"That definition leaves out a crucial word" John's objection perhaps brings us to the crux of the matter. "Indenture" in 17th century Massachusetts meant simply contract. Surely the term "indenture" meant simply that in period England and before. However the true "indentured servant" was I suspect a creature of a century later and chiefly in the southern colonies. We should beware of reading 17th century New England in terms of the 18th century. Historical problem? BC

Bruce wrote: > John's objection perhaps brings us to the crux of the matter. "Indenture" in > 17th century > Massachusetts meant simply contract. Yes, and it still means that to this day, though the word is seldom used. The word "servant" also has an unchanged meaning to this day. So what is the crux of the matter?? > However the true "indentured > servant" was I suspect a creature of a century later And what is a "true" indentured servant? And how is that different from an indentured servant of the 17th century: a person who is bound as servant to a specific master by irrevocable contract covering a determined period of years. John Chandler