To what extent was CAS influenced by the style of the translators of the King James Bible, do you think? I was just re-reading CAS's "To the Sun", and the Biblical cadences of the free verse struck me. Coincidence, or some other influence? I've certainly never read any CAS criticism that discussed such a stylistic influence (although I am no expert in the secondary literature on CAS, either).

Ashton was well-read in the KJV, and a great admirer -
We often joked about the Book of Mormon as an obvious faux attempt to imitate the late and splendidly memorable writing in the KJV - He of course had early introductions through both his Mother, and the public school of those days - plus, he was avid about checking footnotes, particularly in Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser et al - since they are rife with biblical references - although Chaucer and Shakespeare pre-date the KJV - it should be noted that Shakespeare would have had a strong intro to Latin as a schoolboy of 5 years of age, and while all serious readers (and the translators themselves) were well grounded in Latin, they deliberately chose to write in an elevated style as appropriate to the subject matter, and not in the common speech of the early 1600's.
Example: "...faith is the substance of things hoped for..." the Greek is "Hypostasis" - substance is the Latin wherein prefix and root have the same meaning - that is, "the thing standing below,or underneath" - the earliest know etymology of this is that of a signature at the bottom of a deed, validating ownership - not "raw material". The Hernia edition of the old Webster's often had information at that level.

I am glad to have confirmation that CAS appreciated the KJV. One can hardly underestimate its influence on the language, in general. I am not religious, and therefore I do not yearn for the days when one quoted scripture as absolute law, but the state of the language, in my opinion, was far better when reading the King James Bible was more common.

The elevated style.... Peri Hypsous today are no doubt words as dirty as they are generally forgotten. Does anyone even remember the Attic vs. Asiatic styles, and the controversy surrounding them?

As for dictionaries, they've degenerated so much in our era of politically correct descriptivism that one has to consult the OED to obtain the level of information you mention, these days.

Re the quality of the standard collegiate dictionary -
the same holds for encyclopediae - The 1911 Brittanica, for those of an historical or literary bent is far and away the best - the authors were the brightest lights of their time, and article for article outshone the podunk "scholars" they hire today while spending all the big money on color plates, foldovers, et al on scientific articles - the 1895 Americana is similarly the best for those interested in early american history - virtually every city councilman in the country up until then is in the thing -
The 1911 is amazing reading on the American Indian tribes -
also you can learn to make a wagon wheel or dig a well.
Considering the present political scene, such may again become valuable information for the survivors.

I would second the above regarding the 1911 Brittanica; I've been able to find details on historical names in that edition that I could not find elsewhere. Some of its details regarding technology are naturally dated but otherwise, I've found it to be an invaluable resource.

Agreed, regarding the 1911 Britannica. I am glad that it is online. One of the few good things about the English-language Wikipedia is that the 1911 public domain Britannica often serves as the basis for articles on history, philosophy, and the like.

I would add that it is a pet peeve of mine to read the OED referred to as a descriptive dictionary. It is not. It uses such labels as "obsolete" and "archaic" to describe certain older (and still perfectly valuable) words that--much to the dismay of writers such as CAS, no doubt--have fallen into desuetude. Such labels are a form of judgment, and therefore of prescription, in my view.

Re the 1911 -- I first encountered this remarkable work in the late 50's as an undergraduate at Syracuse U. My professor/mentor introduced me to it, advising that in point of fact that if one were called upon on short notice to sub for a fellow professor, you could pull off an intelligible lecture from the 1911 on any historical/philosophical or literary subject -- I actually had to do that once and give a quicky talk on
Kant.