Up till the 1980s narrativist philosophers of history were mainly interested in the cognitivist dimension of historical narrative. With Hayden White this interest was exchanged for an exclusive preoccupation with the literary aspects of the historian’s narrative representation of the past. However, it may seem that a revival of pre-Whitean narrativist philosophy of history is at hand. Two recent books suggest as much: one by Chiel van den Akker published in 2018 and one more by Paul Roth that came out in 2020. Obviously, a narrativist revival can take two different forms. It may aim at providing pre-Whitean narrativism with a more up-to-date philosophical basis or at guiding it into new directions. It will be argued in this review-essay that the book by Roth mainly does the former, whereas the book by Van den Akker does both.

直到 1980 年代，历史叙事主义哲学家主要对历史叙事的认知主义维度感兴趣。在海登·怀特那里，这种兴趣被交换为对历史学家对过去的叙事表现的文学方面的专一关注。然而，前怀特叙事主义历史哲学的复兴似乎就在眼前。最近的两本书给出了同样的启示：一本由 Chiel van den Akker 于 2018 年出版，另一本由 Paul Roth 于 2020 年出版。显然，叙事主义的复兴可以采取两种不同的形式。它可能旨在为怀特之前的叙事主义提供更现代的哲学基础或将其引导到新的方向。在这篇评论文章中将争论的是，罗斯的书主要是前者，而范登阿克的书则两者兼而有之。