At the present time the question of woman’s rights is being widely, and in some quarters warmly, discussed. Our serial literature, both at home and abroad, is claiming for woman freedom from all political, social, and legal, disqualifications. That women have legal grievances of a serious nature, cannot for a moment be questioned. How much longer will seduction continue to go unpunished, except as a civil injury and by a fictitious and costly suit! How much longer is woman to bear all the consequences flowing from the sin of two souls, and to be goaded into child-murder or suicide by the monstrous injustice of law! We punish every crime save the wrong that is deepest and most cruel of all. Then again, the absolute right of the husband to the property of his wife, unless secured to her by special settlement, is both cruel and unjust in its practical operation. Anything so injurious to woman ought immediately to be erased from the statute-book. Yet with every disposition to secure for woman all that she can wisely claim, we have no sympathy with those who would draw her into public action in opposition to man to whom she is so closely allied. Some time ago we read that the Aylesbury magistrates had appointed Mrs. Sarah Wooster to the office of overseer of the poor and surveyor of highways for the parish of Illmire, and that during the previous year four women filled similar offices in the Aylesbury district. As surely as a good housewife would give her husband a Caudle curtain-lecture were he to proffer his services in sweeping the floor, dressing the linen, or cooking the dinner, so surely will a good husband cry out against and turn with disgust from a wife who would invade his province. In the sick-room, woman, by her quick perception, her instinctive decision, and her tender sensibilities, may accomplish infinitely more for the well-being of society, than man. For all the services of philanthropy she is peculiarly fitted. The rights of woman do not obtain their due measure of attention even in this country. Nothing but good could possibly accrue from the full acknowledgment of her claims to be educated as well as man is educated, and thus to be provided for the many contingencies to which her sex is subject.
BIOGRAPHY.
Amelia Wilhelmina Sieveking was born at Hamburg, on the 25th of July, 1794. Her father, Henry Christian Sieveking, was a merchant, also a senator of the city, and seems to have been a man of considerable literary cultivation. Of her mother, Caroline Louisa Sieveking, whom she lost before she had completed her fifth year, Amelia retained no distinct recollection. During the illness of Madame Sieveking, Miss Hösch, a niece of her husband’s, entered the family, and, after their mother’s death, carried on the housekeeping, and took charge of Amelia and her four brothers. At an early age she received a succession of dry lessons in writing and arithmetic, French, drawing, music, and when old enough to enter on a more regular course of instruction, Mr. Sieveking gave his daughter her choice between two rationalistic theologians. Amelia had no means of making a choice between them; she had recourse to drawing lots, and the gentleman on whom the lot fell gave her instructions in German grammar and literature, history, geography, and religion. But his method of teaching was so stiff and formal, that he soon lost the affection and respect of his pupil.
Up to the time of her father’s death, in 1809, her education had been so badly conducted as to awaken positive dislike in the child’s mind, and her religious instruction in particular was so defective as to leave her not only without joy, but tossed with doubts and difficulties. After the death of her father, as he left no property, the family was scattered, and Amelia was put to board with a Mdlle. Dimpfel, a very pious but ill-educated person. Her Bible, however, the old lady knew from beginning to end, and had the happy art of telling Bible stories in such a way as to interest the young. Her dependent position deprived her of all paid tuition, and she had to work at ornamental needlework for her maintenance. About this time, although she had not learnt to know Christ as the Son of God, as her Redeemer, and the only source of happiness, she was nevertheless confirmed. In 1811 she went to live with Madame Brünnemann, an excellent and kind-hearted woman. Her duties consisted in reading aloud to an invalid son, and assisting his mother in the household. The son died in September of the same year, and Amelia could not leave the poor mother in her bereavement. It was arranged that an aged aunt of Madame Brünnemann’s should take up her abode with them, but she fell ill and died. From this lady and Madame Brünnemann, Amelia inherited a small sum of money, which, together with a pension from a fund for the daughters of deceased senators, supplied her modest requirements and insured her independence.
The many losses and calamities brought on Hamburg in consequence of the French occupation in 1812, led her to retrench her expenditure by doing her own washing. For a whole summer she washed all her own clothes in secret. She also endeavoured to learn dressmaking and cooking, and besides these household accomplishments, gave some attention to others of more use in society; but the instruction of youth was the only vocation that seemed to satisfy both her intellect and heart.
In 1817 her brother Gustavus died at Berlin while studying for the ministry. He was the nearest in age to herself, and had been her chief and favourite companion. The stroke was heavy, and intensely felt. Amelia herself says, “I had not felt so deeply the death of my father, still less that of my elder brother. This profound grief became a turning-point in my life.” At the pressing invitation of her now, alas! only brother and sister-in-law, she visited London in June, and found refreshment for her own heart at the sight of their domestic happiness. Soon after her return from England, the house next to the one where she lived in the city was burned down, and five persons perished in the flames. This event impressed her deeply. Thomas à Kempis’s “Imitation of Christ” now fell into her hands, and its devout and tender teachings shed a balm over her wounded spirit. She sought explanations of the Bible from all the books that came in her way; but unfortunately they were all rationalistic in their tone, and gave no light. At last Francke’s “Preface to the Bible” fell into her hands, and there she was taught to compare the different passages one with another, and to apply all she read to herself by prayer. She was hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and the promised blessing was soon to be hers. In June, 1819, she says: “I feel myself now strongly inclined to adopt the orthodox doctrine which I have so long rejected, but I must have clearer light on it first.” That clearer light was soon given to her, in conversations with an evangelical pastor of the name of Rautenberg, and at last she arrived at childlike faith in “that most comforting doctrine of atonement.”
The biographer of Miss Sieveking, in a memoir in itself of unusual interest and value, by means of apt quotations from her diary and letters, has presented us with a very complete portraiture of her outer and inner life. From these extracts we learn, that in her early years she was in the habit of casting lots, when in difficulty as to the path of duty; but in after-life she discontinued the practice. Doubtless, like many others, she was led to feel that we have no right to ask for a sign in circumstances which are sent to train us in the use of our judgment. We also find her complaining of a certain slowness and awkwardness in the transaction of business, which often prevented her from managing all her household and social duties to her satisfaction.
Miss Sieveking published several works. These were for the most part merely transcripts of the religious instruction given to her pupils. They were read in many circles, and met with very different receptions; but they certainly contain a vast amount of practical wisdom and judicious suggestions on the whole subject of charitable work, and organizations of women for that purpose.
Amid these varied labours and experiences, one thought was ripening in her soul. She had read a little French book in which there was much said of the sisters of charity among the Roman Catholics, and it awakened in her a strong desire to found such a sisterhood in the Protestant Church. She had been led to this by the fact, that in hundreds of instances unmarried women are not permitted to do the good to which their hearts impel them, because they have not the settled position which would be given by a definite calling, recognised as such by the world without. With a longing after this work which had only increased in intensity from being so long pent up within, we cannot but admire the Christian wisdom and moderation with which she viewed the matter, even when encouraged by the approval of friends.
In the autumn of 1824, Miss Sieveking became acquainted with Pastor Gossner, a Bavarian by birth, who had been a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, but by deep study of the holy Scriptures had been converted to the evangelical doctrines. This good and great man gave a new and powerful impulse to her aspirations after what now floated before her as the future vocation of her life. Charitable work now engaged so much of her thought and sympathy that her health, usually so strong, began to give way; but the water of Ems proved beneficial, and old strength and fresher looks returned. In 1826, Professor Tscharner of Berne, who had been imprisoned in his own country, was giving lectures in Hamburg, and Miss Sieveking spent many happy hours with himself, his wife, and his son. Here also, in 1828, she became intimately acquainted with the celebrated Neander, of Berlin.