<span>Gutenberg was instrumental in changing the speed at which the worldcommunicated. Prior to Gutenberg adding several changes together, to wind upwith his version of the 'printing press'. There were several 'ideas' thatpreceded him. The first advance was the use of block letters in a fixed frame,Then came the idea of moving the paper into and out of the press. Finally, wasthe use of a molton metal (Lead-tin Mixture) that allowed for the Type Patternto be recycled for every letter that was needed. The copying by hand , theprevious editions of 'the book', was a laborious process that required manyhands to copy out the text onto linen 'pages', and to make sure that what waswritten ,was accurate. [errors did crop in ocassionally]. Finally the scribeswere very upset when Gutenberg was able to reproduce texts faster than anyscribe was able to set about copying a volume of 100 pages or so(The Boook of.....) So while it would take up to 6 months to finish one copy of a book,Gutenberg was able to produce hundreds in 6-8weeks time. He was vilified in thelocal village gossip for causing the scribes to loose their work, but he felt itwas his christian duty to promote this 'invention' for everyone. In somerespects the church was not happy,but in others the church elders were happythat he donated time to spreading the word(s) of those books. AS the Book ofthe BIBLE was able to be reproduced in larger and larger quantities Gutenbergwas able to bring the costs down. SO as the costs became less, then more andmore people were able to afford (or were giver a copy aspart of their 'NEW lifetogether' as in a Marriage, then the copies were handed down through thegenerations. This enabled more people top read the books of the Bible.</span>
I think c but it might be very wrong
The Norman Invasion began in the year 1066.
Many people reacted in a good way to the new constitution, while some thought it gave too much power to the government. The Federalists supported the new constitution in 1787, while the Anti-Federalists primarily did not agree with it.
The Federalists were in support of a new constitution. They believed that the Articles of Confederation, which was the United States' first constitution, was too weak and the government needed more power. Under the Articles, the government could not tax citizens, properly create and enforce laws, regulate trade, and draft soldiers. The Federalists felt like this was weakening the country and they needed to amend it. While the Articles ended up getting scrapped altogether, the Federalists were in support of this and wanted to create a new constitution that gave more power to the federal government.
On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists favored the Articles of Confederation and did not want to amend it or create a new constitution. They associated the government having power with British tyranny and thought the power should be in the hands of the states and citizens. They opposed having a new constitution and were scared for their rights, this is why they demanded to have a Bill of Rights.
