英语翻译'Towards the close of the fifteenth century there was a meteor-like appearance of an Oxford Press.' (fn.21) In its origin this Oxford Press was,as far as can be ascertained,quite independent of Caxton's printing.The battle which has been

英语翻译'Towards the close of the fifteenth century there was a meteor-like appearance of an Oxford Press.' (fn.21) In its origin this Oxford Press was,as far as can be ascertained,quite independent of Caxton's printing.The battle which has been
英语翻译
'Towards the close of the fifteenth century there was a meteor-like appearance of an Oxford Press.' (fn.21) In its origin this Oxford Press was,as far as can be ascertained,quite independent of Caxton's printing.The battle which has been waged about the date of the first book printed at Oxford has made this book 'a veritable typographical battleground,and in Henry Bradshaw's opinion a touchstone of intellectual acumen.' (fn.22) This book bears the date 7 December,1468.It is an exposition of the Apostles' Creed,ascribed to St.Jerome,but is in reality a treatise on the creed by Tyrannius Rufinus.(fn.23) It is now supposed that the date ought really to be 1478,and that in the hurry of printing an x was omitted.In 1664,Richard Atkyns,a Gloucestershire gentleman,propounded what is known as the Corsellis forgery,by which he tried to prove that a printer,Frederick Corsellis,had printed in Oxford ten years before Caxton set up his presses at Westminster.Mr.Madan says,'as no one believes in this story it is not worth while to do more than to point out that no corroboration of it has ever been found.' (fn.24) Conyers Middleton in his Dissertation on the Origin of Printing,published in 1735,was the first to throw doubt upon the year 1468.From that time the opinion has steadily grown that 1478 and not 1468 ought to be the date of the first printed book at Oxford.Mr.Madan treats the subject with the greatest care in his History of the Early Oxford Press.He takes into consideration the question of signatures; he shows that there are no signs of progress in the first three Oxford books; he points out that the same type is used,the same sized page,and the same number of lines in a column; he remarks,with numerous examples,that mistakes of dates are common,and finally he considers that the books bound up with the Jerome would show rather the date 1478 than that of 1468.He considers that it is conceivable,but not probable,that printing was done in Oxford previous to the year 1477.(fn.25) In the Chart of Oxford Printing Mr.Madan would appear even more definite when he says 'the fact remains that the greater the bibliographer the more certain he is that the true date is 1478.' (fn.26)

英语翻译'Towards the close of the fifteenth century there was a meteor-like appearance of an Oxford Press.' (fn.21) In its origin this Oxford Press was,as far as can be ascertained,quite independent of Caxton's printing.The battle which has been
“走向结束的第十五个世纪的牛津大学出版社有一个流星般的外观.牛津大学出版社在其原产地,只要能够确定的,完全独立的卡克斯顿的印刷.这本书的一个名副其实的印刷战场的战役已经发动的日期印在牛津大学的第一本书,和亨利·布拉德肖认为智力敏锐的试金石.“ 这本书带有日期1468年12月7日.这是一个博览会,归因于圣杰罗姆的使徒们的信条,但实际上是一个论文的信条Tyrannius Rufinus.现在应该,日期应该真的是1478,并且在打印一个x匆忙被省略.1664年,理查德·Atkyns,格洛斯特郡的绅士,会否被称为的Corsellis伪造的,他试图证明,印制了一台打印机,冯检Corsellis,在牛津十年前卡克斯顿成立了压在威斯敏斯特.马丹先生说,“没有人相信这个故事,它是不值得的,而做多指出,没有佐证的是曾经被发现.” “科尼尔斯米德尔顿在他的论文的起源印刷,出版于1735年,一年后,1468年率先抛出疑问.从那个时候,舆论稳步增长,1478年,而不是1468年应该是在牛津大学的第一本印刷书之日起.马丹先生把这个问题与他的早期牛津大学出版社的历史中最大的关怀.他会考虑签名的问题,他表示,没有任何迹象表明在前三牛津书籍的进步,他指出,使用相同类型,相同尺寸的页面,和相同数量的列线;无数的例子,他的言论是错误的日期是常见的,最后,他认为,书的杰罗姆的影响而出现的日期1478年比1468.他认为,这是可以想象的,但可能性不大,即印刷完成在牛津以前的一年1477.在牛津大学印刷先生马丹图会出现更明确时,他说：“事实上,更大的目录学家,更肯定他是真正的日期是1478.”

我表示看不完

上课不认真的结果

哥们 特长了 你说一般人能有耐心看完吗？