e a universal allegory acceptable in every
place and in all centuries, and so commonly believed, that until some
poignant necessity arose for its assertion, it was never--as we shall
see--mentioned even by those historians of the life of St. Romain, who
might more especially be expected to know the details of his life.

[Footnote 8: He is carved on a facade in the Musee des Antiquites, for
instance, and painted in a window of the Church of St. Godard, to take
only two examples of his constant occurrence in the civil and
religious life of the people.]

For St. Romain, so the fable runs, delivered Rouen from an immense and
voracious monster, called the "Gargouille," who dwelt in the morasses
and reed-beds of the river, and devoured the inhabitants of the
town.[9] The wily saint employed a condemned criminal as a bait, lured
the dragon from its den, then made the sign of the cross over it, and
dragged it, unresisting, by his holy stole into the town, "ou elle fut
arse et bruslez." To commemorate this deliverance in 626, continues
the legend, the good King Dagobert (or was it Hlothair?) at the
saint's request, allowed the Cathedral to release a prisoner every
year upon Ascension Day, as the saint had released the prisoner who
had assisted in the destruction of the "Gargouille."

[Footnote 9: Not only did it eat men, women, and children, say the old
chronicles, but "ne pardonnait meme pas aux vaisseaux et navires!"]

All this is a very pretty example of a holy hypothesis constructed to
explain facts that arose in a very different manner; and though it is
no pleasant task to undermine a picturesque belief, yet the chain of
events which led to its universal acceptance are too remarkable to be
left without a firm historical basis, or at any rate a suggestion more
in accordance with the science of dates than that which was related by
the Church throughout so many centuries. For there is no disputing
that if the "miracle" had in actual fact occurred, some mention would
have been made of it after the death of St. Romain in 638, or at any
rate after 686, when the historians had the whole life of St. Ouen and
his times to describe. Yet neither St. Ouen himself nor Dudo of St.
Quentin in the tenth century, nor William of Jumieges, nor Orderic
Vital, nor Anselm, Abbot of Bec, in the eleventh, say a word about
it; and these are all most respectable and painstaking authorities. In
1108, when an assembly was held by William the Conque