“This yeare there went hence 6 shippes with 1000 people in them to the Massachusetts having sent two yeares before betweene 3 & 400 servants to provide howses and Corne against theire coming, to the charge of (at least) 10,000_l._, these Servants through Idlenes & ill Government neglected both theire building & plantinge of Corne, soe that if those 6 Shippes had not arived the plantation had ben broke & dissolved.”—_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1860-1862, pp. 130-131. The same use of the word is found a number of times in the list of the Mayflower passengers. [181] J. F. D. Smyth says, London, 1784, “However, although I now call this man (a backwoodsman of the Alleghanies) my servant, yet he himself never would have submitted to such an appellation, although he most readily performed every menial office, and indeed every service I could desire.”—_Tour in the United States_, I., 356. [182] Fanny Kemble writes, “They have no idea, of course, of a white person performing any of the offices of a servant;” then follows an amusing account of her white maid’s being taken for the master’s wife, and her almost unavailing efforts to correct the mistake.—_Journal of a Residence in Georgia_, pp. 44-46. [183] An illustration of this change is seen in the different definitions given to the word. In the _Royal Standard English Dictionary_, 1813, a servant is “one who attends and obeys another, one in a state of subjection.” Johnson’s _Dictionary_, London, 1818, gives: “(1) One who attends another and acts at his command; the correlative of master. Used of man or woman. (2) One in a state of subjection.” Richardson’s _New Dictionary of the English Language_, London, 1838, defines _servant_ as the correlative of _master_. The American usage was practically the same. The first edition of Webster, 1828, gives: “(1) Servant, a person, male or female, that attends another for the purpose of performing menial offices for him, or who is employed by another for such offices, or for other labor, and is subject to his command. _Servant_ differs from _slave_, as the servant’s subjection to a master is voluntary, the slave’s is not. Every slave is a servant, but every servant is not a slave.” Worcester, 1860, says of _servant_: “(1) One who serves, whether male or female; correlative of _master_, _mistress_, or _employer_. (2) One in a state of subjection; a menial; a domestic; a drudge; a slave.” These various definitions all suggest the class association of the terms “servant” and “slave.” [184] A curious illustration of the social position of servants in Europe is seen in their lack of political privileges.