Godefroid Kurth, a methodical and rigorous historian from the beginning of the 20th century, and Jean d’Outremeuse, a prolix but disorganized chronicler from the 14th century, shared the same profession as historians. However, the two are separated by a gaping abyss due to two radically different visions of history. For Kurth, history consists of positive events, rebuilt by a meticulous study of the sources, while for d’Outremeuse, history consists of a well of anecdotes that are useful to someone wishing to interest an audience. From this perspective, history is built on legends and personal inventions whose aim is to create plausibility as well as a true historical narrative. When Kurth published his critical study of Jean d’Outremeuse in 1910, the latter was no longer in a position to defend his work. As a consequence, he was slowly forgotten, and his vision of history was exposed to public contempt. What sort of perspective should a modern historian have on this quarrel? Does the evolution of modern historiography, particularly the linguistic turn, which insisted on the narrative aspect of every history, lead historians to rehabilitate the chronicler? Is it not more important to understand the approaches of both protagonists and to see them, despite their shared status as historians, as both subjects and witnesses of their history and their own times?