Four Jane Austen Characters Who Would Have Been Good Statisticians
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that 19th-century Englishwomen had few opportunities to develop or apply their mathematical talents.* Had they been given the chance, however, several of the female characters in Jane Austen’s novels would have been excellent statisticians. (Plot spoilers ahead)
Jane Fairfax. Jane, presented as a foil for the title character in Emma, possesses every characteristic needed by a good statistician: intelligence that has been developed by an excellent education, keen observation, communication skills (she writes beautiful and much-quoted letters to Mrs. and Miss Bates), scrupulous principles, tact, and a dedication to maintaining the confidentiality of data that she has been asked to keep private. Her only impediment is lack of financial resources,** but it is to be hoped that Jane will be able to pursue statistical studies after her marriage to wealthy Frank Churchill.
I fear that Emma herself, despite being “handsome, clever, and rich,” would have had a less satisfactory statistical career. Emma extrapolates beyond her data throughout the novel, causing one disaster after another. Although she knows nothing about Jane’s life with the Campbells, Emma makes data up (!), creating a false narrative about an improper connection between Jane and Mr. Dixon.
Emma also discards any data contradicting her pet theories. She laughs at Mr. Knightley when he informs her, with corroborating evidence, that Mr. Elton plans to marry for money. But there may be hope for an Emma who, at the end of the novel, acknowledges to Frank that "there is a likeness in our destiny; the destiny which bids fair to connect us with two characters so much superior to our own."
Fanny Price. As a poor relation at Mansfield Park, Fanny quietly observes and listens to all that happens around her. After charming yet mercenary neighbor Mary Crawford asserts that all clergymen are indolent, Fanny agrees with Edmund’s comments: “You can have been personally acquainted with very few of a set of men you condemn so conclusively. You are speaking what you have been told at your uncle’s table.” Mary’s inference is flawed because it is based on a small, nonrepresentative convenience sample and hearsay.
But Edmund is himself guilty of ignoring data that contradict his preferred worldview. He dismisses as an outlier every incident that demonstrates Mary’s lack of principles. Fanny, less biased, is disappointed but unsurprised by Mary’s final letter that so clearly reveals her selfish heartlessness.
One would expect that, as she gains experience as a practicing statistician, Fanny’s assertiveness would increase and her habit of bursting into tears (see Figure 1) would decrease. The same principles that led Fanny to reject Henry Crawford’s proposal—quite an extraordinary act for a woman with no prospects—would also help her stand up to those who would misuse or distort statistical methods.
Figure 1. Frequency of Fanny Price’s tearful episodes in Mansfield Park, for chapters grouped in sets of five, counting episodes mentioning “tears,” “crying,” or “sobbing.” Each night of sobbing during Fanny’s first week at Mansfield Park, in Chapter 2, is counted separately.
Charlotte Heywood. Charlotte, the most sensible of all Austen’s major heroines, is, like Fanny, a good observer and listener. She forms her views of the other characters from data without embellishment or extrapolation.
But she goes beyond mere careful observation. After Arthur Parker, who famously says “The more wine I drink — in moderation — the better I am,” complains that drinking green tea causes him to lose the use of his right side, Charlotte suggests looking at the statistical evidence:
"It sounds rather odd to be sure," answered Charlotte coolly, "but I dare say it would be proved to be the simplest thing in the world by those who have studied right sides and green tea scientifically and thoroughly understand all the possibilities of their action on each other." (Sanditon, Chapter 11)
Does that not sound as though Charlotte, had Austen finished the novel, could have a promising future as a statistician? I can envision Charlotte and a partner, perhaps one of Mr. Sidney Parker’s scientifically inclined friends or perhaps the wealthy Miss Lambe, establishing Sanditon as a resort that relies on statistically proven treatments (no indiscriminate bloodletting or leeches!) to improve health.
Mary Bennet. My heart wept for Mary when I first read Pride and Prejudice at age 14. Not as pretty as her elder sisters, nor as exuberant as her younger ones, Mary takes refuge in books and music.
The reward for Mary’s diligence is mockery from her father, from the book’s narrator, and from TV and film adaptations.*** Austen, however, holds out promise of a happy ending for Mary after her sisters’ marriages: she begins mixing more with the world as the only daughter left at home, “no longer mortified by comparisons between her sisters’ beauty and her own.”
Mary desperately wants to be useful. I can imagine her, with appropriate resources, conducting a social survey of conditions in England, anticipating Charles Booth’s 1889 study Life and Labour of the People in London. She would certainly have been happier with a focus for her scholarship, and what could be more useful than furthering statistical science?
Copyright (c) 2020 Sharon L. Lohr
Footnotes
*Or you may prefer Austen’s Paradox: It is a truth universally acknowledged, that there are no truths that are universally acknowledged.
** Mary Fairfax Somerville (1780-1872; no relation to Jane Fairfax, who, remember, is fictional) was able to indulge openly in mathematical activities only after attaining financial independence. In 1811, four years before the publication of Emma, Mary won a medal for a solution she presented to a mathematical journal. Mary had only one year of formal education at a boarding school, but upon returning home after that “wretched” year, she read everything she could find and taught herself Latin and Greek so she could read books in those languages as well. She began studying algebra after her curiosity was engaged by “strange looking lines mixed with letters, chiefly X’es and Y’s” used as decoration in a fashion magazine. Her parents opposed her interest in mathematics, and she read her surreptitiously obtained copy of Euclid’s Principles of Geometry late at night by candlelight. Her first husband, Samuel Greig, also “possessed in full the prejudice against learned women which was common at that time.” But Greig’s death in 1807 left her with the resources to devote herself to mathematics. Her 1831 translation and expansion of statistician Pierre Laplace’s Celestial Mechanics made Somerville famous, and she continued publishing widely in mathematics and science until her death at age 92. See
Chapman, Allan (2015). Mary Somerville and the World of Science. New York: Springer.
Somerville, Martha (1873). Personal Recollections, From Early Life to Old Age, of Mary Somerville. London: John Murray.
Somerville, Mary (2004). The Collected Works of Mary Somerville (nine volumes, ed. James A. Secord). Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum.
***Mary is a comic figure in the 1940 and 2005 films; in the 1980 and 1995 BBC mini-series; and in the Bollywood adaptation Bride and Prejudice (although the humorous portrayal of third sister Maya Bakshi is gentler in this film—and the cobra dance is not to be missed). Only the 2016 film Pride and Prejudice and Zombies respects her abilities: yes, Mary reads a book at the dance, but immediately afterwards she and her four warrior sisters disembowel zombies with grace and elegance.