玻利瓦尔是拉丁美洲独立运动的杰出领导人之一，在拉丁美洲享有很高的声誉。1857年马克思应美国编辑查尔斯·安德森·达纳的邀请撰写了《玻利瓦尔-伊-庞特》一文，该文被收入《美国新百科全书》第3卷，并于1858年出版。当该文1936年被翻译成西班牙语在阿根廷的《辩证法》杂志发表之后，便成为拉丁美洲学者长期争论的对象。因为在这篇文章中，马克思对玻利瓦尔给予了较多的负面描述和评价，与同时代的主流评价大相径庭。拉美学者对马克思的这种做法试图找出合理的解释，他们的观点大致有三类：一是认为马克思受到了资料来源的限制和误导；二是认为马克思犯了“欧洲中心主义”的错误；三是认为这是马克思对拉丁美洲民族国家构建的一种深层思考，因为拉丁美洲的民族国家构建模式不符合马克思的国家观，这导致他不得不站在消极的立场上去评价玻利瓦尔。本文通过对这场史学辩论的梳理，得出一些对玻利瓦尔和拉美历史的新认识和启迪。
Bolivar was one of the outstanding leaders of the Latin American independence movement and enjoyed a high reputation in Latin America. In 1857 Marx was invited by the American editor Charles Anderson Dana to write the article “Bolivar y Ponte”，which was included in volume 3 of The New American Cyclopaedia and published in 1858. When the article was translated into Spanish and published in the Argentinean journal Dialéctica in 1936，it became the subject of a long-standing debate among Latin American scholars. This was because in this article Marx gave a more negative description and evaluation of Bolivar，which was quite different from the mainstream evaluation of his contemporaries. Latin American scholars have tried to find a reasonable explanation for Marx’s approach，and their views fall into three categories：first，they believe that Marx was limited and misled by his sources；second，they believe that Marx made the mistake of “Eurocentrism”；third，they believe that this was a deeper reflection on the construction of the Latin American nation-state. Owing to Latin American model of nation-state construction did not conform to Marx’s view of the state，he was forced to evaluate Bolivar from a negative standpoint. This paper composes this historiographical debate and draws some new understanding and enlightenment about Bolivar and Latin American history.
