Contemporary post-modern philosophers of history tend to refer to historic text as a narrative which is closely related to literary, i.e. fiction narrative. On the one hand, such a conclusion reveals the progress achieved during the last two decades in the field of researches of historical texts, which made it possible to perceive that the representation of historical past is subject to the same textual mechanisms applicable in fiction literature. However, on the other hand, there is a concern that the treatment of history as a sub-type of literature genre may diminish its scientific nature. This article aims to identify the essential criterion or feature which would enable to clearly delimitate history from literature. The author of the article assumes that the application of literature science, such as narratology, techniques in the analysis of historical texts may be of service in search of the above-mentioned criterion. This clearly confirms the conclusion that historical works may be considered narratives and enables to identify textual differences between historical and literary narratives. Another two criteria regarding differences between historical and literary narratives, i.e. truth and pragmatism, are also discussed. The final conclusion provided at the end of the article suggests that it is impossible to identify the key difference between historical and fiction narratives. Such criterion exists only in the referential sphere, which is distant from the text, and manifests itself in the reality of historical events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]