What is this word?

[Stricklands]

This is a small snip from a large legal document from 1658.

I have highlighted a word that appears three times in the image.  In the context of the document it is possible that this word could be 'consents' but all the information I can find on interpreting early modern english suggests that the abbreviated form of 'con-' is shaped more like a numeral 9 than the shape in my image.

If I am correct, the three lines would read
.. said Thomas Temple doth by these [consents] acknowledge and thereof ..
.. by these [consents] and for an in consideration of the sum of five ..
.. and by these [consents] do clearly and absolutely grant ..


Can anyone show me any confirmation that my interpretation of the text is correct?

Thank you

[JenB]

The word is 'presents' the superscript squiggle representing the letters 're'.

It's another way of saying these words or statements.

[goldie61]

As JenB says, the word is 'presents'.
In your clip, the 'p' is quite ornate - in a couple of the examples here, it looks almost as if there is an 's' or some other letter in front of it.
The superscript mark is an abbreviation for 're'.
You also come across it for an abbreviation for 'er', and 'ro', making words that start with 'per', or 'pro'. so you have to see what it would be from the context of the rest of the word, and the meaning of the sentence.
Just something to be aware of.

To be absolutely accurate in a transcription, you should write exactly what is written.
So 'acknowledge' is spelt 'acknowledg' in this piece, the phrase 'clearly and absolutely grant' is spelt 'clearely and absolutly grannt', and 'consideration' is spelt 'considerac(i)on'. There are probably others to check.
The line above the 'c' in 'considerac(i)on' indicates there is a letter missing.
It's used a lot in this 'cion' ending, which was much more commonly used than the 'tion' ending of words as we would use now.

[Stricklands]

Thank you both

My literal interpretation had been presents, recognising the 'pre-' construct, but I could not see how that fitted in the context - Jen's explanation helped.

I am less interested in producing an accurate textual transcription of the document than an understanding of what it means, which is why I used the modern spellings.