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 article states that Voynich's manuscript vellum was originated by him and mentions three reasons for support of these ideas. However, the professor explains that none of these theories are convincing and refutes each of the author's claims.
First, the reading claims that the manuscript was probably made by the Voynich because it had some genuine scientific and magical subjects with a complex secret code. Moreover, Voynich's manuscript illustrations similar to Anthony Ascham's plant illustration. The professor refutes this idea by saying that people, who wrote the Voynich manuscript, think it has so important or so powerful information and he used special code to keep it secret, whereas, Anthony Ascham was just an ordinary scientist and his books did not contain any original ideas.
Second, the article posits that the manuscript is fake and without real meaning. The manuscript was created by Edward Kelley. In contrast, the professor says that it's true Edward was good at tricking people but tricking people in the sixteen century was very easy so, he did not need to make this complex manuscript, he could do the same thing very easily.
Finally, the passage claims that the manuscript is a modern fake, and Voynich made it by himself as an antique book and sold it instead of the original version. However, the professor opposes this point by saying that we have been able to date the manuscript materials using modern methods but both the papers and the ink refers to at least 400 years ago so if he wanted to create a fake manuscript he could find papers but he could not get 400-year-old ink so this idea is not true.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 484, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...-year-old ink so this idea is not true.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, second, so, whereas, at least, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 7.30242825607 178% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 12.0772626932 75% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 22.412803532 134% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 22.0 30.3222958057 73% => 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: 1365.0 1373.03311258 99% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94565217391 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54316598686 2.5805825403 99% => OK
Unique words: 159.0 145.348785872 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.576086956522 0.540411800872 107% => OK
syllable_count: 410.4 419.366225166 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 3.25607064018 61% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.51434878587 66% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 13.0662251656 77% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 21.2450331126 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 87.1711534855 49.2860985944 177% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.5 110.228320801 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6 21.698381199 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.6 7.06452816374 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.27373068433 47% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242499289916 0.272083759551 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110084205233 0.0996497079465 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590818779057 0.0662205650399 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147852328401 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0296117398961 0.0443174109184 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 13.3589403974 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 53.8541721854 98% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 11.0289183223 114% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.2367328918 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.42419426049 103% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 63.6247240618 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 10.498013245 122% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.2008830022 116% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 90.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 27.0 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.