The master-servant nexus is much more complex than you suggest (“The Servant Problem” and “Why Have Servants?” December 17, 2011). You neglect many a servant who has pushed the hapless master around. Two examples will suffice. The Fifth Century Roman emperor Theodosius II was actually ruled by his wily servant, the eunuch Chrysaphius. As soon as the emperor died, his sister Pulcheria, now empress, had Chrysaphius publically executed to everyone’s delight. Closer to our age, Ivan Goncharov’s Oblomov, a fictional Russian nobleman from the Nineteenth Century who dares not leave his bed, is actually sponsored in his sloth by his crafty servant, Zakhar. The popularity of the novel only shows the ubiquity of the switch in social rôles. Thus George Akerlof’s principal-agent theory that explores the ambiguity of the relationship, for which he got a Nobel prize in economics. To wit, principals had better pay attention to their agents’ trickeries that can turn the relationship around. Beware of servants is the wise message.