Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 11.djvu/848

810 among which may be mentioned Arundel House, in which 3acon died in 1626, and Lauderdale House, once the resi- dence of Lord Lauderdale, one of the “Cabal” of Charles IT., now used as the convalescent home of St Bartholomew's hospital, The principal buildings are the church of St Michael, erected in 1832, in the Perpendicular style, con- taining a monument to Coleridge, who had his residence in Highgate for nineteen years; the new building erected in 1868 for the grammar school founded by Chief-Justice Cholmeley in the time of Elizabeth; the Roman Catholic monastery called St Joseph’s Retreat, a splendid and spacious structure in the Italian style, recently erected; the London diocesan penitentiary, the infirmary, the small-pox aud vaccination hospital, the Alexandra orphanage, and the Whittington almshouses. Near the foot of the hill is the Whittington stone, erected in 1821 in place of the old one, which was removed in 1793. In 1809 a scheme was projected to avoid the steep ascent at Highgate by means of an arched tunnel, but after the work had pro- ceeded about 130 yards the whole fell in on 13th April 1812. <A road was, however, formed in the line of the intended tunnel, passing under an arch over which the aucicut road, Hornsey Lane, is continued. The North London cemetery, in the neighbourhood, contains the graves and monuments of a great number of celebrities. Highgate is supposed by some to have received its name from the gate erected by the bishop of London for the purpose of receiving toll from the passengers by the road which at this point entered his park; but it is possible that gate is here used according to its old significa- tion, and that the name simply means high road. The road was constructed in the, and the toll- house was built on the site of an ancient hermitage. In the time of stage coaches a custom was introduced of making ignorant persons believe that they required to be sworn and admitted to the freedom of the Highgate before being allowed to pass the gate, the fine of admission being a bottle of wine, which was discussed at the conclusion of the ceremony. The of the parish in 1871 was 6437, and of the township 5331.  HIGH PLACE is the rendering invariably given in the authorized English version of the Old Testament Scriptures to a Hebrew word 23 of uncertain derivation but with much plausibility connected by Gesenius with the Indo- Germanic root which appears in the Persian bam (roof, summit), and in the Greek Boyds (compare Byya, Doric Bapa). By the LXX. the word is sometimes left untouched (Sapa in 1 Sam. ix. 13 and elsewhere); the prevalent rendering of the plural, when a translation is hazarded at all, is in the Pentateuch orydat, in the historical books 74 iymAd, Ta VYyy, and in the prophetical writings Bwyot. The Vulgate invariably gives either excelsa or funa. The habit so widely diffused among primitive peoples of selecting the tops of mountains, or at least elevated sites, as suitable from their comparative isolation from the world and their supposed nearness to the sky for the erection of altars and sacred pillars, is so obviously natural as to require no explanation. Along with that of worshipping under trees or groves (see ), it was fully participated in by the Israelites from an early period, and continued to assert itself down to a very late date, as is abundantly shown by the frequency with which bamah and other words (har, gib'ah, ramah) signifying height occur in connexion with their public and private worship, whether Jehovistic or idolatrous. Thus one of our earliest notices with regard to Abraham after his departure from Haran is that after setting up a sanctuary at Sichem at the oak of Moreh, he “removed unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and there builded an altar unto the Lord” (Gen. xii. 8), It was on @ mountain (Ebal) that the first altar to Jehovah was raised by Jushua after the conquest cf Canaan had begun (Josh. vill. 30; ef. Deut. xxvii. 4, 5); and many other “high places,” some of them (e.g., Beth-Shemesh, or Ir-Heres, and Ashtaroth Karnaim) apparently taken over directly from the Canaanites, speedily obtained recognition as sanctuaries. A few of these, such as Shiloh, early became important pilgrimage centres, but this was not regarded as inconsistent with the right of each town or village-com- munity to have its own high place, or with the view that Palestine as a whole was the “house” or peculiar territory of God, and that it was therefore lawful on suitable occasions to erect new and extempore altars or high places within its limits. For example, we find in 1 Sam. x., xi. repeated references made to the lamah of Samuel’s native village as if it were a thing of course; from 2 Sam. xv. 32 (Hebr.) we gather that even in David’s time the top of Mount Olivet was a place “where God was wont to be worshipped ;” while at a later period we read of Elijah repairing the altar on Mount Carmel that had been broken down, and complaining of the violation of God’s covenant of which those persons had been guilty who had thrown down the altars and slain the prophets (1 Kings xviii. 30 ; xix. 10, 14). And we read of new altars, generally on high places, being set up by Gideon (Judg. vi. 26, 27), by Manoah (Judg. xiii. 19, 20), and repeatedly by Saul (1 Sam. xiv. 35). The comparatively late author of the books of Kings expressly states, on the one hand, that before the days of Solomon the people “ sacrificed in high places because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord” (1 Kings iii. 2), and, on the other hand, that after that king the high places were removed neither by Asa (1 Kings xiv. 15), nor by Jehoshaphat (xxii. 44), Joash (2 Kings xii. 3), Amaziah (xiv. 4), Uzziah (xv. 4), or Jotham (xv. 35). The still later author of the books of Chronicles, indeed, states of Asa (2 Chr. xiv. 5) and Jehoshaphat (xvii. 6) that they did take away the high places “ out of all the cities of Judah ;” but this apparent contradiction can best be explained if we assume that the chronicler is alluding only to those high places where heathen deities were worshipped or idolatrous practices allowed, while the earlier author had in view the Jehovistic high places which, during many of the earlier reigns at least, were not discountenanced either in the northern or in the southern kingdom. In reading sucha passage as Amos vii. 9, it would be a mistake to interpret it as meaning that the multiplicity of bamoth was regarded as wrong in itself ; the prophet’s zeal is directed not against the places but against the cultus and the false value that was attached to it. Hezekiah is the first monarch of whom in the earlier record we read that with some risk to his popularity he removed the high places and altars of Jehovah, and “said to Judah and Jerusalem, ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem” (2 Kings xviii. 4 compared with xviii. 22). But it was not until the reign of Josiah that the high places were finally repressed, not on the ground of direct prophetic revelation, but on that of a strict written law. Even then, however, a distinction was made between the “high places” of the southern kingdom, sacred to Jehovah, and those of the northern, dedicated to a mixed worship ; the priests of the former were brought to Jerusalem, and, though not allowed to officiate at the altar there, were permitted to share the priests’ portion along with their brethren, while those of the latter were put to death (2 Kings xxiii. 8, 20). As for the altars built upon the high places, their construe. tion appears to have been regulated by the law provided for the case in Ex. xx. 24, 25; very often maggeboth or pillars were erected beside them (see Ex. xxiv. 4; Josh. xxiv. 26 ; cf. Isa. xix. 19; Hosea iii. 4); and sometimes they were enclosed in “houses” or “temples” (1 Kings xi. 31, xin. 32; Amos vii. 13). For the bearing of the facts contained