116v

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Isn't the top part of that apparent “o” just a vellum artifact?

Yes, the top of that letter may be just noise.    But then that "u" would be rather strange: two strokes open at top and bottom, one back-slanted and one upright but slightly bent, both shorter than the surrounding letters.  

If you trace only the lines in a specific dark area (here by hand), it looks like this.

But the stems of both "p"s must be considered, even though they are faint.  Otherwise those glyphs cannot be parsed as Latin letters.  It is the same situation as the "p"s of "palden pbrey". 

So that second word could have been "putpfer" instead of "potpfer".  It does not seem to make much difference...

All the best, --stolfi