Identity
La Bête ?

To find what really was the Beast is a dream that the most wise know to be impossible, and that the most reckless still dream about. As for myself I think it's impossible some two and a half hundred years after the first attacks, to know what was the Beast (not that I think I'm one of the most wise...).

Still I can show you tracks, paths, plausible scenarii, possibles scenes and you will see by yourself that you don't needa sadist in desguise or a plot to explain the case, even if it's obvious for me that where there is a mystery, there is a man behind: nature does not like misteries. If the Beast had only been a "wild animal", we would know!

I will show you here some of my thoughts about this subject. I don't pretend to give any answer, but at least I don't talk nonsense... After that, it is up to you to make your own idea by spending the rest of your day on the pages of this website, which purpose is to help people think by themselves. My deductions are only mine and I don't pretend to be a referent, but if my work can help anyone find their own way, then everything won't be lost...
So here is how I see the thing.

Fisrt of all, one can think without any chances of mistake that the appearance of the Beast was not so peculiar. I mean by this that it was not unusual. One can find nowadays many animals that have similar details. But for what reason an "usual" animal would have been mistaken for something else? Did it have a secret, a physical anomaly?

Secondly, from everything I have learned concerning animal behavior, the Beast was trained to attack human beings. According to the veterinaries I've met, a disease is not conceivable, there's only the training left. It can have been fully conscious or totally fortuitous. But in both cases and as no testimony talks about a man behid the Beast, I would assume that the trainer had no further contact with his animal during the case.

But you must keep in mind that a trained animal set free in the wild will go on doing what it's been trained for for some time, before goig back to a most adaptated way of life without a master to satisfy... The "time of recovery" is uncertain and causes arguing between specialists.

So here my first thought collapses: if the Beast was indeed trained to kill human beings, it must have had a contact with someone during the case. But who? In what proprotions? Can we imagine the beast having contact with a human without feelings?

Then, concerning the animal itself, we can easily doubt its dog/wolf hybrid nature, because the morphologic types corresponding to the Beast were well known in these times. A hybrid would have been recognizable because of its wolf or dog side and betray its true nature, but we can not entirely exclude a "monster" of nature...

A wolf, from the eastern lands or elsewhere, will always look like a wolf and I'm sorry to say it but unless I've been misreading for the last 18 years no testimony ever talked about a wolf for being the Beast. Of course, one can always say that a global psychosis has made people seen a monster where there was a simple wolf (funny paradox for a wolf to be a simple man-eater!), but I will keep on thinking that the Beast was not one.

So what? I stay on the track of a canine, prefering a dog going back to wild life to a killer and its trainer. No place for the wolf as a main character but as an extra, most likely.

Also remember that our story takes place in a land and times when religion is everywhere. Close your eyes and imagine yourself in the 18th century Gévaudan, your life is dictated all day long by the bells of the church which tell you when to wake up and go to work, when to stop to eat, when to get back to work and when to go back home to have a rest. For everything else, the abbot is the one you must see... or the militia!

Our comprehension of an extraordinary fact (in the litteral sense) and our ability to solve it are linked to our knowledge of the context of the case. One can not fight an animal with prayers, masses or pilgrimages. But peope in these times thought they could (or someone made them believe that...) and and people (peasant and nobles) were defenseless in front of such a monster...
Maybe the explanation of the case of the Beast of Gévaudan is much simplier than anything I've written on these pages, maybe, but there is a mystery in this cases that show us our most primary fear, the fear of dark and night, of good against evil. We always proudly position ourselves in the category od the "good people in the light of life" , claiming that man is a better specie than any other else.

And what if the Beast, the real one, was hiding deep inside of man's mind?

Still a long way before we can see the end, but we're moving on ; slowly, but moving on...

Top of page