This period of time was a double crisis of conscience for Stephan. His entire ministry was thrown into doubt. He was unable to preach or teach while under house arrest. He was constantly in court now defending his name against charges of immoral conduct. At the same time he faced the crisis of a deteriorating marriage that now was made known to the court and his attorneys. Some questions can be raised here how any person might withstand the pressure of the losses and battles of the past five years let alone the barrage of charges and trials in which Stephan was called on to defend himself.
In spite of all this trouble, the Emigration Society was still planning in their budget to pay for the passage of Martin, his wife, and eight children as recorded in the minutes of the meeting on February 19, 1838. Carl Mundinger quotes Karl von Polenz indicating that the proper remuneration for passage to America was made for the whole family. As of the above date, the entire family was planning to sail to America.
The testimony and hearings related to the 1837 arrest at the vineyard in Hoflossnitz did not reveal either any violation of the ban on the conventicles or any revelations of improprieties at the inn in the vineyard. No verdict was filed, but the charges were not dismissed either. However, Julia’s testimony given before Martin’s interrogation had revealed a growing separation with Julia and a rift in his congregation between the German and Bohemian groups. These issues would be topics on which the church and legal authorities would base their investigation of Stephan several months later.
NOTES
1 William Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838” (unpublished ms., St. Louis: Concordia Historical Institute; New York: Stephan Family Archives, 1935), 35.
2 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 35.
3 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 38. Dr. Carl Seltenreich was the superintendent of the Saxon Consistory which had oversight of the churches in Saxony. This consistory superintendent answered to the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs. This position was filled by a number of different people during Martin Stephan’s tenure as pastor of St. John’s in Dresden. The quotes from Dr. Seltenreich on pages 8 and 9 are from his letter to Pastor Stephan and reprinted by William Koepchen.
4 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 39.
5 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 44.
6 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 45.
7 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 52.
8 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 53–54.
9 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 53–55.
10 “The Interrogation of Sophie Hoeschel in the Superintendent’s Office,” The Saxon Emigration File (St. Louis: Concordia Historical Institute), file F–48. This document from CHI was filed as a document titled “A Confession of Sophie Hoeschel.” The contents reveal that this document is actually a court transcript now recently translated to English detailing her interrogation the evening of November 15,1837, in the superintendent’s office of the church consistory. This is not a confession in the sense of admitting wrongdoing. In a conversation with Dr. Marvin Huggins of CHI noting this mislabeling he acknowledged the error and said he would correct it.
11 Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838,” 60–61.
12 “Testimony of Julia Stephan, February 21, 1837,” Akten des Amtsgericht, vol. 2 (Dresden: Amst Akten Library), 918 C Bl 109–13 Y 170, 109. This testimony was typed by Kurt Spillner and was filed by Concordia Historical Institute. This and other court transcripts were translated from the German by John Conrads, Longmont, Colorado.
13 “Testimony of Julia Stephan, February 21, 1837,” 109.
14 “Testimony of Julia Stephan, February 21, 1837,” 109.
15 “Testimony of Julia Stephan, February 21, 1837,” 109.
13
More Legal Charges and House Arrest, 1838
The 1837 hearing ended temporarily with very little evidence presented that Stephan was in violation of his earlier restrictions and suspension by the consistory. The failure of the court only fueled the continuing assault on Stephan’s ministry. According to some accounts, Stephan’s critics tried some new tactics and convinced four of the Bohemian congregation members of St. John’s Church to bring charges against their pastor, who was drawing his full salary and other income while under suspension. Attorney Ernest Marx was a bitter personal antagonist of Stephan, mostly motivated by the Bohemian congregation who felt that Stephan had abandoned them. He led the legal charge. He submitted a lawsuit for the dismissal of Pastor Stephan as pastor of St. John’s on April 17, 1838, citing three criminal charges:
Indecent and unchaste conduct (reopening the case of 1814)
Dishonest transactions with the finances in the church and school
Frequent neglect of his official duties in church and school and toward the sick and dying
The criminal charges were sent to the Department of Justice a month later, May 15. Stephan’s lawyer, William Ernest Krause, was appointed to represent him if a court case ensued. Only the second charge of financial mismanagement bore any weight; the first charge of indecent conduct was dismissed twenty-four years earlier by Superintendent D. Tittmann as “a tissue of lies and spite.” This charge was dismissed for the second time as unsubstantiated.
Although it was indistinct, the financial charge attracted attention. Krause delved into the books at St John’s Church. On July 5, the Marx group filed another suit claiming Stephan had “paid” alms to nineteen persons who had died a couple of months prior to the payments. Using this method, they said, he had stolen 134 Thaler over the past twenty-seven years. Finally Krause had a specific accusation he could defend, so he set about to defend it and he summoned Marx and his four associates into court.
The litigation dragged on until March, 1844, almost six years after Stephan had gone to America. A settlement was agreed to by the city council of Dresden and by consistory superintendent Dr. Heydenreich. The settlement document revealed that the Marx group
relinquished their claim to the golden Communion Flagon, presented to Pastor Stephan in remembrance of the Anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 1830. They also stopped agitation against Mrs. Stephan and her children still living in the parsonage, a privilege granted them by the Bohemian congregation which was still without a resident pastor.1
The seemingly endless case of Stephan’s arrest at the Hoflossnitz winery on November 8–9, 1837, was resumed on August 4, 1838. Pastor Stephan was summoned to court and again interrogated about charges related to the winery arrest a year earlier. This hearing continued until August 10. By this time the Society Planning Committee was becoming anxious because of Pastor Stephan’s continuing house arrest and legal problems. He was unavailable to advise them for their final decisions regarding their trip. The first ship was scheduled to leave on November 5. There was good reason to think that he just might not be joining them on this voyage.
Meanwhile, in his trial testimony, Stephan spoke first about his own ministry since he came to St. John’s congregation in Dresden. He spoke about the growth of the church and the discontent of the Bohemian part of the congregation. He referred to the legal agreements to continue the practice of midweek services dating back to 1650. Then, Stephan was vigorously questioned about his walks, particularly about the trip to the Boerner winery, and the events surrounding his arrest on November 8, 1837. He was asked about his trip to the Radeberg baths and again questioned about the earlier false accusation of getting a previous housekeeper pregnant in 1814. He was questioned about his relationships with nonlocal families who intended to emigrate with him. This fact raised suspicions that there were special connections between them. Stephan answered,
Nobody leaves his home country because it is bas
ed on my or someone else’s knowledge and will power. I have no idea if people from other areas outside of Dresden, like the Ore Mountain region plan to emigrate. But I am sure that there are many people who will want to emigrate if they hear that I am leaving Saxony. Another reason might be that they adhere to the pure Lutheran belief, like myself, and are therefore my adherents. I have told my friends that I am leaving because of all the animosity and persecution of late.2
There was no response by the court to Stephan’s remarks about how he was harassed due to his beliefs. According to the transcript, the court appears to ask questions in random order and to inquire about his professional and personal life. The court asked what he did at the Boerner winery, since these are the main questions raised by the police, by Stephan’s critics, and by his congregation. Stephan replied,
My activities at the vineyard consisted of reading, taking walks and rest. Others who came to the vineyard would generally rest for a while and then return to their homes after a few hours. I usually remained there also the following day, only Ms. Guenther who was my housekeeper remained there with me. The general purpose of these walks was to walk a long distance in fresh air for the strengthening and recuperation of the body. For me there was a very specific reason, namely, to recover from the stresses of my job.3
The court then asked Stephan about the activities of the night of November 8, 1837, especially the particular route he walked. He answered, “I have forgotten most of the details of this walk. Maybe my memory can be refreshed if my earlier testimony about this matter could be made available to me.”4 He was allowed to read his earlier transcript, certainly an unusual legal practice by today’s standards.
After affirming his prior testimony, he proceeded to tell an intriguing story. On the night in question, Stephan had arrived at the Serrius vineyard around 10:00 p.m. He had intended to relax with a particular book he had left there, but finding it was not available he decided to return home. Sophie Hoeschel was there and ready to go back to Dresden, so they started out together. Almost immediately a policeman asked him where he was from, and he said from Dresden, and that he was on his way back there. A little further on the Meissner Road he was met by five or six men “bundled up in coats.”
Assuming the men to be church members helping the police find a band of thieves, he simply proceeded on until he arrived at the open Trachau area, probably “around 12 o’clock because I walked rather slowly from the Serrius ... vineyard. I’m not absolutely certain about the time.” He sat quietly on the ground until he fell asleep. The pastor recounted the following events:
It was a beautiful evening and the moon was shining. I slept for about one and one half hours. Again I cannot be exact about the time because I didn’t look at my watch. I want to adhere to what I testified earlier. I probably awoke around 3 a.m. and noticed that it had started to rain. I put up my umbrella and remained seated for about one hour under my umbrella. When I was ready to go on it was probably 5 a.m. All the while I sat quietly I did not even talk to Ms Hoeschel who was with me. My silence did not concern her since all of my friends knew that talking really stressed me and I only went for walks to recuperate. Before I wanted to proceed, I asked Ms Hoeschel if she intended to go to the city. She replied that because she noticed that I was chilled by the rain and because it was really late, that we should return to the Boerner Vineyard. Also, the rain had made the path bad. The rain had stopped and Ms Hoeschel and I returned on the main road until we came to the sloping vineyard path ... [that] led straight to the Loessnitz. At the point where this path starts, I sent Ms. Hoeschel ahead of me.... I walked via the vineyard lane toward the Boerner Vineyard. The path I described will take about one hour. I met nobody except 2 policemen ... who carried vineyard stakes and one lantern. They headed straight for me and since the path is very narrow, I asked them to stop. They did this and they asked me where I was coming from. When I told them that I was going to my vineyard they left me and went on their way.
Later on they followed me again and asked me if I had possibly seen a pipe. (For smoking) The policemen could not have seen me with Ms Hoeschel because she had left me earlier and she was much faster.... I had sent Ms. Hoeschel ahead so that the couple living at the Boerner Vineyard could get up and get some light going before my arrival. It was unlikely that there was anyone there from Dresden because visitors would always return home that same night. Ms. Hoeschel arrived 15 minutes before me at the Boerner Vineyard.5
The court then presented various scraps of testimony from others at the incident. He replied to all of them firmly, authoritatively. First, they asked about a document in which someone reported that Ms. Hoeschel entered the inn with a male, and that he was accused of sleeping with her on the grass in the forest. He replied,
I do not know anything about this allegation that, when Ms. Hoeschel arrived at the vineyard, she was seen together with a male person. Also the report that I was seen with Ms. Hoeschel earlier around 10 p.m. in the mountain lane is not true. I also want to remark that I wore a jacket and not a dark overcoat.6
Mr. Mueller, a policeman, testified to Stephan hiding by the grape stakes. Stephan replied,
The reports from the policeman, Mueller, are complete lies. I did not come out between the stakes of the vineyard, but walked on the regular path. That there was a rustling sound (from leaves and twigs) at the time when Mueller found me is not true. The path was wide enough for me. I never talked to Mueller; neither did I resist entering the room where the interrogation took place. I entered the Boerner house without being forced. That’s when I met with the chief police officer. He greeted me with “good morning” and ordered me to enter the lower chamber for the interrogation which I did immediately. This was probably around 6 a.m.7
Stephan was questioned about a contradiction in Sophie Hoeschel’s arrival and his arrival which he testified to earlier. Witnesses observed that Sophie arrived at the inn about the same time as Stephan and which would indicate they were traveling together. Stephan replied,
Apparently Ms Hoeschel walked a lot faster than I anticipated. Also, I do not insist that the times stated by me were absolutely accurate. A person can, of course, be in error, and not every watch is synchronized with other watches. Of course, I do not know which path Ms. Hoeschel may have chosen. I walked very slowly, also stopped now and then, and even walked back and forth in search of a knob of my umbrella which I had lost. When these policemen met me and stopped me by shining a lantern into my face and didn’t treat me with common courtesy, I got the idea that they were after me. This became clearer when they turned around and again headed up the mountain and when they asked me if I had found a pipe. I consider this question a pretense. Regardless of this, I went straight toward the house of the Boerner Vineyard.8
When the hearing and interrogation resumed the next day, apparently Stephan addressed the accusation that he surrounded himself with the wealthy and influential people of Dresden when he went to the vineyards. He explained that there were well-dressed people at the restaurants of the vineyards and none were his friends. He went to the Boerner Vineyard because there it was not crowded, and one could buy a modest meal of soup and potatoes. The main reason he went was to get some relaxation or “down time,” not for religious reasons, even though there were about fourteen friends and church members who sometimes took these walks or were at the inn with him. Above all he said in court that “never ever was there even a trace of unchaste behavior or other immorality. I must therefore firmly deny any such allegations and gossip, not only for my sake but also for all others who visited the vineyards.”9
He was questioned about his visits to the Radeberg baths a few miles outside the city limits of Dresden. He usually spent four weeks there in the summer to relieve the chronic eczema on his feet. To several charges that he was seen with women both at the baths and after bathing in the nearby forest he replied that the women dried their hair in the fresh air. He denied taking bed covers and going with the women to the forest. Stephan
described the activities with his friends at the Augustinian baths near Radeberg.10
On Sundays some acquaintances from Dresden would come to Liegau [a small village where he stayed while at the Radeberg baths], some to visit me, others just to go for a good walk. There were never any visitors from other parts of the country. These visits never prompted me to give spiritual talks to my acquaintances. Even if they would have asked me to do so, I would have declined because to improve my health I was to remain quiet during the time I was taking the baths. All continuous talking was strictly against the doctor’s advice. The same people who visited the Boerner Vineyard also visited me in Radeberg.11
Stephan also addressed charges and rumors about the presence of his housekeeper, Louise Guenther, at the Radeberg Spa. His wife Julia had insinuated in her testimony that she and Martin had separated and that Martin preferred to be with his housekeeper saying to Julia that “the housekeeper, Louise, was enough for him.” He explained,
From the very beginning of my stays in the Radeberger Spa, Ms. Louise Guenther looked after me without pay. I was without any support from my loved ones and my salary was insufficient to pay for any services I needed. My wife only visited me during the tenth week of my stay.12
Stephan’s testimony became defensive. He presented the picture of a man beset by difficulties of the simplest kind, barely able to maintain a household as he struggled with poor health. He took issue with Julia’s testimony about their life and marriage, specifically about her visit to him at the baths:
In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: Bishop Martin Stephan's Journey Page 13
