A book I'm currently reading (and a question re: "Sawney" Beane)

[RathDarkblade]

I've started reading "Malicious Intent", part of the "Howdunit" series of writing crime. This book is about criminal psychology, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've only read the first two-and-a-half chapters, but I already found two serious errors and one "hilarious" typo - to wit:

1. The author claims that Rome was founded in 436 BC, but the city was actually founded in 753 BC. I thought perhaps he meant the Roman Republic, but that was founded in 507 BC. *shrug*

2. Later, the author says that during the Elizabethan age, only the very rich had the luxury to go "traveling, living and dieing (sic) in peace." (What? They could cut lengths of materials with a die-cast machine?)

3. The author claims that the infamous Scottish Beane family, who "made a living by murder and cannibalism in the 1430s", were caught and punished by King James I of Scotland.

But ... I did my research, and this family (led by Alexander "Sawney" Beane/Bean), actually lived in the 16th century. So by my calculations, if any King James punished them, it would be James VI of Scotland and I of England. (That explains the "James I" bit - the author may have got confused?)

That leads me to wonder if "Sawney" Beane was real. Wikipedia casts doubt on his story, using words like "reportedly" and "was said to be", etc., and also says that:

While historians tend to believe Bean (sic) never existed or that his story has been greatly exaggerated, it has passed into local folklore and become part of the Edinburgh tourism circuit.

The funny thing is, I found reference to him in the Newgate Calendar, a crime catalogue of London's Newgate Prison. I don't know if that makes his story true, but that's at least one reference to him.

I also like this (from the Newgate Calendar), which says that Beane "...ran away into the desert part of the country..." I didn't know Scotland had any deserts (or, at least, not the wide, rolling expanses of barren sand so common to the northern shores of Africa). What kind of deserts exist in Scotland? I don't get it.

So let's assume that "Sawney" Beane was real. The Newgate Calendar reports that the Beane clan killed over 1,000 people in over 25 years (i.e. 40 people a year on average). Wikipedia casts doubt on this, but it sounds not far from the truth. The Beane clan's reign of terror is said to have been "in the 16th century". In 1600 (in the midst of James VI's rule), Scotland's population was estimated to be roughly 800,000. So if 40 people a year, on average, went missing ... it sounds plausible.

If we assume "Sawney" Beane was real, and his story happened while James VI was King, that narrows things down a bit:

1. James VI was born in 1566, and gained full control of his government in 1583;
2. He became King of England in 1603, and did not return to Scotland until 1617;
3. He died on 27 March, 1625.

On the other hand, the story says that "King James" gathered 400 troops and led them in person. If this was James VI, then it doesn't stack up. He might have done so if this happened between 1583 and 1603, but there are no contemporary records of this story to back him up (the first records come from the Newgate Calendar, over 100 years later, during the Jacobite Rising of 1715). For that time - early 1700s - it would make sense for the English to publicise this story, and describe the Scots barbarians who lived in caves and ate human flesh.

Secondly - and more convincing - if the story of "Sawney" Beane is real, why are there no contemporary records of it? Surely there would have been something. Why would James VI hush it up? He certainly didn't hush up the Gunpowder Plot.

So ... as the Italian Giordano Bruno said: Se non è vero, è molto ben trovato - if it is not true, it is very well invented (a good story). What do you think?

 

[Tonyblack]

I suppose an author has some wiggle room if they are writing historical fiction, but they need to get the basic facts right. Bernard Cornwell, for example, writes about actual historical evens and inserts his own characters into them. But he does his research and, if he has to, for example - change the day that an event took place, he will always point that out in the Historical Notes at the back of the book. It will also explain why he did that.

The book you are reading sounds sloppy and badly researched and that sort of thing would really annoy me. I once wrote to an author about the historical map included in one of his books. The map showed the distribution of the Britannic tribes at the time of the first Roman Invasion. The map showed the Silures tribe in the wrong place, so I pointed this out. Apart from that, the book was excellent. He wrote back and thanked me for my correction. It seems the publisher had gotten someone else to compile the map.

If you are writing about historical facts, you need to stick to those facts as much as possible.

 

[RathDarkblade]

I agree, Tony. The book I'm reading is about criminal psychology, not history, so I could - maybe - excuse the author for not getting his historical facts right. But that's what research is for.

To play Devil's advocate, this book was published in 1995, when the internet and search engines were at its infancy. But so what? In 1995, hardback encyclopedias (the Britannica?) were available for decades. So that's no excuse for sloppy research, especially easy-to-find facts like when Rome was founded.

I kept on reading this book, but I think it's going to be a DNF (Did Not Finish), which is rare for me. The author makes assertions about criminal psychology, but doesn't offer any proof (or even any evidence) to back up his assertions. I now regret having paid money for this, but in future I'll stay away from the publisher (Writer's Digest Books).

It's a pity. When I was a university student in the mid-90s, I read a book in the same series called "Deadly Doses". It was about poisons, and I remember thinking it was excellent.

As for the Silures ... weren't they in the southeast of Wales? I'm no expert on Wales's history, but I did extensive reading on Roman history, and I recognise some of the names of the Welsh tribes - the Silures, the Ordovice and the Cornovii among them. (I know those are Roman names, of course, but I have no idea what these tribes called themselves).

 

[Tonyblack]

Those were indeed tribes in Wales

 

[=Tamar]

It's been a long time and I don't recall the details, so this is going to be very vague... at some point in the early Dr Who shows, the monsters in an episode were named after a geological location (I believe), which was very like a Roman name of a tribe. But the episode was based on the geology, not the tribe, who lived in a different area. Later on someone didn't realize that and made a "correction" in a show, possibly the only time a Dr Who episode ever "corrected" (or even acknowledged) an earlier one. Unfortunately, the correction was wrong. They had it right the first time. (It _may_ even have been The Silurians but I honestly don't recall now.)
The point is, research needs to be wide ranging as well as deep. Sometimes words are re-used in different ways.

 

[Tonyblack]

Yes indeed, the Silurian Period of Geological History is named for the Welsh tribe. I'm not at all sure however, whether the Silurians in Doctor Who (and they have been in recent series as well) are named for the tribe.

 

[RathDarkblade]

So ... can someone please tell me? Was "Sawney" Beane real, or just an invention of the press? I'm confused.

 

[Ghost]

I think yes to both, an exaggerated version of the truth