Had Valla in his _Antidotus_ restrained himself within the limits of self-defence, he would have gained the praise due to the exercise of the virtue of forbearance: had he proceeded no farther in offensive operations than to impugn the style of his opponent, he would have been justified in the opinion of mankind in general, as exercising the right of retaliation. But by attacking the moral character of Poggio,[434] he imprudently roused in the fiery bosom of his adversary the fierceness of implacable resentment, and provoked him to open wide the flood-gates of abuse. In a second invective Poggio maintained, that if it were true that the Catalonian youth wrote the remarks which were the subject of his complaint, he wrote them under the direction of Valla. Indignantly repelling the charge of envy, he remarked, that so notorious a fool as Valla, the object of contempt to all the learned men of Italy, could not possibly excite that passion. After noticing the imprudence of his antagonist in provoking an inquiry into his own moral character, he proceeded circumstantially to relate divers anecdotes, which tended to fix upon Valla the complicated guilt of forgery,[435] theft, ebriety, and every species of lewdness. Recurring to the charge of heresy, he referred to various passages in Valla’s writings, which contained sentiments contradictory to the orthodox faith. In fine, he arraigned the supposed infidel before an imaginary tribunal, which he represented as without mercy condemning him to the infernal regions.