[ ] 
Line 201:0 27.) are Covenants ufual upon this 
Qccafion, as may be feen in the like lepulchral Con- 
trails, particularly the before-mentioned in Gruter 
(P- mlxxxi. 1 .) and many other Donationsand Or- 
ders about Monuments in his voluminous Collecti- 
on,; as alfo in F'dbretti,. and Reinejius. 
► ^ Line 28.) SE leems to have been a Blunder of 
the Marmorarius for S I -BI, S E DARI being 
perfectly ungrammatical. But in the Contrad afore- 
laid, given us by Grutei\ the Words run, De ea 
re do lum malum abefe, afuturumque a te> Fherede 
tuop <& ab.his omnibus ad qnos eaves pertinebit , 
h&c S I C retie dari y fieri , pr^ftarique ftipulatus 
eft ; which inclines me rather to believe, that S E 
in ours oirght likewife to have been SJ C. There 
are many palpable Miftakes in it, as I have before 
obferved, as in Line the 23d VELL1T for VELIT, 
and CL A VIS- VS for CLAV.SQVE, in. the 24th. 
The Roman Lawyers tell us, that Stipulatio e-rat 
Interrogate cert is, folennibufque verbis concepta ; 
& apt a , confentaneaque refponfio , veluti Ipondes? 
fpondco E>abis ? Do. This is fully confirmed 
both in ours, and the Gruter ian Contrad, 
(p. mlxxxi. 1 .) Stipulates eft Marcus Herennius 
Agricola : Spepondit T. Flavius Artemidorns : 
In the latter. Stipulatus eft Licinius Timo - 
theus : Spepondit Statia Irene. The learned 
Mr. Matt air e oblerves from Aldus Gellius (Lib. 
vii.c. 9.) that ancient Authors ufed e inftead 
of 0 , in thole Verbs which have a Reduplication 
\in preeterito tempore~\ as memordi , pop of cl , fpe - 
f ondly for momordi, popofei^fpopondi, ufed by more 
modern Writers ; lo that SPEPONDIT is no Mi- 
flake, but an Archaifmus, as may be the Word 
1EMC- 
