筆者在本文中將嘗試探討：曾經深受義大利哲學家兼歷史學者克羅齊思想影響的美國思想史學者海登‧懷特，如何在其名著《後設歷史》的最後一章之中，以克羅齊作為十九世紀歐洲史學思想的沒落與僵化的代表。筆者強調：懷特早年深受克羅齊影響，在自成一家之言以後，仍然繼續標榜人文主義精神，以及歷史是藝術而非科學的說法，即是此一影響的明顯痕跡。但是後來的懷特對於克羅齊所主張的「人文主義與歷史哲學絕不相容」的說法不能認同，轉而同情黑格爾、馬克思、與維柯的歷史哲學。懷特在發展出此一明確立場之前，曾經嘗試以其它方式與克羅齊立異；懷特在〈歷史的負擔〉中對於布克哈特印象派寫作風格的正面評價，與克羅齊的負面批評大不相同，即可視為是懷特企圖另立門戶的先聲。不過，等到懷特後來在《後設歷史》中發展出為歷史哲學辯護的明確立場之後，已經不需要在此等小地方與克羅齊立異；懷特對於布克哈特的評價，便由正面轉回負面，甚至相當程度地延用了克羅齊對於布克哈特的看法。

Following David D. Roberts's insight, this essay attempts to further address this question: How does Hayden White charge his former idol Benedetto Croce as representing the decadent stage of 19th-century European historical thought in White's major work, ”Metahistory”. The author holds that, to rebel against Croce, White builds an alliance with the trio of Vico, Hegel, and Marx in ”Metahistory”, defending their distinctive branches of speculative philosophy of history - which is part of the original meanings of the obscure term ”meta-history” - against Croce's criticism. Before this new alliance taking place, White once attempted a similar intellectual coup by praising the historian Jacob Burckhardt, whom Croce had also criticized. However, after finding new allies in the abovementioned trio, it became unnecessary for White to promote Burckhardt any longer. Therefore, White's new verdict on Burckhardt in ”Metahistory” also turns unfavorable, and to a large extent replicates Croce's criticism of Burckhardt.