▁scri bes ▁is ▁identical ▁to ▁( and ▁may ▁have ▁been ) ▁one ▁of ▁the ▁scri bes ▁of ▁the ▁Code x ▁S ina it icus ▁( scribe ▁D ), ▁but ▁there ▁is ▁ins u fficient ▁evidence ▁for ▁his ▁assertion . ▁S ke at ▁agreed ▁that ▁the ▁writing ▁style ▁is ▁very ▁similar ▁to ▁that ▁of ▁S ina it icus , ▁but ▁there ▁is ▁not ▁enough ▁evidence ▁to ▁accept ▁identity ▁of ▁scri bes ; ▁" the ▁identity ▁of ▁the ▁scri bal ▁tradition ▁stands ▁beyond ▁dispute ". ▁ ▁The ▁original ▁writing ▁was ▁ret rac ed ▁by ▁a ▁later ▁scri be ▁( us ually ▁dated ▁to ▁the ▁ 1 0 th ▁or ▁ 1 1 th ▁century ), ▁and ▁the ▁beauty ▁of ▁the ▁original ▁script ▁was ▁spo iled . ▁Acc ents ▁and ▁breath ing ▁marks , ▁as ▁well ▁as ▁pun ctu ation , ▁have ▁been ▁added ▁by ▁a ▁later ▁hand . ▁There ▁are ▁no ▁en larg ed ▁initial s , ▁no ▁divisions ▁into ▁chap ters ▁or ▁sections ▁such ▁as ▁are ▁found ▁in ▁later ▁manuscript s , ▁but ▁a ▁different ▁system ▁of ▁division ▁peculiar ▁to ▁this ▁manuscript . ▁There ▁are ▁plenty ▁of ▁the ▁it ac istic ▁fault s , ▁especially ▁the ▁exchange ▁of ▁ ε ι ▁for ▁ ι ▁and ▁α ι ▁for ▁ ε . ▁The ▁exchange ▁of ▁ ε ι ▁and ▁ ο ▁for ▁ ω ▁is ▁less ▁frequent . ▁ ▁The ▁manuscript ▁contains ▁unusual ▁small ▁hor izont ally ▁aligned ▁double ▁d ots ▁( so ▁called ▁" dist igma i ," ▁formerly ▁called ▁" um la uts