[330] Poggii Opera, p. 175.
[331] Poggii Opera, p. 176.
[332] Poggii Opera, p. 186, 187.
[333] Poggii Opera, p. 64-83.
[334] Poggii Opera, p. 225-328. Besides Gregorio Corriario, two other Venetian scholars, Pietro Tommasi and Lauro Querini, expressed their displeasure at the manner in which Poggio had treated the Venetian patricians in his dialogue De Nobilitate; the former in a letter addressed to Poggio—the latter, not only by a letter, but also in an express treatise on the same subject. To the former Poggio returned a civil reply—the latter, who seems to have been an ill-tempered man, he treated with contempt. Ton. Tr. vol. ii. p. 42.
[335] Poggii Opera, p. 278.
[336] Poggii Opera, p. 285.
[337] Poggii Historia Flor. p. 339.—Muratori Annali, tom. ix. p. 185.—Lorenzo Valla, in his Antidotus, charges Poggio with the infamous villany of forging the commission, by virtue of which Vitelleschi was arrested; and asserts, that he was protected from the punishment due to his crime, by the power of the statesmen who had bribed him to commit so atrocious a deed. It is not, however, very probable, that any interest could have screened from punishment a secretary who stood convicted of so heinous an offence as counterfeiting the signature of a sovereign prince, for the purpose of committing murder: still less, that a subordinate officer who had taken such a wicked liberty, should have been continued in his place.—Laurentii Vallæ Antidotus in Poggium, p. 109.
[338] Muratori Annali, tom. ix. p. 186.
[339] Muratori Annali, tom. ix. p. 199.