As to the too common belief that spellings should never be changed, Professor Thomas says:
What is needed is to prepare the way for a generation whose feelings shall be somewhat different from ours—a generation that shall have less reverence than we have for what is called usage.
During the last hundred and fifty years we have become a race of dictionary-worshipers, and we have gone so far in our blind, unreasonable subserviency to an artificial standard that the time has come for a reaction. We need to reconquer and assert for ourselves something of that liberty which Shakespeare and Milton enjoyed. We need to claim the natural right of every living language to grow and change to suit the convenience of those who use it. This right belongs to the written language no less than to the spoken.
We have the same right to make usage that Steele and Addison and Dr. Johnson had; and there is just as much merit in making usage as in following it.
The Tale of a Dog.
To gain an idea of the extent to which usage has changed in three hundred years, it is necessary only to read the following dog story, which was first recorded in 1587, and was reprinted lately by the London Chronicle:
Item—We present yt at the tyme of our sytting ther hath ben complaynt made of another dogg, betwene a masty & a mungerell, of Peter Quoyte's which hath stronng qualyties by himselfe, which goyng lose abrode doth many times offend the neyghbors & wyll fetch owt of ther howses whole peces of meate, as loynes of mutton & veal & such lyke & a pasty of venson or a whole pownde of candells at a tyme, & will not spoyle yt by the way but cary yt whole to his masters howse, which being a profytable dogg for his master, yet because he is offensyffe to many yt is not sufferable, wherfor his master hath forfeyt for every time 3s. 4d. And be yt comaunded to kepe him tyed or to putt him away upon payn to forfeyte for every tyme he shalbe found in the streets 3s. 4d.
This story takes on significance from the comment of the New York Times:
There, now, is a fine specimen of Shakespearian spelling, for it is dated 1587. Even this, of course, is itself the flower of numberless reformations and changes, all in the direction of simplicity and phonetic—or intended to be. It is at least as different from the so-called long-established spelling as is that of the letters contributed to our columns occasionally by correspondents who think they are showing by horrible examples the dreadful orthography to which the Carnegie iconoclasts would reduce us all.
But what a fine dog story it is, and how quaintly phrased! And how magnanimous is the admission that the animal "betwene a masty and a mungerell," though addicted to larceny, "hath stronng qualyties of himselfe"!