ENPages
page_0001
115, Burnt Oak Lane, Sidcup, Kent
6.1.1925.
John Buchan, Esq.
Dear Sir,
I trust you will pardon the liberty I am taking in writing to you, but I would very much like to ask you a question; if you would answer it for me I should indeed be grateful.
Recently I finished reading your book on Oliver Cromwell. In it I came across a short account of James NAYLOR, and his sufferings. For some time, Sir, I have been interested in that man since my name, too, is Naylor, and I also am a Quaker. My question is, why do you spell his name NAYLOr? Why the O?
In the volume on "The Beginnings of Quakerism" by Wm. C. Braithwaite in the Quaker History Series, he is always
page_0002
referred to as NAYLER. In M.R. Brailsford's book "A Quaker from Cromwell's Army - James Nayler" she always refers to him as NAYLER, though I must admit there are three engravings in that book, one a Dutch one (1657) NAILOR, the other two (both 172) and both NAYLOR. Finally, in the book by Emilia Fogelklow (1931) she was NAYLER throughout her study of him, but again the frontispiece is NAYLOR, but the sentence of the court describes him as NAYLER.
Well, Sir, it does seem to me that if we assume that there was no settled way of spelling names in his day, it seems that the NAYLERS have a maority vote.
For my part, I should like to know why you give him as Naylor - which, I would be pleased to think he was
I am, Sir,
Yours faithfully, L.S. Ashby Naylor
P.S. My copy of your work is a 1st Edition so I do not know if the mistake has since been rectified, but the index to this edition gives him as "Thomas" and not James.
