In this instance, however, he had the discretion to restrain his anger within due bounds. Avoiding as much as possible any altercation with Guarino, he addressed himself to Francesco Barbaro, in a long epistle, in which he dilated his original arguments, and confirmed them by ample authorities. In the introduction to this letter, he complained in a manly strain of dignity of the conduct of Guarino, who had wantonly wounded his feelings, by intermixing personal reflections in the discussion of a literary question, on which all scholars were equally entitled to unlimited freedom of opinion. In this defence of his sentiments, Poggio exhibited much learning and acuteness, and evinced the skill of a practised disputant. As Guarino did not prosecute the discussion of this subject, it may be presumed that he felt due compunction for the breach of friendship into which he had been inadvertently betrayed, and that, overpowered by the superior abilities of his opponent, he shrunk from a renewal of the combat. Guarino was not the only person whose displeasure was excited by the preference given by Poggio to Scipio over Cæsar. Another scholar of that age addressed a letter to Leonardo Aretino, in the course of which, in vindicating the fair fame of the Dictator, he characterizes his censor as a rash and foolish writer. To this second antagonist, however, who from his initials C. A. is supposed to have been Cyriac of Ancona, Poggio did not condescend to make a formal reply, but contented himself with ridiculing him in a letter addressed to their common friend Leonardo.[266]