The first trace after the break looks like the top of s. Therefore perhaps Idu]s, which is normally not abbreviated in these reports (135.1, 136.1), or Nona]s. The last trace is compatible with n, suggesting Iun[ias; the tablet is intact after this but no
trace of ink survives. If our reconstruction is correct, the remainder of this
line will have been left blank (cf. 135).
The traces at the beginning of the preserved part of the line are very faint
indeed and the reading can only be said to represent what we assume to have
chortis viiii: an apparent vertical after c is probably dirt rather than
ink. For chortis
cf. 396. The
numeral has a superscript bar.
omnes: the last two letters are
certain and mn is possible, but
the preceding traces are wholly unclear. The remainder of the line after loca was left blank.
for the use of in-
for im- cf. 134, 145, 146, 152. The apparent traces following
this are problematical. The word is followed by a uacat in 134, 139, 145 and 146 (in the last case there may well
be a punctuation mark at this point). In 130 and 135 the slight traces could be part of renuntiauit (see the notes ad locc.). This leaves 138, where what is written before renuntiauit is not the end of impedimenta, and 150.3 where there might be traces of a letter before the
break. In the present instance there appear to be traces of three letters
running up to the edge of the leaf, but the first might be a crack in the
surface of the wood. Of the two remaining traces the second is a or r, the first could be t, c or p. The best solution we can
suggest is that we have pr as an abbreviation of pr(aesentia). For the use of praesum of inanimate objects see P.Mich.VIII 471.17-18 (= CEL 146), quo tempus autem ueni
omnia praefuerunt et lana et (linum?).
The words on line 6 are not quite properly aligned but this may be due to
differential shrinkage of the fragments. Line 7 appears to be slightly inset,
as perhaps is line 9 in comparison to line 8. For curatores see 128.2 note.
There are traces of about 6 letters which presumably belong to the name of the
century. They are compatible with the reading Cres]centis (see 128.5 and cf. 148.2 note) but cannot be said to
compel it. There would be room for the centurial sign (but hardly the full word)
in the lost portion. Since 127 and 128
appear to have the same formula at the end, it is possible that (centuriae)
Cres]centis should be restored here.