sun's rays fall upon the solid land, they penetrate to only a small depth, and the heat is much more accumulated at the surface. So, also, during our long, cold nights, this thin stratum of heated earth is more rapidly cooled down than the immense mass of the ocean through which the heat is diffused to a far greater depth. At a sufficient distance from land, the temperature of the sea, in the temperate latitudes, is seldom below 45° or above 70°; that is, the ocean is exposed to an annual change of only 25° or 30°, while the continent, in the same latitude, is subject to a variation of 100° or more. We are confirmed in the cause here assigned for the excessive severity of our climate, by finding that the parts of China, situated like the Atlantic states, have a similar climate; and that the western coast of this continent, without the benefit of much cultivation, enjoys the same mild temperature that belongs to places similarly situated in the western parts of Europe. The principal causes of the unfavorable character of our climate seem, therefore, to be of a permanent nature; and, although it is somewhat_meliorated, and may, in time to come, be still more so, yet we are probably never destined to enjoy, in New England, the fine seasons and delicious fruits of the corresponding latitudes of Europe. For more information on the natural history of the weather, see the American Almanac for 1832, from which this article is taken.

TEMPESTA, or CAVALIER TEMPESTA, the surname of Peter Molyn (called also Petrus Mulier or de Mulieribus), a celebrated Dutch painter of marine pieces, was born at Harlem, in 1637, and acquired great celebrity at Rome. His delineations of storms at sea are forcible and true, and have been much more admired than his landscapes. Little is known of the circumstances of his life. He died in prison at Milan, in 1701, where he was confined on suspicion of having murdered his wife. He must not be confounded with Antonio Tempesta, a Florentine painter and engraver, barn 1556, and died 1630, whose best productions are battle-pieces and hunts.

TEMPLARS; a celebrated order of knights, which, like the order of St. John and the Teutonic order, had its origin in the crusades. Hugh de Pajens, Godfrey de St. Uldemar, and seven other knights, established it in 1119, for the protection of the pilgrims on the roads in Palestine. Subsequently, its object became the defence of the Christian faith, and of

as

the holy sepulchre against the Saracens. The knights took the vows of chastity, of obedience, and of poverty, like regular canons, and lived at first on the charity of the Christian lords in Palestine. King Baldwin II of Jerusalem gave them an abode in this city, on the east of the site of the Jewish temple; hence they received the name of Templars. Pope Honorius II confirmed the order, in 1127, at the council of Troyes, and imposed on them rules drawn from those of the Benedictine monks, to which were added the precepts of St. Bernard de Clairvaux, who warmly recommended this order. The fame of their exploits procured them not only numerous members, but also rich donations in houses, lands and money. The different classes of this order were, knights, squires, and servitors, to which were added, in 1172, some spiritual members, who officiated priests, chaplains, and clerks. All wore a badge of the order-a girdle of linen thread, to denote their vows of chastity; the clerical members had white, the servitors gray or black gowns; the knights wore, besides their armor, simple white cloaks, adorned with octangular bloodred crosses, to signify that they were to shed their blood in the service of the church. From the class of the knights, who were required to be of approved nobility, and who were the actual lords of the possessions of the order, the officers were chosen by the assembled chapters, viz. marshals and bannerets, as leaders in war; drapiers, as inspectors over their wardrobe; priors, as superiors of single preceptories or priories; abbots, commanders, and grand priors, as rulers over provinces (similar to the provincials of the monastic order); and the grand master, as chief of the whole order. The latter had the rank of a prince, and considered himself equal to the sovereigns of Europe; since the order, like the Jesuits in later times, by virtue of the papal charters, acknowledged the pope alone as its protector, being independent of any other ecclesiastical or secular jurisdiction, and free even from the effects of interdicts, governing itself, and administering its estates according to its own pleasure, the occupants and vassals of which had to pay them tithes. Uniting the privileges of a religious order with great military power, and always prepared for service by sea and land, it could use its possessions to more advantage than other corporations, and also make conquests on its own account; in addition to

tures, confessions of crimes which had never been committed were extorted from the prisoners. Overcome by long captivity and torment, many Templars confessed whatever their inquisitors wished, since a persevering denial of the crimes with which they were charged was punished with death. Clement V at first opposed this arbitrary treatment of an order which was amenable only to the church; but Philip soon prevailed on him to join in its suppression. Two cardinals were sent to take part in the examinations at Paris, and other clergymen were united to the courts of inquisition in the provinces, in order to impart a more legal appearance to the procedure. Though little was, in fact, proved against the Templars, the archbishop of Sens dared, in 1310, to burn alive fifty-four knights, who had denied every crime of which they were accused. In other dioceses of France, these victims of tyranny and avarice were treated in a similar way. The other princes of Europe were also exhorted by the pope to persecute the Templars. Charles of Sicily and Provence imitated the example of Philip, and shared the booty with the pope. In England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Germany, the Templars were arrested, but almost universally acquitted. The inquisitions at Salamanca and at Mentz (1310) also resulted in the justification of the order. Nevertheless, the pope, at the council of Vienne, in Dauphiny, solemnly abolished the order by a bull of March 2, 1312, not in the legal way, but by papal authority (per provisionis potius, quam condemnationis viam). The members of the order, according to this bull, were to be punished with mildness, when they confessed the crimes imputed to them; but those who persevered in denying them were to be condemned to death. Among the latter were the grand master Molay, and Guido, the grand prior of Normandy, who were burnt alive at Paris, March 13, 1314, after they had cited, according to tradition, Philip and Clement to appear before the judgment-seat of God within a year. The pope, in fact, died April 19 in the same year, and the king November 29. The estates of the order were conferred, by the council of Vienne, upon the knights of St. John, and its treasures in money and precious stones were assigned for a new crusade. But in France, the greatest part fell to the crown, and the pope kept considerable sums for himself. In Spain and Portugal, some new military orders were founded, and en

dowed with the estates of the Templars. In other countries, the knights of St. John acquired the rich inheritance of their rivals. The Templars maintained themselves longest in Germany, where they were treated with justice and mildness. At Störlitz, some were found as late as 1319. The members who were discharged from their vows, entered the order of St. John. The original documents of the process against the Templars in France, published in 1792 by Moldenhawer, prove the infamous and arbitrary conduct of the French courts in this case. Von Hammer, in the Fundgruben des Orients, Mysterium Baphometi revelatum, has lately revived the accusation of apostasy, idolatry, and unnatural vices, against the knights Templars, representing them as Gnostics and Ophites; but Raynouard (Journal des Savans, March, 1819) has shown how unfounded is this accusation, and has proved that by Baphonet (q. v.) nothing but Mohammed is to be understood. Compare also Raynouard's Monum. histor. relatifs à la Condemnation des Chevaliers du Temple (Paris, 1813). Silvestre de Sacy has proved likewise (Magaz. encyclop., 1806, volume vi.), that Baphomet signifies nothing but Mohammed. According to Wilh. Ferd. Wilcke's Geschichte des Tempelherrnordens aus den Quellen-History of the Order of the Templars, drawn from the Sources (Leipsic, 1826, seq., 2 vols.)— the spirit of the order had degenerated into a Mohammedan Gnosticism, which led to its ruin. Wilcke asserts the guilt of the order. It continued in Portugal under the name of the order of Christ. In Paris arose the society of the New Templars. Bishop Münter has published the statutes of the order from a manuscript in old French.

TEMPLE (Latin, templum), in architecture; an edifice destined for the performance of public worship. Various etymologies have been suggested for the Latin word templum. Some derive it from the Greek Teuvos, the meaning of which was a sacred enclosure or temple (from rep, I cut off, or separate), a temple being a place abstracted and set apart from other uses; others from the old Latin verb templari (to contemplate). The ancient augurs undoubtedly applied the name templa to those parts of the heavens which were marked out for observation of the flights of birds. Temples were, originally, all open; and hence, indeed, most likely, came their name. These structures are among the most ancient

monuments. They were the first built, and the most noticeable of public edifices. As soon as a nation had acquired any degree of civilization, they consecrated particular spots to the worship of their deities. In the earliest instances, they contented themselves with erecting altars of earth or ashes in the open air, and sometimes resorted, for the purposes of worship, to the depths of solitary woods. At length they acquired the practice of building cells or chapels, within the enclosure of which they placed the images of their divinities, and assembled to offer up their supplications, thanksgivings and sacrifices. These were chiefly formed like their own dwellings. The Troglodites adored their gods in grottoes; the people who lived in cabins erected temples like cabins in shape. Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius refer the origin of temples to sepulchres; and this notion has been latterly illustrated and confirmed, from a variety of testimonies, by Mr. Farmer, in his Treatise on the Worship of Human Spirits, p. 373, &c. Herodotus and Strabo contend that the Egyptians were the first who erected temples to the gods; and the one first erected in Greece is attributed, by Apollonius, to Deucalion. (Argonaut. lib. iii.) The temple of Castor was built upon the tomb of that hero. At the time when the Greeks surpassed all other people in the arts introduced among them from Phoenicia, Syria and Egypt, they devoted much time, care and expense to the building of temples. No country has surpassed, or perhaps equalled them, in this respect: the Romans alone successfully rivalled them, and they took the Greek structures for models. In every city of Greece, as well as in its environs, and in the open country, was a considerable number of sacred temples. The ruins of this description, now existing, greatly exceed those of any other kind of building, owing to the fact that the best materials and the utmost attention were uniformly employed upon the Grecian and Roman temples. The particular divinity who was held to preside in chief over each several town, had always the most elegant and costly temple therein especially dedicated to him or her. The temples constructed in the provinces chiefly appertained to the gods of the country, or to those common to the several communities. In the immediate vicinity of these edifices, the people held, at fixed seasons, assemblies for the purpose of sacrificing to the gods; they also celebrated their festivals on the same spot, and deliberated

respecting the affairs of the entire nation. The most ancient Grecian temples were not of great extent; some of them were very small. The cella was barely large enough to contain the statue of the presiding deity of the temple, and, occasionally, an altar in addition. Even in succeeding ages, this observation holds good in a great degree. Their object, in fact, did not render extent necessary; since the priests alone entered the cella, and the people assembled without the walls. Exceptions, indeed, were made, in the examples of those dedicated to the tutelary divinities of towns, of those of the supreme gods, and of those appropriated to the common use of various communities. This increased extent was chiefly displayed in the porticoes surrounding the cella. According to Vitruvius, the situations of the temples were regulated chiefly by the nature and characteristics of the various divinities. Thus the temples of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, who were considered, by the inhabitants of many cities, as their protecting deities, were erected on spots sufficiently elevated to enable them to overlook the whole town, or, at least, the principal part of it. Minerva, the tutelary deity of Athens, had her seat on the Acropolis. (q. v.) The temples of Mercury were, ordinarily, in the forum. Those of Apollo and Bacchus were beside the theatres. The temple of Hercules was commonly near the gymnasium, the amphitheatre, or circus. Those of Mars, of Venus and of Vulcan were generally without the walls of the city, but near the gates. The temples of Esculapius were uniformly in the neighborhood of the towns, on some elevated and desirable spot, where the pure air might be inhaled by the invalids who came to invoke the aid of the god of health. In the cities, the houses of the inhabitants clustered round the temples. The form most generally given to temples was that of a long square; sometimes, however, they were circular. Those of the former shape commonly had a depth or length double their breadth, and their celle had ordinarily, at the exterior, porticoes which sometimes adorned only the façade of the anterior, sometimes that also of the posterior, and was occasionally carried round all four sides. Over the entablature of the columns, at both the fronts, was a pediment. The principal façades of the temples were always ornamented with an even number of columns, while the sides had generally an uneven number. The circular

form was by no means common. Those temples were generally covered with a cupola, the height of which about equalled the semi-diameter of the entire edifice. The most celebrated instance of the circular temple is the pantheon of Rome. It has some peculiarities not common to its class. (See Pantheon.) Several of the very ancient Etruscan temples have an oblong shape, or one approaching to a perfect square. In several of the ancient buildings of this character were stair-cases, by means of which people mounted to the roof. These were constructed within the walls, by the side of the entrance fronting the cella, and, that they might occupy less space, were made winding. The Egyptian temples had a species of openings or windows. The statue of the divinity to whom the structure was dedicated was, as may be supposed, the most venerated object of the temple, and the most prominent ornament of the cella. It was, in almost every instance, executed by a distinguished artist, even when destined only for a small building. In the earliest instances, these statues were of terra cotta, and were commonly painted red; others were of wood. In succeeding times, as the fine arts advanced, iron and bronze were occasionally substituted, but still more frequently marble. (See Sculpture, and Statue.) The primitive bronze statues were not cast in one single jet, but in separate pieces, afterwards joined together. Besides the statue of the presiding deity, there were generally others, either in the cella or pronaos, or both, some of which had a special relation to the principal figure, whilst others served merely for ornament. The altar, on which the sacrifices were offered, was placed before the statue of the divinity, a little less elevated than it, and turned towards the east. (See Altar.) Sometimes single cells contained altars raised to sundry deities. To the sacred architecture of the Greeks, as exhibited in their various temples, we are indebted for the purest and best canons of architecture that the world has ever seen. The Egyptian temples were remarkable for the number and disposition of the columns, contained in several enclosures within the walls. The little cella appeared like a kind of stable, or lodging, for the sacred animal to whom, as it may be, the building was consecrated. This was never entered but by the priests. The porticoes were magnificent in size, proportions, and often in style. Obelisks and colossal statues were ordinarily placed

before the entrance. These were sometimes preceded by alleys of sphinxes, or of lions, of immense size. Near the gates two masses of a pyramidal form were erected: these were often covered with hieroglyphic bassi-rilievi. A corbel, scooped out in the shape of a gorge, was the only substitute for the entablature, whether to the gate itself, or to the two lofty masses adjoining. No pediment or shape of roof interfered with the horizontal line of the platform above, with which the temples were covered, and on which it is probable that the priests passed the nights in making astronomical observations. (See Architecture, vol. i, p. 339; also Denderah, Hieroglyphics, Elephantine, and Thebes.)

The Indian temples, or pagodas, are sometimes of immense size. (See Pagoda, Elora, and Salsette; also the article Architecture. For Christian temples and churches, see Architecture, Cathedral, and Masonry.) The first Hebrew temple was built by Solomon on mount Moriah, in Jerusalem, with the help of a Phoenician architect. It was an oblong stone building, sixty cubits in length, twenty in width, and thirty in height. On three sides were corridors, rising above each other to the height of three stories, and containing rooms, in which were preserved the holy utensils and treasures.

The fourth or front side was open, and was ornamented with a portico, ten cubits in width, supported by two brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz (stability and strength). The interior was divided into the most holy place, or oracle, twenty cubits long, which contained the ark of the covenant, and was separated, by a curtain or veil, from the sanctuary, or holy place, in which were the golden candlesticks, the table of the showbread, and the altar of incense. The walls of both apartments, and the roof and ceiling of the most holy place, were overlaid with wood work, skilfully carved. None but the high priest was permitted to enter the latter, and only the priests, devoted to the temple service, the former. The temple was surrounded by an inner court, which contained the altar of burntoffering, the brazen sea and lavers, and such instruments and utensils as were used in the sacrifices, which, as well as the prayers, were offered here. Colonnades, with brazen gates, separated this court of the priests from the outer court, which was likewise surrounded by a wall. See Hirt's Tempel Solomonis (Berlin, 1809). This temple was destroyed by the Assyrians, and, after the return from the