Perhaps si duo m.[. An
alternative might be saluom, cf. 225.6.
There is a space after et; eam following
it is plausible if we assume that the mark before e is not
ink. Following that, the reading clem looks good and
suggests a reference to the recipient's clementia.
The restoration of uo/lo is plausible and fits the subjunctive
The reading of line 2 is secure and the recipient must be a praefectus of cohors
viiii Batauorum. Flavius Cerialis is the only person attested as such in
the tablets. There are substantial traces of the letters of the name and we
think it difficult though just possible to read [F]la[u]io Ceriali without
doing too much violence to the traces. We cannot exclude the possibility that
we have Cerialis' predecessor or successor but we do not find it any easier to
read (e.g.) [F]la[u]io Geniali (but
there is no clear evidence which connects him with the Ninth Cohort of
Batavians, cf. above, p.194). The numeral has a superscript dash.
It is noteworthy that this line is not written on an upward slant, as is often
the case, but it must be the name of the sender. For the gentilicium the most
obvious restoration is Cla]udio and the
exiguous trace of the first surviving letter is compatible with the right-hand
stroke of u. Of decurione only the
first e is really difficult and the reading is
credible if we assume that the word has been crushed in. Following that there
are traces of 3 or 4 letters which could be read as alae; if that
is correct, the name of the unit will presumably have come in the next line.