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.
John Knifton 
Wow! One of the last pictures had a striped tail. This made it a little tigerish
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2746016/Left-cold-die-The-Tasmania-Tiger-extinct-result-human-neglect.html
I think that the people who drew the Beast used to do one of two things. If they knew any of the features which the witnesses had mentioned, they might well include them. Otherwise, if they knew any monsters of their own, they would use them…lions, griffins and tigers among them. Thanks for the interesting link. For some reason, Satellite TV has shown a lot of programmes recently about the thylacine, and even the Tasmanian Government thought they were still living in the 1980s. Fingers crossed!
It looks like a dragon in that statue!
I would agree wholeheartedly, but don’t forget, this is modern art, where all the normal rules go flying out of the window!
That’s a scary looking beast.
You are not wrong! I just wish we had a real idea of what it was! And thanks for dropping by, incidentally.
Always fascinating stuff. What’s the age of the sculpture?
As far as I am aware it is the 1980s or 1990s. This is still a rather poor rural area of France, and they are trying to encourage tourists by having a circular trail, with guest houses, so that people can follow the trail of the Beast’s bad deeds. There are now a number of plaques and sculptures in quite a few villages.
They sure had a lot of beasts back in those days. Nowadays we have to contend with the 2-legged sort.
Absolutely. My daughter always used to be afraid of Frankenstein or Dracula but I spent many years putting over to her your message, namely that the most dangerous monsters are men.
The sculpture reminds me of Boudicca. Quite a nice ‘romantic’ figure fighting the aggressor whether it be man or beast.
You are absolutely right. “Marianne”, of course, is a young woman who represents the spirit of France, particularly the revolutionary one. She used to be on their coins years ago.
There’s something else I’ve learnt. I didn’t know that!
Those are some truly ghastly looking images
I think blood and gore used to sell newspapers even back in 1765!
I wonder if politicians who campaign for change then do a highland fling to leave everyone else to sort it out sold newspapers back then too
It must have been a terrible time for the people of those times in that area. Regards.
Arguably, this decade was one of the very first steps to the revolution of 1789, as, very gradually, discontent grew all over France.
Some of those images I never seen before. Thanks for sharing
My pleasure. I think they are probably the ones from the French Google.