ln 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 in1550.
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. Lt 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.
In the reading passage, the author concentrates on several theories explaining the origin of the manuscript found by Wilfrid M. Voynich in 1912. However, the lecturer casts doubt on these theories and respectively points out the problems with all the author's assertions.
Firstly, the author argues that maybe the manuscript is an authentic work containing scientific or magical texts written with an elaborate secret code. By contrast, the lecturer challenges this idea and states that the fact that the author of the manuscript used a special code for writing such important and powerful information contradicts the theory that Ascham was the author since he was an ordinary physician and botanist whose works do not contain original ideas. For example, A Little Herbal was a description of plants based on other well-known sources, and Ascham did not need to employ a complicated secret code like the one used in the Voynich manuscript.
Secondly, the author suggests that the manuscript is actually a fake and someone might invent it as a fake magical book to sell to a wealthy noble. Nevertheless, the lecturer brings up the fact that fooling nobles at that time was not so difficult that Kelley created such a complex secret code. He could deceive them with a simple manuscript instead.
Lastly, the author asserts that Voynich could create the manuscript himself to sell it as a mysterious old book. Conversely, the lecturer refutes this claim too and clarifies that the manuscript has been dated by modern technology, and both volume and ink indicated that the manuscript was 4000 old. Thus, the manuscript could not be written by Voynich, and it seems that the manuscript had been written much long before he discovered it.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, conversely, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 10.4613686534 96% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 5.04856512141 99% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 7.30242825607 151% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 22.412803532 107% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 30.3222958057 86% => 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: 1453.0 1373.03311258 106% => OK
No of words: 285.0 270.72406181 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09824561404 5.08290768461 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.04702891845 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71486905841 2.5805825403 105% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.568421052632 0.540411800872 105% => OK
syllable_count: 432.9 419.366225166 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 3.25607064018 31% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.51434878587 198% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 2.5761589404 78% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 13.0662251656 92% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 21.2450331126 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.1908623974 49.2860985944 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.083333333 110.228320801 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 21.698381199 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.75 7.06452816374 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 4.19205298013 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.27373068433 70% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252550363417 0.272083759551 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108403081098 0.0996497079465 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074443632843 0.0662205650399 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14784701059 0.162205337803 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581838686741 0.0443174109184 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 13.3589403974 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 53.8541721854 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 11.0289183223 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.2367328918 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.82 8.42419426049 105% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 63.6247240618 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 10.7273730684 103% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.498013245 107% => 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.