The tops of some letters are missing in the second word. We think it most likely that we have the verb delector in a middle sense, perhaps preceded by a phrase such as animo libenti. An alternative would be to take libenti as a name, followed by defectori or defectores, but we can see nothing after r which resembles e or i.
atonem: the trace before t is definitely ink and this must be the beginning of the line. We can only suggest that this is a name (see Attonem in 345.ii.3 and cf. 308), or possibly the end of a name.
pactam: this looks certain and if it is preceded by et (obscured by dirt), we must have a female name, perhaps Pac<a>tam, cf. 353.ii.1; the only alternative we can envisage is sactam (for Sanctam, a well-attested name (cf. 182.ii.18)).
ru.r: the doubtful letter, of which only the bottom survives, might well be b; LC cites the cognomina Ruber and Rubrianus; RNGCL offers Ruta, which is also possible.
We appear to have an abrupt change of subject here. There seems no possible reading other than deinde for the first word. omes appears to follow but suggests nothing; we therefore prefer to read omis, although i is very difficult. There is a gap before the next group of letters and the writer may have avoided a knot. In line 4 de and ores are certain and if desertores is correct, we may have a reference to the release of some deserters who had been apprehended (cf. 226.a.10).
Traces of the bottoms of letters in address script.
This is doubtless the name of the sender. The traces would be compatible with a Publico.