1973年，后现代主义史学理论随海登?怀特的《元史学》出现于学界，产生了巨大影响。10年后，荷兰学者弗兰克?安克斯密特出版了他的第一部史学理论著作，以此在后现代主义阵营中占据了一席之地。此后，安克斯密特逐渐将西方史学理论引入下一阶段，成为能与怀特比肩的重要学者。从这个角度上看，对安克斯密特史学理论的研究具有梳理过去与展望未来这一双重意义。 然而，分析国外学者的相关研究与安克斯密特的回应即可发现，虽然安克斯密特获得了公认的地位，其理论也得到了广泛的讨论，但他一直认为自己的文字并未得到正确理解与公正对待。而且，我们还能发现，安克斯密特史学理论的各个部分的变化及其之间的关系一直没有得到足够的关注。这意味着，全面而系统地考察安克斯密特史学理论、在此基础上检视既有的研究是重要且必要的。 为做到这一点，本文首先在第一章、第二章和第三章中讨论了安克斯密特史学理论的三个组成部分：叙述哲学、历史表现理论和历史经验理论。具体来说，这三章呈现了三个部分的前提与基础、内容、实践价值，梳理了后两部分的演变过程，考察了三者之间的逻辑关联。由此，本文得出了这样一个结论：叙述哲学、历史表现理论和历史经验理论构成了一个对历史学家的语言与过去之关系的系统性论述。 随后，在前三章的基础上，本文的第四章检视了有关安克斯密特史学理论的既有研究，指出了这一理论的真正问题。本文认为，叙述哲学的问题在于作者对以下三个方面的认识存在不足：历史叙述与历史学家的政治观念的关系、历史学家关于历史事实的争论、读者对历史叙述的阅读；历史表现理论的问题在于安克斯密特忽视了历史叙述与视觉艺术（表现）在制作过程上的重要区别；历史经验理论方面则在于它对史学学科性的破坏、其所隐含的政治观念并不友好、以及安克斯密特没有为过去的可经验性寻得足够丰富的事实例证。 不过，本文的第五章提出，尽管安克斯密特史学理论有着诸多问题，这一理论仍具有两个重要价值。第一，它为“历史学是什么”这一古老而重要的问题增添了一个答案：历史学不仅提供历史知识，也提供了历史知识的运用方式。第二，借助其理论，安克斯密特对史学理论这一学科进行了重新定位——史学理论可以且应当是各个哲学门类的共同基础，有能力推动整个哲学的进步。 本文的结语部分关涉安克斯密特史学理论在西方学术史中的位置。结论是，它是一个超越了此前的后现代主义史学理论的后现代主义史学理论。以此，本文就史学理论的未来做了粗浅的思考。本文认为，历史学家的工作过程或将成为研究的重点。

In the year of 1973, postmodernism theory of history came into being in the academic world with the publication of Metahistory by Hayden White and created an influential tide. Ten years from then, Dutch scholar Frank Ankersmit published his first book on theory of history which made him the core member of postmodernism camp. After then, Ankersmit leaded western theory of history to the next stage and became an important theorist on a par with White. From that perspective, research on Ankersmit’s theory of history has a double significance: combing the past and overlooking the future. Nevertheless, the western researches on that theory and replies of Ankersmit could prove that the theory didn’t get accurate comprehension and fairly treat in author’s view all along in spite of the acknowledged prestige of Ankersmit and the big discussion over his theory. And we can also notice that scholars neglected the changes of and the relations among the constitutive parts of Ankersmit’s theory of history. Therefore, it is not only important but necessary to examine Ankersmit’s theory thoroughly and systematically and check the existing researches on his theory based on that. To do this, I start with concentrating on the three components of Ankersmit’s theory, i.e., the narrative philosophy, the theory of historical representation and the theory of historical experience, in chapter 1, chapter 2 and chapter 3. Specifically, I discuss the precondition and foundation, content, and practical value along with the changes of and the relations among that three. The coming conclusion is that the three constitute a systematic theory which depicts the mechanism between historians’ language and the past. Chapter 4 examines into former researches of western scholars on Ankersmit’s theory of history and point out the real defects of his theory based on first three chapters. In my view, the problem of narrative philosophy is the insufficient cognition on these themes: the relationship of historical narration and historian’s political ideas, the argument about historical facts, readers’ reading of historical narration. Theory of historical representation ignores the differences between the making of historical narration and that of visual art (representation). Theory of historical experience would harm the disciplinarity of historiography. Its concept of historical experience is related to an unfriendly political idea. And Ankersmit doesn’t get enough factual examples to support his thesis on experiencing the past. Chapter 5 points out that in spite of the existing problems, Ankersmit’s theory of history has two values. First, it adds a new answer to the old and important question: “What is history?” The theory demonstrates that historians provide not only historical knowledge but the way to apply that knowledge. Second, it relocates the theory of history. By presenting his theory, Ankersmit argues that the discipline could and should be the foundation of philosophy and carry it forward. Epilogue checks the historical statues of Ankersmit’s theory of history. It concludes that the theory is a postmodernism theory of history beyond former postmodernism theory of history. Upon this point, I roughly discuss the future of theory of history. In my view, historian’s working might instead work be the focus of research effort.