本文选择《奉赠韦左丞丈二十二韵》《洗兵马》《寄韩谏议》三首诗歌作为考察对象，对旧注的解读进行回顾，在此基础上辨析杜甫在玄肃两朝某些重要政治事件中的态度与立场。在传统的杜诗研究中，杜甫初次涉足政治始于天宝六载的制举。据相关文献可知，《奉赠韦左丞丈二十二韵》一诗作于天宝十一载，杜诗中“主上顷见征”的记述与杜甫献赋受挫有关，“破胆遭前政”亦并不指李林甫黜落举子之事。通过对杜甫应天宝六载制举事的史源考辨，可知这一判断缺乏较早的文献来源，而是出自宋人的推论，杜甫集中并无能够支撑其曾经参加天宝六载制举的内证。在质疑了这一判断出于宋人的误读后，根据杜甫诗文中的人事线索，可对其在玄宗朝的政治活动进行重新推排。 杜甫在肃宗朝的政治立场与创作心态集中反映于《洗兵马》一诗中。该诗的系年及主旨历来聚讼纷纭，以诗中着墨最多的张镐为切入点，根据其政治生涯的起伏，结合具体史实，可以考订《洗兵马》一诗只有可能作于乾元元年三月左右。由系年可以考知，诗中历来身份存疑的“萧丞相”为苗晋卿而不指房琯。在此基础上梳理玄宗与肃宗矛盾的时间演进线索，可知钱谦益的“刺肃宗”说乃是据史书所知的后见之明。 杜诗旧注在相关时政诗的阐释中，对李泌这一历史人物有着重的关注与阐发，认为杜甫忧心肃宗朝的弊政，希冀李泌复出以挽救时局。事实上，杜甫在诗歌中并未正面提及李泌以期挽救危局，或借此表露对肃宗朝政治的不满。根据李泌形象在唐宋文献中的历史变迁可知，《通鉴》大量采信《邺侯家传》中对李泌事功的渲染，夸大了李泌对平定安史之乱的显赫之功，由此影响了后世研究者对李泌历史地位的认识。
Traditional researchers believe that Du Fu first dabbled in politic in 747. According to the relevant literature, the poem ＂Respectfully Presented to Vice-Director of the Left, the Senior Wei＂ was written in 752. The description of ＂I was recently summoned by His Majesty＂ is related to the frustration of Du Fu‘s contribution, and ＂Broken courage, encountering the previous minister＂ does not refer to Li Linfu‘s plots. By discussing the historical origin about this event, we can see that this judgment lacks an earlier source of literature, but comes from the inference of scholars in Song dynasty. There was no internal evidence to support the failing of his exam in 747. After questioning the misreading from scholars in Song dynasty, according to the clues in Du Fu‘s poems and essays, we can reanalyze his political activities during the reign of Emperor Xuanzong.Du Fu‘s political standpoint and creative psychology during the reign of Emperor Suzong was mainly reflected in the poem ＂Washing Soldiers and Horses＂ . The background and themes of the poem has always been controversial. Based on the ups and downs of Zhang Hao张镐’s political career and the specific historical facts, it can be concluded that the poem ＂Washing the Army and Horses＂ can only be written in March,758. From the background of the poem, it can be seen that the ＂Prime Minister Xiao＂ with doubtful identity in the poem is Miao Jinqing, not Fang Guan. On this basis, the paper combs the clues of the evolution of the contradiction between Xuanzong and Suzong, and finds that Qian Qianyi‘s conclusion about this poem is a hindsight known from historical books.In the interpretation of relevant political poems, traditional researchers have paid great attention to Li Bi.They believed that Du Fu was worried about the evil policies of Emperor Su-zong and hoped that Li Bi would come back to save the current situation. In fact, Du Fu did not mention Li Bi positively in his poems in order to save the crisis, or to express his dissatisfaction with the politics of Emperor Suzong. According to the historical changes of Li Bi‘s image in literature, Tongjian accepted a great deal of the rendering of Li Bi‘s merits in Family Biography of Yehou, which exaggerated Li Bi‘s outstanding contribution to suppressing the An-shi Rebellion, thus affecting the understanding of Li Bi‘s historical status by later researchers.
