang of Chu, King Helü of Wu, and King Goujian of Yue — they were unlikely to have been recognized as "Bo" by the Zhou court. But they had the fist power, and the other states had to submit. What is certain is that the first two hegemons — the only two universally recognized across all lists — Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin — had Zhou royal endorsement. Later hegemons gradually did without, and did not need, such endorsement. This is the factual layer. How do we interpret it? I believe the hegemonic politics of the Spring and Autumn period represented a new political model that emerged after King Ping's eastward relocation and the decline of Zhou royal power. The practical need was that after the Zhou court weakened, the realm still required an authority resembling the Son of Heaven to provide order — as Confucius said, "Without Guan Zhong, we would be wearing our hair loose and folding our robes to the left" (i.e., living as barbarians). Duke Huan of Qi and Duke Wen of Jin made crucial historical contributions by mediating conflicts, preserving peace in the Central Plains, and protecting the continuity of Huaxia culture. They played this historical role primarily through force, and secondarily through "benevolence and righteousness" (legitimacy). This is analogous to the powerful chancellors of later ages, such as Cao Cao — the Zhou court had lost its military power, but its moral authority remained. By combining the Zhou court's moral legitimacy with the military strength of the feudal lords, the power vacuum was filled, and order was maintained on Huaxia soil. It should be noted that this is a structural analysis — I am not suggesting that Duke Huan and Duke Wen possessed this kind of historical self-awareness, treating "Honor the King, Expel the Barbarians" as a calculated strategy. On the contrary, I believe their devotion to restoring the Zhou court was entirely sincere, because that was the highest political order they could conceive of. As feudal lords raised within Zhou ritual culture, what higher achievement could there be than emulating the Duke of Zhou or Yi Yin? Duke Huan of Qi's dissipation in old age was precisely because he felt his life had reached its pinnacle — its climax — with nothing left to strive for. Yet the hegemony of Duke Huan and Duke Wen also objectively opened up a new political possibility: dominating the realm through force. The core Central Plains states may not have thought this way, but the southern "barbarians" — Chu, Wu, and Yue — bore no psychological burden of loyalty to the Zhou court. They had the power to act, and history had furnished them with every condition for achieving hegemony, so they did. What is the underlying reason? The surface cause is that the Zhou court lost its homeland in the western capital, lost its strategic terrain and troop sources, and thereby lost its monopoly on "ritual, music, and military campaigns flowing from the Son of Heaven." The fundamental cause is that the Zhou feudal system no longer suited the era's level of productive forces. By the Spring and Autumn period, productive forces could already support a militarist state characterized by bureaucracy and professional armies, built on agriculture and warfare (as Qin would later become). Any feudal state that developed in this direction would quickly acquire the power to dominate the realm. This, as I understand it, was the material foundation of hegemonic politics in the Spring and Autumn period. It was the harbinger of the Qin-Han empire. Finally, this essay was originally intended to correct a common misconception about "hegemons." We imagine a hegemon as a crude, domineering figure who rules by force alone — which is not entirely accurate when applied to Duke Huan and Duke Wen. But as hegemonic politics evolved, this image did become reality. Our modern understanding of "Ba" has been largely shaped by those later hegemons, as well as by the "Hegemon-King" Xiang Yu during the Chu-Han contention. So conventional wisdom is sometimes wrong — but its wrongness is often not as far off as we think. Common knowledge contains important historical information, and challenging it requires great caution, for the slightest deviation can lead to enormous error.