How Thucydides’s Histories was written,that is to say,when and in what order each volume or even each part of every volume was written remains controversial today since 1846 when it was first raised by a German Classicist.Until 1984, there were two main theses:Separatism and Unitarianism.The former argues that Histories was written at stages,at the level of time as well as of thought,while the latter argues that the whole work was an unit and written mainly at one period of time though it had not been completed and there are a lot of indications of incompleteness.In 1984,W.R.Connor raised the ques-tion of homogeneity of Thucydides’s text.He holds that the author intentionally leaded the readers to experience the events of the war,so both his thought and his narrative organization varied as he went along.Connor’s opinion is a remedy for the radical Separatism,and beyond the range of Unitarianism.Under its guidance,T.Rood and C.J.Dewald studied Thucydides’s narra-tive separately.The former thinks Thucydidean Question is unanswerable;the latter demonstrates he gradually moves away from one narrative technique to another.This question will inspire scholars’enthusiasm as before,and challenge their talents.In this process,our understanding of history will be more and more deepened.%修昔底德创作《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》花费了毕生精力，全书各个部分的写作次序和时间如何迄今悬而未决。从1846年这个问题提出到20世纪80年代初，大体有两派观点：“分离论”和“一体论”。前者认为，修昔底德的著作是分阶段写成的，这不仅表现在时间上，还表现在作者的思想上；后者则认为，尽管这部书是未完之作，且有一些不完善地方，但全书一以贯之，因此主要在一个时间段写成。两派各执一词，探讨逐步深入。1984年美国学者康纳提出修昔底德文本的同质性问题，即作者有意带领读者一起面对事件，其思想认识和叙事形式都发生了变化，故其文本不是同质的。这对“分离论”起到了纠偏的作用，也超越了“一体论”。在康纳观点指引下，英国学者鲁德和美国学者德沃尔德研究了修昔底德的叙事方式。鲁德认为“修昔底德问题”是一个“无法回答的问题”；德沃尔德则证明其叙事的组织形式发生了变化。“修昔底德问题”将激发学者们的研究热情，砥砺他们的才智，推动着学术界不断深化对于史学的认识。
展开▼
