Back from Florida. Richard Wright of Rehoboth provides good reference for the slippery nature of the term "servant" in the 17th century. Wright is described by Bowen as, "Perhaps the main organizer in the settlement of Seekonk." (Bowen, vol. 3, p. 113). Like Redway, Wright arrived in Massachusetts as the servant of a wealthy individual, in his case a Colonel Humfrey. Bowen explains the term servant as follows: "Three hundred years ago anyone who was a "servant" who worked for another whether in the capacity of farmhand or lawyer." (p. 113). Wright and Redway are deserving of a good comparative study, although certainly Redway was a more humble individual than Wright. Both came to MA to develop farms for employers. For both men one wonders how they accumulated their money. One suspects some manner of patronage arrangement with their employers. BC

Bruce wrote: > Bowen explains the term servant > as follows: "Three hundred years ago anyone who was a "servant" who worked > for another whether in the capacity of farmhand or lawyer." (p. 113). That definition leaves out a crucial word. A servant could indeed be described as someone who worked SOLELY for another person. The status of a servant was thus that of a dependent serving a master, not to mince words. Of course, an INDENTURED servant is bound to that status for the term of his indenture, but he's a free man after that. It's that simple. > For both men one wonders how they > accumulated their money. One suspects some manner of patronage arrangement > with their employers. Don't forget that money "grew on trees" in those days. Even servants get some time off, and an energetic man could obtain a grant of wilderness land and turn it into a farm on his own account. John Chandler