The placing of one of the small fragments supplies the tops of tta and the
reading seems secure. We have not been able to find the name in this form but
note the female name Vallata in CIL 2.1798 (Baetica),
cf. LC 357; we regard Valatta as an alternative spelling of this name.
We might equally well have s[uo salutem in this
The reading and interpretation of these lines depends on the placing of the
second small fragment at the right of line 3 and on the restoration of the word
which ends -teritatem. The small fragment undoubtedly reads ].ere[; if it
fits flush to the broken edge, it will have the end of domine followed
by re, as our reconstruction suggests. Of the
nouns which terminate with -teritas only two seem worth
considering in the context, austeritas
("severity") and dexteritas ("readiness to
help"). The former would seem to make better sense in a context which
refers to making a concession (line 6). As a possible supplement in lines 3-4
we suggest re[mittas aus-]/teritat[e]m (cf.
perhaps Pliny, Ep. 2.5.5), but we can envisage an alternative
such as re[ddas or re[feras
dex-]/teritat[e]m tuam. These suggestions imply that some 4 letters
have been lost at the ends of lines 4 and 5 but we cannot be sure of this since
it depends on the uncertain placing of suo in lines 1-2. To
complete line 4 we might have simply mihi; at the end of line
5 peto would give good sense. A wholly different line of approach would
be to suppose that the small fragment should be placed slightly further to the
right, perhaps giving us rogo domin[e] per e[am
dex-]/teritatem tuam et per Lepidinam etc.
The space after concedas is
unexpected, cf. 217.ii.1, 291.ii.8, 379.
The trace, if it is ink, looks like the top of a centurial sign, but too little
remains to propose this as a reading.