resscribere, CEL. This may well be right since the word occurs elsewhere in the tablets (e.g. 269.3) and the spelling would not be unexpected.
We must surely have a place-name and Vin[dolandam is attractive, but there are other possibilities, e.g. Vinouia (see 185.26).
rogo .rs......., CEL. This may be correct.
]...s.....o, CEL. This does not seem to us likely to be correct.
In the ed. pr. we tentatively suggested opto utaris felicissima fortuna, but in view of the evidence in the new tablets for correspondence between women we now think it much more probable that we should restore something like opto /[ut s]is felicissima / [domi]na.
For what follows we tentatively suggested et nos amare / [te cre]das, but Cugusi has correctly pointed out (CEL 109, ad loc.) that nos/me is regularly found as the object of amare in Cicero's letters and elsewhere. This is no doubt the case here, but the traces in line 4 are too slight to suggest any clear reading. Its position would suggest that this is the closure added by the sender, but it is noteworthy that the writing on the back is almost certainly by the same hand.
...au..., CEL. This must be part of the name or description of the recipient. If it matches the pattern of addresses in letters to Lepidina (291-2), we would expect the name of the woman's husband here. It is very difficult to fit the traces to Cerialis; the first two letters might be Pa.
There is a clear apex mark over the a which we did not recognise in the ed. pr. The writing slopes upwards from the left and this must be the name of the sender of the letter, e.g. ab Erinnna. The masculine name Cinna cannot be read here. Note the personal name Senna on the back of a tablet from Carlisle, Britannia 21 (1990), 367, no.17, but it is not possible to read ]..enná here.