本有意仕進，卻以隱淪終－談孟浩然的放歸南山

孟浩然在唐代詩人中終身未仕的形象是特出的，他身處盛世卻布衣終身，導致以往論者多以李白《贈孟浩然》詩中所述的不事王侯，鄙棄軒冕品格來肯定他，從而孟氏「紅顏棄軒冕」、「迷花不事君」的形象是深植人心的。但事實上，由孟浩然的二百餘首詩作來看並非皆為田園山水之作，就作品的內容來看，孟氏有些作品所表現之進取意識非但十分強烈，交遊與活動亦十分頻繁複雜。而關於孟浩然的生平，《舊唐書》較為簡略，所述唯早年隱居鹿門山，中年晉京求仕，晚年供職張九齡荊州幕府三事；而《新唐書》孟浩然傳則除上述三事，更採錄五代王定保《唐摭言》卷十一的一段軼事︰孟曾匿於床下並見詔於唐玄宗，卻因吟誦詩作忤玄宗而遭放歸南山。關於兩唐書之差異，羅聯添在其《唐代文學論集》有段考證，認為之所以有差異係《舊唐書》不以《唐摭言》之說為可信故然。然由《唐摭言》之述所引發之考證與辯述，歷來有不同之見解，其間涉及問題甚且遍及孟氏生平之探究-如孟氏究竟有無被玄宗所召見，卻又因唸錯了詩而遭放歸南山？以孟氏之交遊狀況，究竟誰才是引荐孟浩然予唐玄宗的「當路」之人？孟一生究竟幾度出入長安、洛陽？幾次東下吳、越？…等問題皆牽涉此則筆記是否信實可徵，也關係著孟氏隱逸詩人形象之形塑。因本文篇幅不大，不擬處理孟浩然參加科舉、個性特質、交遊情形、生活狀況、健康狀況等做論述探討，而是針對羅聯添先生的考證提出檢討，對上述關於孟氏生平在兩唐書中所留下的問題作一番檢視。

關鍵字

孟浩然；放歸南山；隱逸；終身不仕

並列摘要

One of Meng Haoran's characteristics is that in his life, he firmly refuses to serve the emperor. He prefers living with a slim purse although he lives in prosperous times. For this reason, scholars tend to praise his high-hearted personality according to Li Bai's poem 〝To Meng Haoran,〞 and people are impressed by his image of 〝Renouncing in ruddy youth the importance of hat and chariot,〞〝Flower-bewitched, you are deaf to the Emperor....〞 But in fact, in more than two hundred poems that Meng has created, not all of them are pastoral poetry about mountain and river, farming and gardening. If we read the poems carefully, we can see that some of his poems are actually ambitious and aggressive. In The First Canonical Book of the Tang Dynasty, there is a simple biography of Meng about his early life as a recluse, middle life as an official, and later life as a staff working for Zhang Jiuling. But in the 〝Biography of Meng Haoran〞 in the The Second Canonical Book of the Tang Dynasty, an anecdote from Picked Accounts from the Tang is added here. In the anecdote, Meng had hidden under the bed in order not to be appointed as an official by Emperor Tang Xuanzong, but the emperor insisted on having Meng to work for him. After he served in the government, Meng composed a poem which made the emporor unhappy, thus he was banished to South Mountain. The two biographies have been researched by Lo Lientien in his Essays on the Literature of the Tang Dynasty. He concludes that the two biographies are different because the First Book did not take the story in the Picked Accounts as true. In fact, the authenticity of the story is widely argued. A lot of scholars think that it is an important problem in researching Meng's life, for example, was Meng really summoned by Emperor Xuanzong and then banished? Who is the person that recommeneded Meng? How many times did he go to Chang An and Lo Yang? How many times did he travel down to Wu and Yue?… The authenticity of the anecodote is related to all of the abovementioned problems as well as Meng's image as a recluse poet. Therefore, in this essay, I will show my research on Lo Lientien's conclusion on this anecodote and try to connect the anecodote to the problems.