In 1912 a bookseller named Wilfrid M. Voynich acquired a beautifully illustrated handwritten book (manuscript) written on vellum (vellum is a material that was used for writing before the introduction of paper). The "Voynich manuscript," as it became known, resembles manuscripts written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. However, it is written in a completely unknown script. To date, no one has been able to decode the script and understand the book's content. Several theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the Voynich manuscript. One theory is that the manuscript is a genuine work on some scientific or magical subject composed in a complex secret code. Anthony Ascham, a sixteenth-century physician and botanist, has been identified as a possible author, since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript are quite similar to those in Ascham's book on medicinal plants, A Little Herbal, published in 1550. According to some other theories, the manuscript is really a fake and its text has no real meaning. For example, it has been proposed the manuscript was created by Edward Kelley, a sixteenth century personality who extracted money from nobles across Europe by pretending to have magical powers. Kelley may have created the manuscript as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. He used a made-up alphabet in a completely random order. It looks like a book of magical secrets, but there is no meaningful underlying text. Another theory is that the manuscript is actually a modern fake created by Wilfrid M. Voynich himself. As an antique book dealer, Voynich certainly had the knowledge of what old manuscripts should look like and could have created a fake one. Perhaps Voynich's plan was to sell the fake as a mysterious old book if he received an attractive offer.
The reading and the lecture are both about the origin of the Voynich manuscript. While the passage explains three possible theories for creation of the manuscript, the lecture contradicts these claims and provides evidence to the contrary.
To begin with, the author argues that the manuscript is an authentic work which created by Anthony Ascham. Conversely, the lecturer brings up the idea that the book should have so important and powerful information, because the writer used special codes to make the book secret. But Ascham was an ordinary scientist and physician who didn't has original ideas. The professor mentions Ascham book and says this is a commonplace plant description based on other well-known sources and so this is unlikely he was the author of this elaborately and secret written manuscript.
Secondly, the reading passage states that the manuscript is actually a fake and without real meaning written by Edward Kelley. The lecture counters that argument by asserting that although Kelley was good at tricking people, this work need a lot of care to look like real code. He elaborates on this by bringing up the point that people at that century were easy to fool. So Kelley didn't need to make this complex manuscript with so much work and he could reach the same purpose by just a simpler book.
Finally, the author asserts that the manuscript is a modern fake which made by Voynich himself to sell it as a strange old book very expensive. In Contrast, the speaker believes that Voynich couldn't be the author. He notes that we are able to date manuscript by modern methods. Both papers and ink refers to at least 400 years ago and if we assume that Voynich used papers from old resources, definitely he couldn't get ink for this purpose. Thus this reason rules out Voynich as an author.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 335, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...an ordinary scientist and physician who didnt has original ideas. The professor menti...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 383, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...at century were easy to fool. So Kelley didnt need to make this complex manuscript wi...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 192, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...rast, the speaker believes that Voynich couldnt be the author. He notes that we are abl...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 408, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...apers from old resources, definitely he couldnt get ink for this purpose. Thus this rea...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 442, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ly he couldnt get ink for this purpose. Thus this reason rules out Voynich as an aut...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, conversely, finally, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, while, at least, in contrast, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 10.4613686534 115% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 7.30242825607 164% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 35.0 30.3222958057 115% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1510.0 1373.03311258 110% => OK
No of words: 308.0 270.72406181 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9025974026 5.08290768461 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18926351222 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51082997461 2.5805825403 97% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564935064935 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 419.366225166 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 13.0662251656 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 21.2450331126 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.184756525 49.2860985944 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.666666667 110.228320801 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5333333333 21.698381199 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 4.19205298013 119% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 4.33554083885 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.27373068433 140% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191655612454 0.272083759551 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689942793255 0.0996497079465 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.037170203306 0.0662205650399 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121118922441 0.162205337803 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0384393941496 0.0443174109184 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 13.3589403974 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 53.8541721854 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.0289183223 90% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.2367328918 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.42419426049 102% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 63.6247240618 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.7273730684 75% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 10.498013245 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.2008830022 89% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.