I come now to the comparison of our Grammar and Critiques. You object first against the signification I give of στιγμὴ, and say thus: “_What should come into your cap_ (that, if you mark it, in a man that wears a square cap to one that wears a hat, is very witty) _to make you think that_ στιγμὴ _signifies a mark or brand with a hot iron? I perceive where the business lies, it was_ στίγμα _run in your mind when you talked of_ στιγμὴ; _and because the words are somewhat alike you jumble them both together_.” Sir, I told you once before, you presume too much upon your first cogitations. Aristophanes, in _Ranis_, Act. V. Scen. 5, Κἄν μὴ ταχέως ἥκωσι Νὴ τεν Ἀπόλλο στίξας ἀυτοὺς. The old commentator upon the word στίξας saith thus, ϛίξας ἀντὶ τοῦ ϛιγματίσας, ἠν γάρ ξένος. That is, στίξας for ϛιγματίσας, for he (Adimantus) was not a citizen. I hope the commentator does not here mock Aristophanes for jumbling ϛίξας and ϛιγματίσας together, for want of understanding Greek. No, ϛίξας and στιγματίσας signify the same, save that for branding I seldom read ϛιγματίσας but ϛίξας. For ϛίγμα does no more signify a brand with a hot iron, than ϛιγμὴ a point made also with a hot iron. They have both one common theme ϛίζω, which does not signify _pungo_, nor _interpungo_, nor _inuro_, for all your Lexicon, but _notam imprimere_, or _pungendo notare_, without any restriction to burning or punching. It is therefore no less proper to say that ϛιγμὴ is a mark with a hot iron, than to say the same of στίγμα. The difference is only this, that when they marked a slave, or a rascal, as you are not ignorant is usually done here at the assizes in the hand or shoulder with a hot iron, they called that ϛίγμα, not for the burning, but for the mark. And as it would have been called ϛίγμα that was imprinted on a slave, though made by staining or incision, so it is ϛιγμὴ, though done with a hot iron. And therefore there was no jumbling of those two words together, as for want of reading Greek authors, and by trusting too much to your dictionaries, which you say are proofs good enough for such a business, you were made to imagine. The use I have made thereof was to show that a point, both by the word Σημεῖον in Euclid, and by the word στιγμὴ in some others, was not _nothing_, but a _visible_ mark, the ignorance whereof hath thrown you into so many paralogisms in geometry.