What we have said already makes it further clear that a poet’s object is not to tell what actually happened but what could and would happen either probably or inevitably. The difference between a historian and a poet is not that one writes in prose and the other in verse — indeed the writings of Herodotus could be put into verse and yet would still be a kind of history, whether written in metre or not. The real difference is this, that one tells what happened and the other what might happen. For this reason poetry is something more philosophical and worthwhile than history (διὸ καὶ φιλοσοφώτερον καὶ σπουδαιότερον ποίησις ἱστορίας ἐστίν) because poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts (Poetics, 1451).
Laodicea 
April 13, 2016 at 9:53 pm
Surely this only reflects the ignorance of Aristotle as a pagan who does not properly understand the nature of providence and lacking divine revelation does not understand the meaning of history. For the faithful who enjoy these blessings it seems to me history must always transcend mere fiction. As St Bede says to St Ceolwulf King of Northumbria in the preface to the Ecclesiastical History
“I cannot but recommend the sincerity and zeal, with which you not only diligently give ear to hear the words of the Holy Scripture, but also industriously take care to become acquainted with the actions and sayings of former men of renown, especially of our own nation. For if history relates good things of good men, the attentive hearer is excited to imitate that which is good; or if it mentions evil things of wicked persons, nevertheless the religious and pious hearer or reader, shunning that which is hurtful and perverse, is the more earnestly excited to perform those things which he knows to be good, and worthy of God. Of which you also being deeply sensible, are desirous that the said history should be more fully made familiar to yourself, and to those over whom the Divine Authority has appointed you governor, from your great regard to their general welfare.”
Which is no doubt why of the seven books most necessary for all men to know translated by Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon two (arguably three) were works of history.