[318] Ermold. Nigell. de Reb. Gest. Ludov. Pii Lib. III.—Astron. Vit. Ludov. Pii cap. xxxiii.—Marca Hispanica, Lib. III. c. 21.
[319] Even as late as the middle of the thirteenth century St. Ramon de Peñafort thus defines it—“Duellum est singularis pugna inter aliquos ad probationem veritatis, ita videlicet ut qui vicerit probasse intelligitur; et dicitur duellum quasi duorum bellum. Dicitur etiam vulgo in pluribus partibus judicium, eo quod ibi Dei judicium expectatur.”—S. Raymondi Summæ Lib. II. Tit. iii.
[320] L. Burgund. Tit. xlv.—The remedy, however, would seem to have proved insufficient, for a subsequent enactment provides an enormous fine (300 solidi) to be levied on the witnesses of a losing party, by way of making them share in the punishment, “Quo facilius in posterum ne quis audeat propria pravitate mentire.”—L. Burgund. Tit. lxxx. § 2. The position of a witness in those unceremonious days was indeed an unenviable one.
[321] Capit. Car. Mag. ex Lege Longobard. c. xxxiv. (Baluze).
[322] L. Longobard. Lib. II. Tit. iv. $ 34.
[323] Lib. adversus Legem Gundobadi cap. x.
[324] L. Frision. Tit. xiv. § 4.
[325] Goldast. Antiq. Alaman. chart. lxxxv.
[326] L. Baioar. Tit. XVI. cap. i. § 2.
[327] Capit. Ludov. Pii ann. 819, cap. xv.