As they were not subject in their anchorhold to any recognized monastic rule, they sought some regulations for their way of life, and the treatise they received is represented, so far as the matter is concerned, best by MS. N. But a book so helpful was certain to be copied for the use of other anchorites, with suitable adaptations and possibly additions; such a copy is MS. A, made a considerable time after the original. It omits the important reference to the author, found only in MS. N, wherein he speaks of the practice of the lay brothers of the community to which he belonged (Morton, 24), the word ‘leawude’ in ‘ure leawude breðren’ (M. 412/8), and the passage addressed by the author to the ladies for whom the book was composed (M. 192) containing the biographical details quoted above: of the numerous additions the most interesting is that in which reference is made to the general adoption of the rule by anchoresses all over England, with such unanimity that it is as though they were all gathered within the walls of one convent at London, Oxford, Shrewsbury, or Chester (M. L. Review, ix. 470). As MS. T is imperfect at the beginning, its first leaf corresponding to Morton, p. 44, it cannot be known whether it left out the first passage (Morton, 24) mentioned above, but it does omit the second passage (Morton, 192), and further eliminates commendatory references to the sisters found in Morton, 48/2-4, 50/20-24; it is therefore adapted like A. So too is the French version; it contains some of the additions of A, and is subsequent to it. A third stage is reached when the book is recognized as profitable reading for others who are not anchorites, for nuns, as in the Latin version of MS. M, in which the first ritual part is abridged and the last wholly left out as inapplicable to those who have a definite rule of their own, such as the Cistercian sisters at Tarent, for whom Simon of Ghent may well have executed this translation. Similarly the extracts of MS. B were probably made for the use of seculars.