When the Beast of Gévaudan first appeared in 1764, people were unable to identify it. That is why it was immediately christened, in Occitan, the local language of the area, “La Bèstia”. They did not see it as a wolf, but as some unknown monster that devoured little children. The newspapers of the time wanted accurate drawings of it, and it is now known that these two were the first images to appear:
They are not mirror images of each other (but it’s close. Look at the tongue.):
It is believed that no direct witness of the creature has left us a drawing. No artist ever saw the Beast. What did happen, though, it is believed, is that the artists did, on some occasions, draw the creature under the direct instructions of a witness. The problem, though, is that, if this ever did occur, we do not know which of the drawings was done in this way, or, if there was more than one, which is the most accurate.
And don’t forget. There was a language barrier between the shepherds and the shepherdesses and the artists. The latter spoke French but the locals spoke Occitan, an age old language which sounds like a mixture of French, Italian and Spanish. I myself have heard it spoken at a local market, but I could not understand it at all.
Every single illustration of “La Bèstia” has some accuracy in it. These first two both have some of the features of a big cat which is a detail present, on and off, through many of the descriptions given by frightened witnesses. The thrashing tail, the attacks on the head and neck, the lowering of the body, and the rapid movements from side to side before it lunged for the victim are all very feline.
Here we can see that frequently mentioned black stripe between head and tail:
It may have had a long tail which could be thrashed around, and even, possibly, used to strike people:
It may have had a white chest, which means that it was, categorically, not a wolf:
It possibly walked short distances on two legs, again, showing its white chest:
It might have been extremely large. Witnesses all agree that it was as large as a year old calf, or a “cob” horse:
Both claws and hooves have been mentioned by witnesses. Hooves, possibly because it was a creature of the Devil:
Here is another cat-like individual:
Perhaps it may have had a rather prehistoric look to it, but it still went straight for the head:
It may have been extremely strange looking, even if it were a new unknown species:
It may, again, have been a strange canid, but one which invariably went for the head, rather than the more usual canid attacks on the rear legs and lower back:
The creature is sometimes depicted alongside the children which were its normal prey items. There may have been two monsters, or possibly even a small, scattered breeding population:
Perhaps it was a peculiar breed of dog. A super killer greyhound:
It may have been, as Abbé Pourcher thought, a scourge sent by God, un fléau de Dieu. As we have already seen, though, many people believed the monster had been sent by Satan himself. For this reason, they often mentioned hooves. On occasion the head had the look of a satanic goat about it:
Perhaps the illustration was one of the very first ever to be drawn, and the artist had little or nothing to go on, except, perhaps, some peculiar connection with Scottish tartan:
Simplistic, but still with a bushy tail and a stripe along the crest of its back. Perhaps the monster appeared faintly human in its movements. This is certainly an extremely lascivious expression on its face:
The church and stone buildings of the region have not changed in 350 years:
And the brave young girl, Marianne, the spirit of France, fights on and on, against any creatures that may come along:
She will never surrender:
Not to any kind of monster that may threaten her country.