As Samuels says, the \u27regionally mixed spelling systems\u27 in the Paston Letters are attributed to the various linguistic habits which the scribes gained through their experiences in life. He continues, \u27Some retained their dialect orthography (type A) or modified it later in life (types C and D); and there were doubtless others who were initially taught some variant of types C and D, and retained that, with or without modification.\u27 So are the cases of the six servants who wrote the letters from the Fastolfs. Each one shows his own variable features of linguistic form. Some preserve conservative spellings or word forms, and others make a progressive move towards the reformation of their lingurstic habits. Some spellings and word forms which are similar to Chancery English are found even in their first letters. This, however, does not immediately warrant the conclusion that Chancery English had an influence upon them. First, these forms may have been original with them. Second, Chancery English was still unknown to people throughout England when they were employed by Fastolf as his servants, and began to write their letters at Fastolf\u27s manor house. Moreover, the letters extant show no increasing signs of Chancery forms. This is very strange, judging from the special circumstances of the Fastolfs. According to Richardson\u27s remark, Chancery should already have established its standard form and spread it throughout English as a language of law by 1460. If so, why should they not adopt it positively in their everyday use to modernise their linguistic habits? The use of Chancery English must have dignified them in the court. But, in fact, their spellings and word forms remained as they were all through the period of their letter writing. So, there is little possibility of their immitating Chancery forms and acquiring them personally. It is true that some spellings and word forms in the letters from the Fastolfs may resemble those of Chancery, but the dialect atlas tells us almost all of them correspond with allographs and allomorphs which were in general use at Caister. There might be a few which originated in Chancery, but they are no longer called Chancery forms. This is not because they were brought about in their letters by means of personal imitation, but because they were adopted by the people at Caister as a result of their intercourse with London and other big cities. They must have been developing into a new type of dialect. The scribes of the letters from the Fastolfs used this type of dialect (types C and D, as Samuels calls them) from beginning to end. Davis\u27s remark that, Their letters show something of the complexity of the process by which regional men of varied experience moved towards a common form of written English\u27 does not mean that their spellings and word forms were modernised by repeating trial and error under the influence of Chancery English. It will mean that they moved sometimes towards modernisation and sometimes towards degeneration in the process of development of the dialect of Caister, and that they were nothing less than the dialect of Caister which was changing rapidly
