Both of the provided materials are discussing an old manuscript and its origin.

Both of the provided materials are discussing an old manuscript and its origin. The reading mentions three possible explanations for the encoded manuscript, whereas the lecturer finds them all unlikely and not convincing. First, the reading attributes the script to a physician, Anthony Ascham. The lecture contends this theory by mentioning that Ascham was just an ordinary scientist, and none of his works contained any ingenious theory or discovery. He adds that the encoded material cannot contain any special and powerful if it is a work by Ascham for he was not a magician nor a genius man. Second, the reading hypothesizes another author for this vellum: Edward kelly. The professor, on the other hand, finds this theory not good enough. He mentions that if the sole purpose of writing such a book is to deceive wealthy to pay money for it, he could have easily achieved this aim by putting much less effort into the fake book. He explains that creating this alphabet and putting it in this order so that it looks really must have taken a lot of time, and Kelly was not a man of this task. Third, the reading provides another theory regarding the author of the manuscript, which is assigning the artifact to the finder himself. The lecture opposes this theory as well by stating that the examination has made an estimation for the creation date of the relic: It is four-hundred years old. Thus, if the book dealer wanted to create such a fake book, not only he should have had access to ancient vellum, but he also must have had four hundred years old ink. So, this theory is not telling as well.