yet discovered, but apparently not far from Jerusa- lem, and hence probably on the south-western bound- ary of Ephraim) as their stronghold, and Adoni-bezek their most noted chief. Thus too a late tradition, pre- served in 2 Esdr. i, 21, mentions only " the Canaanites, the Pheresites, and the Philistines," as the original ten- ants of the country. The notice just cited from the book of Judges locates them in the southern part of the Holy Land. Another independent and equally remark- able fragment of the history of the conquest seems to speak of them as occupying, with the Kephaim, or giants, the " forest country" on the western fianks of jNIouut Carmel (Josh, xvii, 15-18). Here again the Canaanites only are named with them. As a tribe of mountaineers, they are enumerated in company with the Amorites, Hittites, and Jebusites in Josh, xi, 3 ; xii, 8 ; and they are catalogued among the remnants of the old population whom Solomon reduced to bondage, both in 1 Kings ix, 20 and 2 Chron. viii, 7. Not only had they not been exterminated, but they even intermar- ried with the Israelites (Judg. iii, 5, G ; Ezra ix, 1). By Josephus the Perizzites do not appear to be mentioned. The signification of the name is not by any means clear. It possibly meant rustics, dwellers in open, un- walled villages, which are denoted by a similar word (mfnS, Ezek. xxxviii, 11; Esth. ix, 19). So also Copper hap)-j)erazi, A. V. " country villages" (1 Sam. vi, 18) ; Arey haji-pei-azi, "unwalled towns" (Deut. iii, 5). In both these passages the Sept. understands the Periz- zites to be alluded to, and translates accordingly. In Josh, xvi, 10 it adds the Perizzites to the Canaanites as inhabitants of Gezer. Ewald {GescMchte, i, 317) in- clines to believe that they were the same people with the Hittites. But against this there is the fact that both they and the Hittites appear in the same lists; and that not only in mere general formulas, but in the records of the conquest, as above. Eedslob has exam- ined the whole of these names with some care (in his A Ittestum. Namen der Israeliten-Stauten, Hamb. 1846), and his conclusion (p. 103) is that, while the Chavvoth were villages of tribes engaged in the care of cattle, the Perazoth were inhabited by peasants engaged in agriculture, like the Fellahs of the Arabs. This view, however, although acquiesced in by Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 1120; Hengstenberg, Beitrdge, p. 18G; Keil, on Josh. iii, 10 ; and Kalisch, on Gen. xiii, appears to be opposed to the Biblical narrative, which everywhere classes thera as a distinct branch of the Canaanites (see Keland, Pa- Itest. p. 139 ; Kurtz, in Rudelloch's Zeitschr. 1845, iii, 53 ; Jour. Sac. Lit. Oct. 1853, p. 166). See Canaanite.
Perjury is the wilful taking of an oath in order to tell or to confirm anything known to be false. This is evidently a very heinous crime, as it is treating the Al- mighty with irreverence; denying, or at least disre- garding his omniscience ; profaning his name, and vio- lating truth. By the Mosaic law, perjurj^ was strict- ly prohibited as a most heinous sin against God ; to whom the punishment of it is left, and who in Exod. XX, 7 expressly promises that he will inflict it, without ordaining the infliction of any punishment by the tem- poral magistrate; except only in the case of a man falsely charging another with a crime, in which case the false witness was liable to the same punishment which would have been inflicted on the accused party if he had been found guilty ; but this not, indeed, as the punishment of perjury against God, but of false testi- mony. Perjury, therefore ("i|^"il3 5^?3'*r> "false swear- ing"), was prohibited by the Hebrews in a religious point of view (Exod. xx, 7 ; Lev. xix, 12 ; comp. Matt, vii, 33 ; Zech. viii, 17), but in the law only two sorts of perjury are noticed: 1, false testimony in judicial pro- ceedings; 2, a false assurance, confirmed by an oath, that one has not received or found a piece of property in question (Lev. v. 1; vi, 2 sq. ; Prov. xxix, 24). A sin-offering is provided for both (comp. Plant. Pud. v, 3, 21), and in the latter case satisfaction for the injury,
PERKINS
952
PERKINS
with increase (comp. Hebenstreit, De sacrificio a per- juro offi-rendo, Lips. 1739). Among tlie ancient Ro- mans, also, the punishment of perjury was left with the gods (Cic. Le<j. ii, 9), and no official public notice was taken of the (lerjured man, save by the censor (Gell. vii, 18 ; comp. Cic. Off. iii, 31 ; Kein, Rom. Criminalrechf, p. 795 sq.). On the contrary, the Talmud not only notices the subject at greater length, but ordains more serere penalties for perjury : scourging and full repara- tion when any serious injury has been done (Mishna, J/acco</(, ii, 3 sq. ; Shehuoth,v\\i,ii). It also determines in special cases the value of the sin-offering to be pre- sented {Shebuot/i, iv, 2 ; v, 1 ; comp. further Zenge and Stemler, Dejuryur. sec. discipl. Uebr. p. 57 sq.). — Winer, i, 78. See Oath.
PERJURY in Christian law is the crime committed by one who, when affirming anything by oath, makes statements which he knows to be false. This is, from the Biblical standpoint, a double crime, including both falsehood and profanity ; and in a social point of view it is one of the gravest offences against human law. It has always been esteemed a very detesta- ble thing, and those who have been proved guilty of it have been looked upon as the pests of societ}'. In order to make the giving of the false evidence lia- ble to punishment xmder the civil law, it must have been not only false to the knowledge of the witness, but the matter must have been material to the issue raised. If the falsehood occurred as to some trifling or immaterial fact, no crime is committed. Jloreover, it is necessary, in proving the crime, that at least two persons should be able to testify to the falsehood of the matter, so that there might be a majority of oaths on the matter — there being then two oaths to one. But this rule is satisfied though both witnesses do not tes- tify to one point. The perjur}' must also have taken place before some court or tribunal which had power to administer the oath. See Oath. Though in some courts affirmations are allowed instead of oaths, yet the punishment for false affirmation is made precisely the same as for false swearing. The punishment for per- jury was, before the Conquest, sometimes death or cutting out the tongue ; but latterly it was confined to fine and imprisonment, and at present the latter is the only punishment, with the addition of hard labor. The crime of subornation of perjury, i. e. the persuad- ing or procuring a person to give false evidence, is also punishable as a distinct offence. — Chambers.