Since H. White raised the question of the relationship between reality and knowledge in the philosophy of history, disputes about this problem have not ceased. In the middle of the 20th century, this question was formulated in the categories of literary criticism. F. Ankersmit was one of the critics and successors of H. White's ideas. Until recent days, the discussion have not been completed. For this reason, it is matter of great importance to study how various authors criticized and adapted the methodology of H. White after the rejection of structuralism. In addition, the study of the early works of F. Ankersmit allows us to assess the evolution of his views on the nature of historical knowledge. The purpose of the article is to compare approaches to the problems of historical narrative in the works of H. White and F. Ankersmit and to study the problem of representation of reality in historical narrative based on their works. The comparative analysis gives opportunity to study the approaches of philosophers and establish trends in the development of the philosophy of history. The author analyzes the features of the Metahistory’s methodology. The structural approach to narration and H. White's appeal to the theory of tropes are considered in the perspective of the reception and criticism of this model by F. Ankersmit. In his early works, he abandoned four tropes structure of historical narrative and turned to the study of the metaphorical nature of it. The article shows to what extent F. Ankersmit borrows H. White's methodology, and to what extent he criticizes it.

Since H. White raised the question of the relationship between reality and knowledge in the philosophy of history, disputes about this problem have not ceased. In the middle of the 20th century, this question was formulated in the categories of literary criticism. F. Ankersmit was one of the critics and successors of H. White's ideas. Until recent days, the discussion have not been completed. For this reason, it is matter of great importance to study how various authors criticized and adapted the methodology of H. White after the rejection of structuralism. In addition, the study of the early works of F. Ankersmit allows us to assess the evolution of his views on the nature of historical knowledge. The purpose of the article is to compare approaches to the problems of historical narrative in the works of H. White and F. Ankersmit and to study the problem of representation of reality in historical narrative based on their works. The comparative analysis gives opportunity to study the approaches of philosophers and establish trends in the development of the philosophy of history. The author analyzes the features of the Metahistory’s methodology. The structural approach to narration and H. White's appeal to the theory of tropes are considered in the perspective of the reception and criticism of this model by F. Ankersmit. In his early works, he abandoned four tropes structure of historical narrative and turned to the study of the metaphorical nature of it. The article shows to what extent F. Ankersmit borrows H. White's methodology, and to what extent he criticizes it.