In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: Bishop Martin Stephan's Journey

by Stephan, Philip

  In no way did she offer any assistance. She only came to harass me. Ms. Guenther came to Radeberg with the intention to take the baths. When she offered her service to me, I was more than grateful to her. Without her services I would have gone under because of my poor bodily condition. At that time my wife was only with me for two days in Radeberg and she never gave me any help. I never refused her help, but I did remind her that there should be someone with our children other than a servant girl. Therefore, she returned to Dresden on the third day on foot. Our eleven year old son, now fifteen years old, was with her and I offered to have her driven back to Dresden. She refused and walked back. Louise Guenther, and her help to me, is not the reason for my marital problems, they are only the symptoms. Even the mother of my wife was turned against me. My daughters could not be of any help. The older ones had to look after younger ones, because they needed help. Then there were a number of jobs which I could not expect my daughters to perform.13

  He then discussed his volunteer nurse Louise Guenther, displaying some surprise or naive indignation that anyone would have “trouble” with a person of his stature allowing a young unmarried woman to attend to his eczema sores and wrap his legs at the spa:

  To keep Ms. Guenther was a matter of my needs. Ms Guenther did not provide any services in my home in Dresden. Her services only applied during my stay in Radeberg and in the vineyard. For the lowly household chores in Radeberg or at the vineyard, I had nobody to turn to. When Ms. Guenther, with the approval of her parents, offered her services and support, I didn’t reject it because I had needs. Also Ms. Guenther had time on her hands because she had no job. That even church members had trouble with my acceptance of services from Ms. Guenther and the fact that I continued to avail myself of her services, never came to my attention. Otherwise, I would have justified myself. It is possible that Ms. Guenther sat on the same sofa with [me sometimes] at my home in the city. I have a very long sofa, because I have room left over when I lie down on it. At lunch time it is common to take some chairs out of my room so my many children have a seat. So it is possible that I invited Ms. Guenther to sit on the sofa if she was visiting about some business. To talk about intimacy is not correct, such thing never happened.14

  The court had heard statements to the effect that Stephan ceased his association with Mr. Renner because Renner had intentions of marrying Louise Guenther. The rumors implied that Stephan was loath to lose her services and would stand in the way of her marriage. In response to these allegations, Stephan replied,

  It is not true that I withdrew from Renner because he wanted to marry Ms. Guenther. The real reason was that he had rumors spread by Mrs. Drechsel accusing me that I had forbidden Ms. Guenther to marry and also about my relationship with Ms. Guenther. These false statements came to my attention.15

  His testimony emphasized what he considered evidence refuting the allegations of an improper relationship with Guenther:

  It rarely happened that I went alone with Ms. Guenther to the vineyard at a late hour. Whenever I returned from the vineyard in the evening, around 10 p.m., Ms. Guenther generally joined me. Ms. Guenther generally walked alone up to the vineyard particularly the last two years. She went without me during the afternoons well ahead of me ... Whether during those joint walks from the vineyard, or any other location, where I might have been alone with her; I did not have the slightest reason to engage in unchaste behavior. Ms. Guenther is an upright girl, and never in my life did I have immoral intentions regarding her.16

  The court asked again and again about other circumstances in which women were present at the vineyards, or at various walks to wineries or mills or baths. He was accused of letting women wash his feet when they were alone. He denied all impropriety, saying he had his feet cared for but never when he was unclothed, and since he shared a room with men, when he had to bathe his feet only men were present. Over and over again he is read testimony of others that they had rubbed his feet when he was having his bouts of eczema, and he denied all of those accusations.

  After nearly four days of interrogation, he again had to defend against the old 1814 charge of Ms. Walter’s pregnancy.17 The court presented the letter from the young Walter girl charging sexual intimacies and pregnancy. The pastor explained again what happened and that this story had already proven to be a fabrication: there was no intimacy and no child. Stephan acknowledged this whole ordeal of charges and hearings were quite painful for him. He repeated the dismissed case for the third time. Stephan reminded the court that the Walter girl regretted her actions and apologized for the pain she created for the pastor.

  This hearing, which could more properly be characterized as an interrogation, opened briefly on August 4, resumed August 10, and concluded August 14 without reaching a conclusion. No verdict was rendered; however, additional testimony and cross-examination was to be given by the three women implicated by charges yet to be filed against Stephan. With regard to the charges of embezzlement filed by attorney Marx and the four church members, those hearings continued until 1844.

  Meanwhile the Emigration Society was planning to leave in two months. It must have been a very difficult and unsure time for the Society and for Stephan. This particular set of charges and trials appeared to have no end. Their sailing date had been set, and the ships were already chartered. The tension over these events was intense. There was some uncertainty whether the pastor and his family would be able to leave with the rest of the group. Stephan’s trials put the whole emigration in doubt because of his role as leader of the Society.

  On August 28, 1838, yet another set of charges were filed by Caroline Dittrich, a member of St. John’s congregation. She wrote a letter to attorney Adolf Marbach accusing Stephan with certain improprieties such as attempting to kiss her and making immoral suggestions to her. Dittrich claimed that she refused Stephan’s advances and could produce other witnesses who had similar experiences with Stephan. The allegations in the letter were changed to formal charges and filed by Dittrich with the Department of Justice. However, interrogations and testimony would not begin until October 2 and would continue through October 15, 1838, less than two weeks before the Society’s scheduled departure.18

  When Dittrich was questioned about her charges, she said she felt compelled to speak about Stephan’s relationships with female parishioners. She said she participated in the adult enrichment classes for some time and grew close to the pastor when she accompanied him to the Winery and Inn at Hofloessnitz. She alleged that on these walks to the inn, Stephan kissed and touched her inappropriately, but she thought she had to tolerate it. She did not go to meetings any longer and started to stay away in order to avoid further contact.

  When questioned by the court why she did not report this immoral behavior, she replied that she did not want to bring disgrace or slander to the office of the ministry. In addition, she offered that “among all those who followed Stephan there was the idea that if you entrusted your spirit to him [Stephan] then you could also give him your body without committing a sin.”19

  Caroline Dittrich’s charges involved three other female church members: Sophie Hoeschel, who had been involved in the now famous Winery events the year before; Louise Guenther, Stephan’s housekeeper at the Radeberg baths; and Wilhelmine Hahn. Dittrich testified that Hahn was also involved with Stephan and that she was treated horribly by him. She alleged that Hahn told her about the most intimate acts she (Hahn) had experienced with Stephan and that she wanted to confess these things before God and be silent before the world. She further stated that on one occasion when Stephan had accompanied Hahn to the Boerner Winery, Louise Guenther tried to set Hahn up to sleep with Pastor Stephan by having her rest in his bed in his room at the inn, so that when Stephan arrived Hahn would be there waiting for him in bed. She said Hahn complied with Guenther’s request to nap in the bed but only because forced by Guenther to do so.20

  She continued her testimony by accusing Louise Guenther of “giving herself to Stephan in a most shame
ful way” and suggested that Guenther was leading other women to do the same, especially those women who were under her (Guenther’s) control. Dittrich made allegations about other women such as Sophie Hoeschel who, Dittrich said to the court, lies with him in the evening because she is indebted to him. She quoted Hahn as revealing to Dittrich that she, too, could be with Stephan without impunity for the same rationalization, “because to whom I give my trust, I can also give my body.”21 In Caroline Dittrich’s letter to attorney Adolph Marbach that originally set forth these accusations, she had pleaded with him to intercede for her with Stephan to permit her to join the Emigration to America. Apparently Stephan had told Wilhelmine Hahn to avoid Caroline Dittrich because of her gossiping. Louise Guenther testified in October that Stephan avoided Dittrich and apparently did not include her in the Emigration Society membership.22

  Dittrich had also accused theological candidates Welzel and Brohm of physical intimacies with Ms. Wilhelmine Hahn. On September 23, 1838, shortly before the trial, Hahn wrote Dittrich a letter that was also entered into the court record. Hahn vehemently denied the “poisonous” lies Dittrich had spread. She said that Caroline dishonors Pastor Stephan with these rumors at a time when he has enough trouble. Hahn tried to understand why Dittrich would spread such lies and concluded that “you were driven by needs and a sense of revenge when you distributed such allegations.” Later in the letter she stated categorically, “I deny that I ever confessed to Dittrich that Pastor Stephan took liberties in touching me in an unchaste manner. This is a despicable lie and a twisting of my words by Ms. Dittrich.”23 Hahn did acknowledge that she thought it unusual if not strange that the pastor would walk with women at night and that Stephan did sit down next to her when they rested from a walk. These were the words that Dittrich had twisted. Later, Hahn testified that she told Dittrich not to tell others that Stephan went on long walks at night with young women because it would be taken as being evil and reflect negatively on the pastor. She testified again saying, “Of course, God knows that there were never any evil deeds or unchaste happenings during such walks.”24

  Upon further examination by the district court, Hahn and Hoeschel and Guenther were all cross-examined and confronted with Dittrich’s accusations. In their testimony on October 5, 6, 15, and 16, 1838, they all vehemently denied these stories, especially the alleged incidents at the Boerner Winery. All three women were confronted with Dittrich’s letter and testified individually about the letter and Dittrich’s charges. Each consistently said that Dittrich was lying. They indicated that Dittrich was angry because Stephan had told Hahn and Guenther not to have anything to do with Dittrich. Hahn, Hoeschel, and Guenther not only were consistent in their stories but they suggested together that these stories were acts of revenge on Dittrich’s part. However, upon cross-examination and confronted with the testimony of the other three women whom she accused, Dittrich insisted her stories were true.

  Ms. Hahn was asked about Dittrich’s accusation that Ms. Guenther had prompted Hahn to sleep in Stephan’s bed so he would find her there upon his arrival at the inn. She said under oath, “It is not true that Louise Guenther talked me into being available (sexually) at the Boerner Vineyard and I never told such a thing to Dittrich. It is true, however, that I had been on the longest walk from Dresden to the Boerner Vineyard with Stephan, I laid down on the pastor’s empty bed upon the recommendation of Guenther and I fell asleep.” (According to official court transcripts it was noted that in a later discussion of Hahn’s falling asleep on Stephan’s bed it was clear that she laid herself on the bed, not in it.)

  Louise Guenther testified about her own intentions and relations with Stephan and this incident of Wilhelmine Hahn sleeping on Pastor Stephan’s bed. Guenther testified under oath to the court:

  It is untrue that I have ever gone to the pastor in the night to be with him in his apartment. [Now, regarding the incident with Hahn] ... I suggested that Hahn could lie down on Pastor Stephan’s bed in his apartment. At the same time I gave her directions that I would awaken her before the Pastor would even notice she had been there. Hahn by the way was fully clothed when she lay on the bed.

  It was going on 3 in the morning as Hahn lay on the bed. She had scarcely lain there an hour when I had already awakened her. The pastor had lain down on the sofa when he had come to the Winery and had slept in the “stube” room where the other male guests sleep. As it was now towards morning, around 4 a.m. on that day that I heard the man get up and heard him speak. I woke Hahn up and opened the apartment window so as to let in fresh air before the pastor entered so that there was nothing at all that would give evidence that Hahn had lay on his bed.25

  Because Dittrich’s accusations were related also to the night of arrest on November 8, 1837, and the activities at the Boerner Winery, the hearing was continued. The other two investigations and court hearings were going on at the same time. By this time the members of the Emigration Society were probably becoming very anxious because the departure date for travel to Bremen was set for October 27. The first ship was to sail from Bremerhaven November 3. Stephan still had not been given permission to leave the country.

  With an embarkation date fast approaching, Stephan was hit with another lightning-bolt accusation. Marx and his four St. John’s members filed a new police order for Stephan’s house arrest dated October 15. This order by the court was effective on October 16. On October 22, the four members of the St. John’s Bohemian congregation decided to make their charges very specific about Stephan’s financial mismanagement and accused him of illegally taking over the alms fund. The court refused to hear these charges.

  At this point the court-ordered house arrest for Martin Stephan seriously impaired the emigration plans. An appeal filed on October 20 asked the king to personally investigate the accusations against him and to issue a final order. After three days of study, King Fredrick Augustus IV issued an order dated October 23 that all charges and investigations against Stephan were to be dismissed, and that he was at liberty to join his parishioners and friends in their emigration.26

  There are no records indicating how Stephan handled the dismissal of all the charges against him. He acted later as if he were completely free and innocent. There was some joy at the announcement by others in the Emigration Party. All were now free to sail to America. The crises, however, would be only partly resolved. His internal conflict, between keeping his public integrity and telling his whole story, was still to be worked out, and would continue to be unfinished until he died.

  Although the criminal violations were settled, Pastor and Mrs. Stephan still were due in court for hearings October 24 and 25 pertaining to the financial arrangements and guardianship for the seven Stephan daughters remaining in Germany with their mother. Both Pastor and Mrs. Stephan were represented by counsel, attorney Krause; however, Julia appeared in person without Martin before the court. October 25, the Department of Justice notified the municipal court of the king’s verdict and ordered the house arrest to end. Immediately upon hearing this notification Mrs. Stephan accompanied by lawyer Krause went to the municipal court and stated that she would not object to the issuing of passes to her husband and son Martin to emigrate to America. However, she and her seven remaining daughters would not be joining him in his journey. She stated to the court that she arrived at a satisfactory agreement with her husband about the division of their property and her future support. This notation was transmitted to the Court of Wards for their decision on the guardianship of the children, especially the three children who were hearing and speech impaired. These three daughters would be placed in the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb.

  In spite of his immediate relief and satisfaction about the king’s ruling to drop all the charges against him, one can only imagine the cumulative strain from the years and months of charges, trial, and testimony before the court. His daughter Julia had died during childbirth just two years earlier, in 1836 during all the arrests and attacks on his ministry. The preparations fo
r travel and a transoceanic sail, the pain of separation and the farewells to friends added to his overall tension. But Stephan was now free to make his final plans for departure, and he joined his church members and friends as they prepared to leave for Bremen. Final farewells would be made on the evening of departure.

  NOTES

  1 William Koepchen, “Pastor Martin Stephan and the Saxon Emigration of 1838” (unpublished ms., Stephan Family Archives and Concordia Historical Institute, 1935), 68.

  2 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” Akten des Amtsgericht, Anhang B, vol. 2, (Dresden: Amst Akten Library), 108. Translation from the German was done by Philip Stephan, Naomi Stephan, and John Conrads.

  3 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 110.

  4 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 110.

  5 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 111.

  6 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 112.

  7 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 112.

  8 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 112.

  9 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 113.

  10 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 114.

  11 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 114.

  12 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 114.

  13 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10,1838,” 115.

  14 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 115.

  15 “Testimony of Martin Stephan, August 10, 1838,” 115.