The provisions of the statutes affecting the library imposed upon the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, were evidently borrowed directly from the customs of the monasteries. The statutes of Oriel College, Oxford, dated 1329, present an example: “The common books (_libri communes_) of the House are to be brought out and inspected once a year, on the feast of the Commemoration of Souls (November 2d) in the presence of the Provost or his deputy, and of the scholars (Fellows). Each one of the scholars, in the order of seniority, may select a single book which either treats of the science to which he is devoting himself, or which he requires for his use. This he may keep until the same festival in the succeeding year, when a similar selection of books is to take place, and so on, from year to year. If there should happen to be more books than persons, those that remain are to be selected in the same manner.” A statute of Archbishop Lanfranc, for the English Benedictines, dated 1070, and based, as he tells us, on the general monastic practice of his time, gives the following regulation: “On the Monday after the first Sunday in Lent, before Brethren come into the Chapter House, the librarian [here called not _armarius_ but _custos librorum_] shall have a carpet laid down and all the books got together upon it, except those which the year previous had been assigned for reading. These the Brethren are to bring with them, when they come into the Chapter House, each his book in his hand. Then the librarian shall read a statement as to the manner in which Brethren have had books during the past year. As each Brother hears his name pronounced, he is to give back the book which had been entrusted to him for reading; and he whose conscience accuses him of not having read through the book which he had received, is to fall on his face, confess his fault, and entreat forgiveness. The librarian shall then make a fresh distribution of books, namely a different volume to each Brother for his reading.” It would appear from this reference as if Lanfranc’s monks were under obligations to read through but one book each year, which was certainly a very moderate allowance. It is also to be noted that the books appear not to have been distributed according to the preferences of the readers, but to have been assigned at the will of the librarian. There must certainly have been no little difference in the character and extent of the duty imposed of reading through one book (even with so long an allowance of time) according to the particular volume which the _custos_ saw fit to assign. The worthy Archbishop writes, however, as if a book were a book and one as good for edification or as fitting for penance as another.