Shàngshū quán jiě 尚書全解
The Complete Glossing of the Shàngshū by 林之奇
About the work
A monumental Southern-Sòng Shàngshū commentary in forty juàn by Lín Zhīqí 林之奇 (1112–1176) of Sānshān 三山 (Fúzhōu, Fújiàn) — pupil of Lǚ Běnzhōng 呂本中 and teacher of Lǚ Zǔqiān 呂祖謙 (呂祖謙). The work treats the entire 58-pian Méi Zé recension of the Shàngshū (see KR1b0001) and is methodologically a moderate Sòng yìli commentary that makes careful use of the Hàn-period (Pseudo-)Kǒng Ānguó zhuàn while supplementing with Sòng-period readings.
The work’s sample style: brief expository introduction; selective citation of the (Pseudo-)Kǒng glosses; quotation and discussion of variant readings (Zhèng Xuán, Wáng Sù, Sòng commentators); careful philological-philosophical pace. Lín takes the principle that “the explication of a canon should be valued for concision; multiplicity is not difficulty — concision is difficulty” (說經之體貴不費辭… 以約為難不以多為難), citing the historical example of Qín Jìnjūn’s 秦近君 ten-myriad-character explanation of two characters of the Yáo diǎn opening — a cautionary tale against verbosity. This commitment to concision is one of the work’s distinctive methodological positions.
The work was the principal Southern-Sòng Fújiàn Shàngshū commentary, complementing Sū Shì’s Shū zhuàn (KR1b0006) of the Sū-school tradition; together they constitute the dominant Northern-Sòng / Southern-Sòng-transition Shàngshū corpus. Lín’s pupil Lǚ Zǔqiān would carry the Mǐn-region Shàngshū tradition forward.
Tiyao
The Sìkù tíyào on Lín Zhīqí’s Shàngshū quán jiě is preserved in the Shū-class section.
Abstract
Composition is bracketed by Lín’s mature scholarship through his death in 1176; the bracket here adopts a generous range. The work is undated internally but represents Lín’s life-work on the Shàngshū.
The work is the second-major Southern-Sòng Shàngshū commentary (after Sū Shì’s KR1b0006) and is methodologically distinct from both: more philologically grounded than Sū Shì’s, more concision-focused than the later Cài Chén tradition would be. The methodological commitment to concision — articulated in the cited polemic against Qín Jìnjūn — represents a Sòng-period methodological reaction against the more elaborate Hàn-period scholastic tradition.
The work belongs to the broader Mǐn-region (Fújiàn) Sòng-period Shàngshū tradition that would continue through Lǚ Zǔqiān, Cài Chén, and ultimately the YuánMíng Shàngshū synthesis. As the principal mid-twelfth-century document of this tradition, it is essential reading for the history of Sòng-period Shàngshū learning.
Translations and research
No major Western-language monograph specifically on the Quán jiě located. For the broader Sòng Shàngshū tradition see Peter Bol, “This Culture of Ours” (Stanford, 1992), and standard Sòng Lǐxué histories.
Other points of interest
The work’s commitment to concision is methodologically substantive and represents a Sòng-period editorial principle that would influence subsequent commentary writing — the parallel programmatic statement in the early-Sòng Confucian context for Wáng Ānshí’s New Learning would be similarly concision-oriented (though Wáng’s Shū jiě is now lost).