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 passage and the lecture both discuss the origin of the Voynich manuscript, which is a manuscript written on vellum in an unknown language or symbols. The author of the excerpt presents three theories about the real author of the book. However, the lecturer casts doubt on the claims made in the article. He maintains that none of the proposals could be true.
To begin with, The writer assumes that Antony Ascham, a sixteenth century physician and botanist might be the possible author since many plant illustrations in the Voynich manuscript resemble those in Ascham's book on medicinal plants. Conversely, the speaker in the lecture challenges this argument. he holds that Ascham was an ordinary physician and scientist who used to write about common plants based on other well-known resources. Thus, he did not need to elaborately code his publications to keep it secret.
Secondly, the author posits that Edward Kelley might be the author. According to the article, he might have written it to sell it as a secret magical book to a wealthy noble for money. Nevertheless, the professor points out that it's unlikely that it's just a fake magical book created to be sold for money since the author took care to make the writing look genuine. In addition, people were quite easy to foul around that time and a much simpler forms could have done the job.
Lastly, the writer contends that Voynich himself could have created the manuscript to sell it as a mysterious book whenever he would be able to get an attractive offer. The lecturer, on the other hand, brings up the fact that dating techniques determined that the age of the vellum and ink is 400 years, which adamantly proves that the antique was made before Voynich obtained it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 301, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: He
...n the lecture challenges this argument. he holds that Ascham was an ordinary physi...
^^
Line 9, column 478, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... simpler forms could have done the job. Lastly, the writer contends that Voynich...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
conversely, however, lastly, look, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, thus, well, in addition, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 5.04856512141 158% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 12.0772626932 116% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 22.412803532 120% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 37.0 30.3222958057 122% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 5.01324503311 40% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1466.0 1373.03311258 107% => OK
No of words: 298.0 270.72406181 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91946308725 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.04702891845 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51719235971 2.5805825403 98% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 145.348785872 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.58389261745 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 442.8 419.366225166 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 3.25607064018 123% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.51434878587 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8088901493 49.2860985944 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.714285714 110.228320801 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 21.698381199 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.14285714286 7.06452816374 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 4.33554083885 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 4.45695364238 45% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.195423795848 0.272083759551 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0559318497446 0.0996497079465 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.06492149544 0.0662205650399 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12053269253 0.162205337803 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413820266826 0.0443174109184 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 13.3589403974 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 53.8541721854 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.0289183223 93% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.2367328918 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.42419426049 101% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 10.7273730684 98% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.2008830022 98% => 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.