Hayden White and Jacques Rancière both drew on the account of the history of European literature offered by Erich Auerbach to construct their own theoretical treatments of historical and literary writing: White conceptualized the figure-fulfillment model, modernist realism, and figural realism, while Rancière critically commented on the undemocratic character of the writings of the Annales school and sought egalitarian moments in Western literature. I will examine White’s and Rancière’s readings of Auerbach and partially compare the two theoretical endeavors. The purpose of this analysis will be, first, to critically compare some of the two authors’ proposals and, second, to include Rancière’s work into the English-language debate on historical theory. In bringing them together, I will primarily ask how White and Rancière have articulated the relationship between politics and historical and literary writing in their commentaries on Auerbach’s work.

海登·怀特（Hayden White）和雅克·朗西埃（Jacques Rancière）都借鉴了埃里希·奥尔巴赫（Erich Auerbach）提供的欧洲文学史的叙述，构建了自己对历史和文学写作的理论处理：怀特概念化了人物实现模型、现代主义现实主义和人物现实主义，而朗西埃则批判性地提出了人物实现模型、现代主义现实主义和人物现实主义的概念。评论了年鉴学派作品的不民主特征，并寻求西方文学中的平等主义时刻。我将研究怀特和朗西埃对奥尔巴赫的解读，并部分比较这两种理论的努力。这一分析的目的首先是批判性地比较两位作者的一些建议，其次是将朗西埃的作品纳入历史理论的英语辩论中。在将他们放在一起时，我主要会问怀特和朗西埃在对奥尔巴赫作品的评论中如何阐明政治与历史和文学写作之间的关系。