Following up

So a few weeks ago, I presented a paper on Jane Austen's Emma being a story containing strong christological, redemptive undertones. That was fun. Basically, we like the story because we see reflected in Emma's flaws and eventual forgiveness the promise from Genesis 3 that God will redeem us from our sin. I didn't realize it at first, but it quickly became apparent that there is a lot more you could explore in this trope.

 

One of the things I noticed was how marriage is a kind of salvation in Jane Austen. Of course, there is the obvious sociological meaning, as marriage was women's only way of ensuring their future stability in life. But leaving it at that is narrow and boring. To interpret Austen in that way is to really miss what she stood for in the bigger picture. For her, marriage was a much more holistic institution: As she makes especially evident in Emma, the person you end up with will prove to make or break you. Most important for marriage in Austen is not its physical or material repercussions, but the consequences it has for your soul. Mr. Elton's choice in wife destroys what potential there was in him to be a sympathetic character; as a team, they are insufferable human beings. Emma and Knightley, on the other hand, become better people because they are together. Same goes for such couples as Elizabeth and Darcy, Marianne and Brandon, even Anne and Wentworth.

 

Several conclusions:

1. I usually go out of my way to avoid wandering anywhere near the tents of the feminist camp in literary criticism, but I must say, Jane Austen was undeniably ahead of her time. This is not a moral version of the damsel-in-distress situation, which modern romantics have made it to be. Her heroines are not languidly waiting around for a man to save them by fulfilling their emotional (and material) needs. Instead, in a successful marriage, both the husband and wife challenge and encourage one another in such a way as to "save" their spouse in a moral, almost spiritual way. Austen is telling her readers that both the heroines and heroes of her stories are vulnerable individuals who can either be redeemed or destroyed by the individuals they ultimately marry.
2. Typical of Austen, this kind of thinking flies in the face of the trendy empowerment individualism we see everywhere (interestingly, just as Austen did when Romanticism made individualism trendy). There is no flying solo in Austen. Although they may lose important family members or travel outside of their home environments, her characters are communal beings. Community stretches people, revealing their faults and offering opportunities to improve. Marriage for Austen "saves" individuals from their attempts at autonomy, which always fail: Emma, Lizzie, and Marianne each nearly sabotage their most important relationships when they become too confident in their own judgment. In contrast, Austen's successful marriages bring the husband and wife together into a partnership, where the strengths and weaknesses of each harmonize with those of the other.
3. To continue the redemption motif, these "salvific" marriages, where the husband and wife successfully learn how to help one another, also produce fruit: They help others. The happy couples in Austen are the ones who are usually instrumental in the lives of the heroines. The Gardners reunite Lizzie with Darcy. The Westons mentor Emma (albeit imperfectly) throughout the novel, tempering her premature judgments. In both of the Bath novels, Anne Eliot and Catherine Morland are introduced (or reintroduced) to their future husbands through the generosity of couples who have taken them under their wing. Going back to my previous point, marriage for Austen isn't even just for the happiness of the husband and wife involved; it's there to ultimately improve the world around them.

Just building on this...