问题描述：
英译汉,在线等,不要工具翻译的
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)
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)
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读