Claiming a Runaway Slave in the Holy Roman Empire: The Case of Samuel Johannes (1754)

The following analysis focuses on documents 2 and 4, which I identified as the most pertinent to this endeavor. Document 2 is a letter written by Countess Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf to request that Samuel Johannes be detained and handed over to her emissaries. It is the key source in this collection, as it established the Countess’s claim and the line of argumentation that was followed by the Countess’s party throughout the affair. Some passages were copied word by word in documents 3, 10, and 11. Document 4 is a report drawn up by Johann Daniel Jacobi, the administrator of the patrimonial court at Unwürde, where Samuel Johannes had found refuge after his departure from Herrnhut. It reports on the first attempts by two messengers from Herrnhut to persuade or force Samuel Johannes to return to Herrnhut and provided the basis for a reply by Karl Gotthelf von Hund to Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf (document 5). It is of importance as it provides a glimpse of how Samuel Johannes himself portrayed the situation. As such, it is a rare text for the history of slavery in the Holy Roman Empire, which seldom provides room for the voice of the enslaved. In addition to these two documents, I am going to draw on data derived from the remaining thirteen documents.

To facilitate the analysis, I have been utilizing the cross-corpora annotation model developed with the members of the working group “Grammars of Coercion,” which has been implemented in CATMA, a computer assisted text annotation and mining tool. Throughout the dataset, so called “action phrases” [infobox: “a coherent continuous grammatical compound describing an “action”, whatever the grammatical structure of the language of the text.”] relating to situations of dependency and coercion have been identified, (Working Paper WG 1: Grammars of Coercion: Towards a Cross-Corpora Annotation Model) as well as “emic labels” used to identify Samuel Johannes. In a next step I have selected action phases from the most pertinent to the subject (coercion), and listed them together with the respective actors.

The principal actors emerging are Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf and Samuel Johannes. Further action phrases can be identified related to Christian Dober, Karl Gotthelf von Hund, or the two messengers form Herrnhut. But as the events were driven by the actions of Samuel Johannes and the Countess Zinzendorf, I am focusing on these two.

A more extensive analysis than the one conducted here could also involve the Berthelsdorf judge Johann Gottlob Neumann and scribe Paul Schneider. As legal experts on the Countess’s team, they surely influenced events and very probably were responsible for a large part of the phrasing of the letters written in the Countess’s name. (This does not imply that the Countess herself did not take an active interest. She was deeply involved in the economy of the Herrnhut community and the estates.)

Actors and action phrases:

Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf:

1. sehe mich bemüßigt, hierdurch anzuzeigen (I see myself compelled to hereby announce) (document 2)
2. habe sothanen wilden Sclaven […] ordentlich angenommen (have properly taken in that wild slave) (document 2)
3. ich habe […] in der Christlichen Religion erziehen und unterweisen (…) lassen (had him educated and instructed in the Christian religion) (document 2)
4. das Schneider-Handwerk erlernen lassen (had him trained as a tailor) (document 2)
5. zur heil. Tauffe befördert (helped him to holy baptism) (document 2)
6. an ihm gethan und erweisen lassen, was man nur irgend von Herrschaften, Eltern und Vormündern bey einem Leibeigenen und Pflegbefohlenen erwarten kann (did everything and had everything provided, which can be expected from lords, parents, and guardians for a serf and ward) (document 2)
7. Unterhalt und die Verpflegung dieses armen Menschen kommet mir in diesen 13 Jahren weit über 1000 rth.[Reichsthaler] zu stehen (upkeep and food for this poor human being has cost me far more than 1000 rth) (document 2)
8. daß ich nebst Gott ohnstritig das alleinige Recht zu dem Besitz und Gebrauch dieses Menschen habe (without doubt, I alone have the right to possess and make use of this human being) (document 2)
9. aus der Bedienung des Herrn Barons von Schell, welchen ich denselben auf einige Zeit überlaßen (from the household of Baron von Schell, to whom I have borrowed the same [Samuel Johannes] for a time) (document 2)
10. als meinen rechtmäßigen Unterthanen reclamirt (I hereby claim my rightful subject) (document 2)

Samuel Johannes:

1. Er selbsten ist auch nicht sui juris und kan sich nicht ermächtigen vorzunehmen was ihm beliebet, maßen er ein würklich leibeigen gebohrener, und in dieser Qualitat an mich gekommen (He himself is not sui iuris and cannot decide to do as he likes since he is a trueborn serf, and as such came to me) (document 2)
2. mir seine gantze Erzieh- und Unterhalts-Kosten schuldig ist und daher so lange in meiner Unterthänigkeit verbleiben muss (he owes me the expenses for his education and maintenance and therefore must remain in subjection to me) (document 2)
3. seine Schuldigkeit so weit außer Augen gesezet (has neglected his obligations so much) (document 2)
4. verleiten lassen von hier zu gehen (has let himself be enticed to leave this place) (document 2)
5. früh aus der Bedienung des Herrn Barons von Schell [...] würcklich entlauffen ist (yesterday morning truly ran away from the household of Baron von Schell) (document 2)
6. biß er von mir als seiner alleinigen Herrschaft loßgegeben und mit einem gültigen Freyschein und Loßbriefe versehen auch ihm dasjenige was er mich kostet, erlassen worden ist (until he has been set free and given a valid passport and letter of manumission by me as his sole lordship, also that which he cost me has been remitted) (document 2)
7. sich bey Ihro Gnaden (…) meldenden (had presented himself to his Grace, the Chamberlain von Hund) (document 2)
8. als Schneider Dienste suchenden (asked for work as a tailor) (document 4)
9. heute (…) weg gegangen (today he went away from there) (document 4)
10. erwiderte hierauf, es habe niemals bey selbigen in würkl. Diensten gestanden, sondern ihm nur seit etwas über 21 tagen aufgewartet (answered, that he had never been in the latter’s service, he only had waited on him for a bit more than 21 days (document 4)
11. habe auch nichts begangen, weswegen er angehalten werden könne (had done nothing for which he could be detained) (document 4)
12. weil es aber ihn länger in Herrnhuth zu bleiben nicht mehr anständig wäre (…) er fort gegangen (because it was not right for him to stay longer in Herrnhut he left) (document 4)
13. erklärte sich hierauf, er kehrte nicht in guten wiederum mit ihnen um (declared he was not going with them in good faith) (document 4)

Overall, document 2 contains twenty-one action phrases, as compared to six in document 4. This is due to the fact that the letter by Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf is the longest document by far in the file, and contains the most extensive narrative of the events. Even more importantly, it established the Countess’s claim and the line of argumentation which then got repeated in subsequent documents.

The Countess’s letter emphasizes through specific phrasing the differences in position and actions between Samuel Johannes and Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf. In four of ten action phrases, the Countess Zinzendorf appears in a position removed from the actual action, making things happen through directives. Thus, her position of authority within the relationship with Samuel Johannes is subtly accentuated: She “had” Samuel Johannes “educated,” “instructed,” “trained,” “had everything provided,” and his upkeep “has cost her.” Also, the rhetoric of the introductory remark (“I see myself compelled to hereby announce”) aids in conveying the aloof status of the Countess. It is the insubordinate act of Samuel Johannes that forces her hand. Obviously, this was a conventional rhetorical phrase and typical for eighteenth century letter writing. But all to easily the conventional is equated with the unconscious and therefore the insignificant. In discourse, every utterance, every choice matters, and conventional, stereotypical phrases are significant as they carry normative power and generate additional layers of meaning according to context and circumstance. Therefore, I would argue that the impact of the letter’s rhetoric and the styling of the Countess’s position in the unfolding narrative can hardly be underestimated. After all, the letter’s intended audience was made up of men steeped in eighteenth century societal hierarchies and the attendant strategies and practices of representations.

Three phrases directly convey Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf’s claim to authority over Samuel Johannes: “have the right to possess and make use of this human being”; “to whom I have borrowed the same”; “I hereby claim my rightful subject.” The action-phrases describing Samuel Johannes’s doings and situation are of a different quality. They are formulated as actions actively taken by Samuel Johannes, thereby clearly framing him as the perpetrator: “has neglected his obligations so much”; “has let himself be enticed to leave this place”; “ran away.” Contrary to that, three phrases express his subservience to the Countess and actually negate his capacity for action: “he himself is not sui iuris and cannot decide to do as he likes since he is a trueborn serf”; “until he has been set free and given a valid passport and letter of manumission by me as his sole lordship”; “owes me the expenses for his education […] and therefore must remain in subjection to me.”

The report of the Unwürde court (document 4) is quite different. In it, all action phrases describe Samuel Johannes as an active participant in events: he sought out von Hund; he asked for employment as tailor; he left, when he decided his time in Herrnhut was up; he explicated his position; and he refused to go back.

None of the action phrases regarding the case of Samuel Johannes are specifically about coercive labor extraction, apart from him being employed as a servant in the household of Baron von Schell for three weeks. Likely, the reason for this is that the main motivation for him being with the Moravians was rooted in the symbolic value of his presence as a convert from a faraway, “heathen” place. The element of coercion is obvious in the Countess’s claims of authority over Samuel Johannes, the control she exerted over his mobility and labor when she ordered him to Herrnhut and “lent” him to Baron von Schell, and in the attempts to have him returned to Herrnhut.

Coercion becomes more tangible when including the numerous emic labels assigned to Samuel Johannes into the analysis. They refer to contemporary categories of dependence or subservience and were used to specify or circumscribe his affiliation to the Countess.

Emic labels in Erdmute Dorothea von Zinzendorf’s letter:

1. schwarzer Malabare (black Malabar)
2. gebohrener Sclave (born slave)
3. armer Mensch (poor man)
4. wilder Sclaven (wild slave)
5. Leibeigener (serf)
6. Pflegebefohlener (ward)
7. nicht sui iuris (not sui iuris) / in dominica poestate
8. ein würklich leibeigen gebohrener (a true born serf)
9. undankbarer Mensch (unthankful human)
10. mein rechtmäßiger Unterthan (my rightful subject)

Emic labels in the Unwürde court memorandum:

1. der Mohr (the “Moor”)
2. der schwarze Samuel Johannes (the black Samuel Johannes)
3. freye Person (free person)
4. der Schwarze (the Black)

A quantitative analysis of all emic labels in documents 2–13 and 15 clearly underlines the significance of specific labels, all of which are first used (and established) in document 2, thus confirming its significance.

Quantitative analysis of emic labels regarding Samuel Johannes in documents nos. 2–13 and 15. For this figure, subjective and attributive uses of labels have been amalgamated.

Seven times, Samuel Johannes is labelled a “Leibeigener” (“serf”). He is designated a “Malabare” (“a Malabar”) seven times. Four times he is labelled as “der Schwarze” (“the Black”). But if we include “schwarz” (“black”) used as a modifying attribute (six times “black Malabar,” see above; one time “black Samuel Johannes”), then he was characterized in eleven instances by what his German contemporaries perceived to be the color of his skin. Four times Samuel Johannes is labelled an “Untertan” (subject) or “rechtmäßiger Untertan” (“rightful subject”); three times he is described as not being “sui iuris”; twice he is referred to as a “Knecht” (manservant); three times the attribute “entlauffener” (runaway) is employed. Only twice is Samuel Johannes labeled a slave (“Sclave”); both instances occur in the letter of Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf to Karl Gotthelf von Hund.

When ranking emic labels by the frequency with which they were used in the dataset, the phenotypical classification (“black” or “Black”) clearly heads the list, with the ethnic label “Malabar” being a strong third. Other sources from the Unity Archives show that the latter term was commonly used within the Moravian community when referring to Samuel Johannes. “Leibeigener” or “leibeigen” is the second most often used label. If the labels “Leibeigener,” “Unterthan,” “Sclave,” “Knecht,” “not sui iuris,” and “Entlauffener,” “Pflegebefohlener,” and “in Diensten stehender” are lumped together, we see a very pronounced surplus of labels denoting dependence and subservience vs. ethnic/phenotypical markers (22 vs. 18 instances). Of course, this is easily explained by the nature of the matter discussed in the sources and the need to make a case for his arrest and return. What is more astonishing is the variation of different labels employed to denote subservience (at least five).

Of special interest is the emic label “Mohr” (“Moor”), which was employed two times. At that time, it was an often-used term in German language, if somewhat amorphous. It was applied to persons of African descent but also to other individuals considered dark skinned, without a connection to a specific continent. It also overlaps with the semantic field of “heathen,” and with that closely related of “Mauren” (in English this is the same term: “Moor”) or “Sarazenen” (“Saracens”), thus bearing a distinct connection to Islam. To complicate matters further, in eighteenth century Germany there seems to have been a distinct association of “Mohr” with the function of representative servants of foreign origin, a well-documented feature of baroque culture of representation (and by no means confined to aristocratic courts). Unsurprisingly therefore, the term “Mohr” was used widely by German speaking Moravians, especially in the first half of the eighteenth century (Köstlbauer 2021). Of the documents analyzed here, the term is found only in two documents not authored by Moravians: document 4, the report of the Unwürde court administrator, and document 15, the passport which enabled him to travel safely to Berlin. Considering the small size of the textual sample, the rare use of the label may be a coincidence. Another possibility is that it is evidence of a midcentury change in Moravian discourse and terminology, in which the old term “Mohr” had already been replaced by colonial terminology of slavery and race. Or, it might have resulted from a more or less conscious choice to refuse Samuel Johannes an appellation often used to designate the honored representatives of the mission (as evinced in Moravian neologisms like “Mohrenliebesmahl” or “Mohrentag”). Whatever the reasons, one thing is obvious, though: to the Unwürde actuaries and to Karl Gotthelf von Hund, an Indian with what was perceived as dark skin who had a connection to an aristocratic household was automatically designated a “Mohr”—and this was consistent with contemporary discourse. It is also consistent with the false information supplied by von Hund to Countess Zinzendorf in document 5. There he not only claimed that Samuel Johannes had left for Dresden when he was actually hiding on von Hund’s estate in Gebelzig. He also claimed that Samuel Johannes intended to seek employment at the Saxon court there, presumably as a so-called “court moor.”

A significant challenge is presented by the polysemic nature of the term “Leibeigener” / “leibeigen,” which becomes evident in the dataset. In contemporary German language usage, it was a sort of blanket term applied to a range of institutions and practices of feudal labor relations which could differ widely, and also often had more specific names (Blickle 2003). For example, in Upper Lusatia (and parts of the electorate of Saxony) the majority of peasants were “Erbuntertanen,” which roughly translates as hereditary subjects (Knothe 1885). Such “Erbuntertanen” also toiled on the estate of Berthelsdorf. From the seventeenth century onward, the mandates and ordinances regulating status and obligations of subjects and lords concentrated considerable power in the hands of estate owners to the detriment of the subjects. The “Erbuntertanen” were bound to the land they owned, they owed labor services to the lord of the manor, and their mobility was restricted. Nevertheless, there seems to have been a lot of variation in actual practices, and specific, more constrained agreements between subjects and lords could and did exist (the Berthelsdorf estate was such a case). In colloquial usage the term “Leibeigene” was prevalent in Upper Lusatia, too, and was also used by Zinzendorf and other Moravians when referring to the local “Erbuntertanen.”

In the documents the term “Unterthan” (subject) appears as well (four times, see documents 2, 3, 10, 11), but there is no indication that it was actually meant to refer to the “Erbuntertanen,” as the latter were usually called “Leibeigene” (see above). Also, “Untertan” (subject) was an even more general term than “leibeigen.” It encompassed all sorts of different categories of subservience at the same time, and its meaning was entirely dependent on context.

So, the term “leibeigen” was quite vague in its referral to feudal labor regimes in the Empire. However, as if to exacerbate its polysemic nature, “leibeigen” was also used synonymously with “slave.” One reason for this may have been the literal meaning of the term – owning the body – which also fits slavery. But more importantly, eighteenth century German law scholars relied on Roman Law as a subsidiary source of law wherever imperial law and local ordinances did not offer explicit regulations. This was part of a process of legal standardization taking place since the seventeenth century, which often was to the detriment of local custom or oral legal arrangements. In Upper Lusatia (as elsewhere), that meant that stipulations concerning servi, glebae adscriptii, or colonii were increasingly used to define and characterize the status “Erbuntertanen” as well. While laws and ordinances of Upper Lusatia expressly refuted a conflation of serfdom and slavery, there, too, dependency was constantly assessed through the categorial apparatus of Roman law (Blickle 2003; for discourse on slavery and serfdom in Prussia, see Mallinckrodt 2016).

In most of the documents generated on behalf of the Countess Zinzendorf or in response to her, the term “Leibeigener” (serf) was used synonymously with the term “slave.” This interpretation is plausible for the following reasons:

• In the letter to Karl Gotthelf von Hund (document 2), Samuel Johannes is called a “Leibeigener” and a “würklich leibeigen gebohrener Leibeigener” (a true born serf). Since Samuel Johannes definitely was not born in Berthelsdorf or another Upper Lusatian estate to serf parents, this can only reflect on his unfree status in his native country.
• “würklich leibeigen gebohrener Leibeigener” appears as a parallel expression to “gebohrener sclave” (born slave) in the same document.
• In documents 10 and 11, Samuel Johannes is characterized as a “Leibeigener” who had been bought in East India (“in Ostindien erkauffet”) and “rightfully given” to the Countess by his erstwhile master.
• The clearest evidence of the synonymity of “Leibeigner” and slave is to be found in document 11. This is a letter in the name of Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf to the Saxon authorities in Barby to hand over Samuel Johannes to the Berthelsdorf judge. Samuel Johannes had suddenly appeared in Barby, his former home, by the end of April 1754, and had been put under house arrest with the local Moravians. A pro nota to the letter reports that the Royal Superintendent and the Bailiff in Barby refused his extradition on the grounds given by the Countess because they were of the opinion that “there were no Leibeigene in Germany” (“weilen keine Leibeigene in Deutschland vorhanden”). If the two officials had rural serfs in mind, their statement would have been utterly false, but obviously they were speaking of slaves. Like many Germans at the time, they considered slavery something alien, either a thing of the past or something practiced in other countries. As slavery did not exist in Saxon and in imperial law, they felt they could not send Samuel Johannes back based on a claim of slavery — at least not without involving the elector’s court Dresden (“ohne Vorbewußt des Hofes”). Therefore, they proposed that Samuel Johannes’s extradition should be based on him being a runaway servant. This had the additional benefit of not involving them, except for the provision of a passport.

Confronting the polysemic nature of the term “Leibeigenschaft” and its synonymous use with slavery, it makes sense to take a closer look at the two instances where the word “Sclave” (slave) was actually used. As mentioned above, both instances are from document 2, the Countess’s letter to Karl Gotthelf von Hund. Labelling him a “true born slave” emphasizes how strong was his affiliation with unfree status. Slavery was not something that had happened to him because of bad luck, like being a war captive. No, he was born into this status, it had been part of his existence right from the beginning. This has some significance considering the Moravians’ understanding of social hierarchy, where everybody was put in their place by god and should strive to do their best in this position. Based on the Pauline epistles, this was repeatedly used by Moravians to legitimize slavery (Koestlbauer 2021). Samuel Johannes’s description as having been a “wild slave” when he was given to Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf in 1742 obviously refers to him having been what Moravians considered “heathen,” and someone who had to be educated in the faith and led to baptism.

There remains a slight possibility that in the letter by Erdmuthe Dorothea to Karl Gotthelf von Hund both meanings of the term—serf and slave—exist side by side. This possibility rests on the fact that in various instances Count Zinzendorf had been using banishment to nearby Berthelsdorf as a disciplinary measure against wayward inhabitants of Herrnhut (see Peucker 2015; Petterson 2021). Moving there meant submitting to the “Erbuntertänigkeit,” becoming a subject of the lord or lady of the manor and giving up the freedom from serfdom guaranteed to the inhabitants of Herrnhut in the much-touted manorial commandments from 1727. As the ordinances of Upper Lusatia forbade forcing someone into serfdom, this has to be understood as a form of social disciplining within the Moravian community. It was not something that could be done to individuals who earnestly wanted out or who were considered beyond redemption.

Ordering Samuel Johannes from Barby to Herrnhut may have been such a measure. If we follow this line of thought, he was called to Berthelsdorf to live there as an “Erbuntertan” until he would have shown remorse and would eventually be allowed back into the congregation. Having no actual use for him on the manor, where a more rural skillset was needed, Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf “lent” him to Baron von Schell. The problem with this interpretation is that for the actual outcome it made no difference whether the Countess considered Samuel Johannes a Berthelsdorf serf or a slave. I deem it very likely that before the events narrated here took place, she had never felt the need to dwel on the legal category best describing Samuel Johannes’s relationship to her.

Implicitly, both instances situate slavery outside Europe. Samuel Johannes was a “wild” slave because he came from a far away, wild place, where slavery was commonplace, where people were born into slavery. When labelling the older Samuel Johannes in Germany he is referred to with the German term “Leibeigener.” Why is that? A definite answer remains elusive. One reason may have been that Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf and the Berthelsdorf court officials, like the authorities in Barby, were reluctant to imply colonial (Dutch) or Indian slavery persisted indefinitely in Germany. Or maybe “leibeigen” was deemed the more understandable term in German (which may seem paradoxical to us but not to contemporaries who were used to the terminology and surely better inured to handle its context-sensitivity). In the latter case, using the term “Sclave” for Samuel Johannes’s origin and heritage would have merely accentuated his foreign origin and, indeed, the foreign roots of his subservience.

Of interest, too, is the labelling of Samuel Johannes as Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf’s ward. Document 2 tells how Christian Dober before his death in 1743 recommended Felix to the Countess’s care and “free disposition” once more (no archival evidence of this could be found). This introduces a moral underpinning of the Countess’s claims. The letter describes how the Countess ensured Samuel Johannes received a proper religious education and was baptized. Describing Samuel Johannes as a “wild” slave emphasized his “heathen” origins and thus the gratitude due to the Countess for facilitating his conversion. It also details the expenses spent on his upbringing, allegedly amounting to one thousand Reichsthaler. This was a hefty sum. In Bavaria in the first half of the eighteenth century a trained craftsman earned between forty and eighty Reichsthaler per year. Probably that was an exaggeration, after all Samuel Johannes was brought up in the children’s home. The argument concludes with the assertation that Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf did everything “which can be expected from lords, parents, and guardians for a serf and ward.” Thus, the letter constructs an asymmetrical relationship between countess and runaway not only on the level of mistress and slave/serf but also on the levels of parent and child, guardian and ward, and debtor and creditor. The whole patriarchic order is marshalled for the Countess’s cause.

When we link the above emic labels to the types of documents, a few additional observations can be made. The labels slave, serf, subject, ward (“Sclave”, “Leibeigener”, “Unterthan,” “Pflege-befohlener”), and sui iuris/in dominica potestate were all employed in official documents produced by the Countess’s party and addressed to other nobles and officials (documents 2, 3, 10, 11). When Moravians corresponded amongst each other, they referred to Samuel Johannes simply by his name (documents 7, 8). But the Berthelsdorf Actuarius Paul Schneider referred to him as “the Black” or “runaway Black” (document 6, pro nota to document 10). This difference can be explained through the nature of the documents. Documents 7 and 8 are private correspondences, exhibiting the rhetoric of intimacy typical for Moravian letter writing. In contrast, the other two documents are short memos concerning the search operations. Their offhand, seemingly pejorative labelling of Samuel Johannes might be due to the position taken by the author as a representative of the law, but it might also be identified as a racialized perception, reducing the delinquent to a “Black.”

Moving to the end of this semantic analysis, I will explore the potential of antonyms to better understand the perceptions of Samuel Johannes and his relationship to Erdmuthe Dorothea von Zinzendorf. To us, slavery, serfdom, and indeed most forms of early modern servitude would seem as having their opposite in freedom. But our idea of freedom as a central societal value and inalienable human right was not shared by early modern European societies. Nevertheless, in connection to slavery and serfdom the usage of the term freedom, or freedoms, is well-documented in early modern sources. Looking at the terminology which the analyzed texts situated in opposition to terms like “leibeigen” or “Sclave” may help us better grasp the specific meaning accorded to these.

Only in the documents not produced by the Countess’s party does Samuel Johannes appear as a legitimate actor: the Unwürde court’s memorandum (document 4) reports how “he presented himself” to Karl Gotthelf von Hund, how he was actively asking for work as tailor, how he “left” or “went away” from his last position in Herrnhut. But it is the emic labels in this document that prove most interesting. In this source Samuel Johannes for the first time is labelled as free, namely a “free person” (“freye Person”)—even though this is only formulated as a possibility by the messengers from Herrnhut. What characterizes a “free” person in the documents, was first and foremost control over one’s own mobility. Conversely, restricted mobility or mobility controlled by someone else was a characteristic of slavery as well as Upper Lusatian “Erbuntertänigkeit,” but could also pertain to servants.

It is quite telling that neither “leibeigen” nor “enslaved” is invoked in Daniel Michln’s letter (document 9). This supports the assumption that von Hund and the letter’s author did not consider Samuel Johannes’s predicament as part of a wider anti-slavery or anti-serfdom agenda. The freedom mentioned here—if Samuel Johannes had been able to get it—was the basic freedom to control his own mobility and to decide on his own economic strategies. It did not make him an equal to others beyond his social rank and it still would have left him reentering into situations of dependency, likely as a servant.

Document 9, the letter by Daniel Michln in Unwürde to Samuel Johannes, is the only one explicitly referring to “freedom.” It contains Karl Gotthelf von Hund’s advice to find employment and a lawyer in the Prussian capital. To the lawyer, Samuel Johannes should tell everything to find out whether someone could have “pretensions on him” (“ob jemand praetension an Ihn haben könnte”) and whether something could be done about “his freedom” (“wegen seiner Freiheit”). The use of a noun instead of an attribute might be read as an indication of a more abstract, more encompassing notion of freedom, a natural right to be (re)claimed. And, considering the lively masonic interests of Karl Gotthelf von Hund, this may very well be true. On the other hand, the unnamed “pretensions” on “his” freedom point to a more discriminate understanding of freedom.

Of further interest is the use of the antonymic labels “(not) sui iuris” (document 2) and “in dominica potestatis” (documents 10 and 11) in three documents written in the Countess’s name. The Roman law expression sui iuris meant not being in someone else’s power (i.e., alieni iuris) and characterized the legal status of those in the dominion of the Roman paterfamilias, like for example children or slaves. The term was always used in conjunction with the label “true born serf” (he is not sui iuris […] since he is a true born serf”), which here clearly meant “slave” (see above). So, in Samuel Johannes’s case not being sui iuris but “in dominica potestatis” essentially was a consequence of being a slave. At the same time, it was an attribute that could be affixed to many forms of dependency or subservience, therefore it cannot be regarded as a singular signifier of slavery. Avoiding (or not caring about) explications of slavery, this terminology was used to describe Samuel Johannes in an almost generic way as total dependent of the Countess, having no autonomy in his choice of place and mode of living.

A label that is curiously absent from all the documents in the file is “Moravian.” After all, Samuel Johannes was Member of the Church, albeit a wayward one, and his actions also signified a willingness to break with the religious community. Partly, that is due to the nature of the records. Concerned with the legal and administrative side of Samuel Johannes’s unauthorized departure from Herrnhut, they firmly stayed within the terminology and forms of legal discourse. They did not dwell on church or communal matters. Two letters exchanged by Moravians containing references to the case (documents 7 and 8) also concerned themselves solely with the search and arrest of Samuel Johannes. In the few extant sources pertaining to Samuel Johannes’s later life, the events of 1754 are referred to only obliquely. This was quite typical for Moravian writings of the time, which stressed harmony, brotherly love, and the bond with the Savior, and tended to describe conflict in vague language. The Lebenslauf (memoir) written after Samuel Johannes’s death in 1763 only mentions a “persisting confusion of his mind,” which was resolved when the “Good Shepherd” led him back “into the flock.” Nevertheless, it is opportune to keep the Moravian dimension in mind, because it doubtlessly existed, even though it remained a hidden presence in the records.