Johnson's Dictionary Blocks Progress
Then came Dr. Samuel Johnson. At a time when English spelling was stil unsettld, when etimology was largely based on geswork, and English filology was in its infancy, his literary reputation gave to his dictionary (1755) an "authority" far beyond that which it— or, indeed, any dictionary compiled at that time—could possibly merit. His classical leanings led him to prefer spellings that pointed, rightly or wrongly, to Latin or Greek sources; while his lack of sound scolarship prevented him from detecting their frequent errors and absurdities. A good illustration is his preferring ache to ake. The Middle English verb was ake (Old English acan); the noun was ache (Old English aece, ece) , pronounst in Shakespeare's time like the name of the letter h. Altho the pronunciation of the noun had changed to that of the verb in Johnson's time, he speld them both ache on a false assumption that they wer derived from the Greek achos.
Thru whim or indolence he approved in certain instances spellings that wer inconsistent with those he adopted for other words of the same general clas. Thus, while retaining the Latin p in receipt, he left it out of deceit; he speld deign one way, and disdain another; he speld uphill but downhil, muckhill but dunghil, instill but distil, inthrall but disenthral. A few of his inconsistencies wer adjusted by later lexicografers, but more wer not. In other instances his carelessness permitted him to deviate in the text from the spellings given in the vocabulary.
Johnson's dictionary, with all its imperfections, was nevertheless accepted by printers, scoolmasters, and the general public, as "authoritativ", and its spellings as "correct". It gave standing to an incorrect theory
