Wl 



SI VAN. 



SIX CI.KHKS. 



of hi* head, rofnuli) the air of his sacred dwelling" (A'u'/' 

 S4yara). Thi in a favourite subject among the Hindu painters, and 

 we mut allow that their conception of it U generally well executed. 



The uumerou* name* of Siva have led Europeans into a notion con- 

 trary to that which induced the Hindu* to make the linga the general 

 type for all the forum of thi< god; they naturally enough supposed 

 each of hu numerous names and pagoda* to belong to a distinct and 

 separate deity. Hence the erroneou* notion about |olytheim in India, 

 whiUt it i* evident that the original monotheism of Hindu religion had 

 in the progre** of time become pantheUm, which i* prevalent all over 

 the Ka*t. Even U pment the follower of Siva denies the divinity of 

 Vuhnu, and rift vend ; although both these gods, now representing 

 the Supreme Being, were only type* of divine qualities attributed to 

 the Trimurti. But the allegory eventually acted too strongly on the 

 imagination of the people. Brahma, a* creator, had finished his work, 

 and could not with propriety act any more. Siva therefore and 

 Vuhnu were destined to do all that fancy could suggest ; but still 

 MaMdera i* the only god to the Soivas, whilst Narayana is the one 

 chosen by the Vauhnavas. For this we have the express words of the 

 Ra-lha Tantra, which say* that the form uf Arddhauaruswara (half man, 

 half woman) was assumed by Siva in order to prove that he was the 

 one Brahm, in whom Iwth the female and male power.* are united. 

 This notion of the animating and recipient principles being united in 

 one, has been embodied in the sUtue termed Arddhanart ; one half of 

 Siva, from head to foot, bears all the ornaments of I'.lrvatl or BhAvant ; 

 the other U exactly the same as that in which he U iuu illy exhibited. 

 The rage for identifying the gods of the Eastern nations with those 

 of the West has not spared Siva. He was Bacchus, and Saturn, and 

 Pluto ; in fact, he was said to be almost the entire pantheon of Greece 

 and Koine and Egypt Neither is this to be wondered at, seeing that 

 the Qreeks and Latins ascribed different attributes to different deities. 

 The Hindus have only one to whom to ascribe all attributes. Siva U 

 also, and it appears originally, the representative of fire. This element 

 penetrates earth and water, represented by Brahma ami Vislmu. 

 imparts to them some of its vigour, develops their qualities, and 

 brings everything in nature to that state of increase, maturity, and 

 perfection which they would not attain without it. But ceasing to 

 act beneficially on the created things, they perish : this agent of repro- 

 duction, when free and visible, consumes the body, the composition of 

 which he himself had effected : to this quality he owes his title of god 

 of destruction. 



The reader who may wish to see the connection of the Hindu gods 

 with those of Greece and Rome will find ample materials in the papers 

 which Col. Wilford inserted in the earlier volumes of the 'Asiatic 

 Researches : ' they cannot however be implicitly relied on. 



(Vans Kennedy, Ket'arcltei into Ancient and Hindu Mi/tholoyy ; 

 Maurice, Indian Anliijuitiet ; Ward, View of the Religion, Literature, etc. 

 o//</io ; Wilson, Yislinu Ptirdna Oj-ford Lectures ; Rolle, Recherchet 

 tur Jtoednu et let Mytllret ; P. von Bohlen, Das Alle Indien ; 

 Kin.lersley, Specimen of Hindu Literature ; Moore, Hindu, Pantheon ; 

 Aiiatic Reteardta ; Dubois, Maun, <kc. det Peuplet de tlnde.) 



SI VAN (in Hebrew, ]VP) is the ninth month of the Jewish civil 



year. The name 'us mentioned in the Bible, at Esther via. 9. In the 

 copies of the calendar of Heliopolis (Balbek) we find Efijp, Ofip, and 

 Ofif ; but these words are evidently intended to represent the Syrian 

 mouth Ikv.iran. No probable Hebrew etymology has been suggested 

 for the word Sivan ; but Kenfey proposes the Persian month Sefen- 

 darmcd, which the analogous Zend form shows to be compounded of 

 two words, the first of which, ' spenta,' signifies pure. Sivan has thirty 

 i lays, and it coincided with our May or June ; in the year 1 860 it 

 began on the 22nd of May and ended on the 20th of June ; in 1861 it 

 begins on the 10th of May and ends on the 8th of June. On the 

 6th of this month Pentecost begins, and some festivals are mentioned 

 as held on the 15th, 16th, and 17th of the mouth, in commemoration 

 i.f victories gained by the Maccabees ; but they do not appear to be 

 generally observed. The game may be said of certain fasts set down 

 for the 25th and 27th, in remembrance of the death of celebrated 

 rabbi*. 



SIX CLERKS. The office of Six Clerks was an office of great anti- 

 quity connected with the Court of Chancery, probably as ancient as 

 the court iteelf. The number of the Six Clerks was limited to six as 

 long ago as the 12th Rich. II. The history of this office illustrates the 

 mischief of attempting to regulate the supply of legal services to the 

 client. It exhibits an instance of the principles of interference and 

 monopoly destroying two successive classes of officers, in spite of the 

 strongest support which the law and the courts could give to them. 



The Six Clerks were originally the only attorneys of the court. 

 By the common law, any person who was impleaded in any of the 

 court* of law was bound to appear in person, unless he obtained the 

 king's warrant, or a writ from Chancery enabling him to appear by 

 attorney, "by reason whereof," says Lord Coke (1 ' Inst./ 128), "there 

 were but few suits." There are many early statutes still in force 

 enacted for the purpose of empowering the subject to appoint an attor- 

 ney. The earliest statute is that of Merton (A.I). 1235), whereby it is 

 " provided and granted that every freeman which oweth suit to the 

 county, tithing, hundred, and wapentike, or to the court of his lord, 

 may freely make his attorney to do those suite for him." Subsequent 



Acts extended this privilege to other jiartios and other court* ; but to 

 this day it would appear that, by the strict law uf tin- l.md. exeopt so 

 far as it has fallen into desuetude, persons in good health, in pleas 

 relating to money, are bound to appear in person. None of these 

 statutes, however, extended to courts of equity ; but, as far as appears, 

 every person who was desirous of relief, or compelled to defend him- 

 self in the Court of Chancery, was obliged to employ one of the Six 

 Clerks as his representative. 



In early times great exertions were made to limit the number of 

 attorneys who were allowed to practise in each court. The increase of 

 litigation which accompanied the increase of property was looked on as 

 an evil to be checked in every possible method ; and the method most 

 relied on was that of limiting the number of legal practitioners. The 

 well-known statute of 1455 (33 Hen. VI., c. 7, which is still in force) 

 may be referred to as an instance. It recites a practice of contentious 

 attorneys to stir up suits for their private profits, and enacts that there 

 shall be but six common attorneys in Norfolk, six in Suffolk, and two 

 in Norwich, to be elected and admitted by the chief-justice. As late 

 as the year 1616 a rule was made, " that the number of attorneys of 

 each court be viewed, to have them drawn to a competent number in 

 each court, and the superfluous number to be removed." These 

 various regulations, so far as they were enforced, could only have been 

 detrimental to the public ; and as regards the courts of King's I'.nn-h 

 and Common Pleas, they seem not to have been long insisted on. As 

 to the Exchequer, the principle of monopoly was continued in force 

 down to the year 1830, until which time eighteen attorneys only were 

 admitted to practise in it. As a consequence, that court w;i-. before 

 the year 1830, scarcely at all resorted to. Since that time more actions 

 are commenced in it than in any other court, lu the year 1S32 a new- 

 principle was introduced into the common-law courts, and all persons 

 wishing to be attorneys were required to serve an attorney under 

 articles for six years (since reduced to five). The Six, Clerks' Office, 

 however, did not adopt this method until long after. They got over 

 the difficulty by admitting under-clerks, afterwards called sworn clerks, 

 to practise in their names, and they shared in some way or other the 

 profits with them. In 1548 an inquisition was appointed, to inquire 

 into the supposed exactions and abuses of the Court of Chancery, and 

 the fees then payable for the business of this office. The presentment 

 shows that all the fees payable for business done in this office were at 

 that time payable to the Six Clerks ; and it contains no allusion whatever 

 to the under-clerks as being in any way known as officers of the court. 

 They seem at that time to have held a position with regard to the Six 

 Clerks quite analogous to that which the solicitors for a long period 

 were under with regard to the sworn clerks, and to have been the real 

 persons who prosecuted the causes. They must have been numerous, 

 as in 1596 an order was made limiting the number that each Six-Clerk 

 should be allowed to have under him. Soon after this the Six Clerks, 

 instead of taking clients according to the clients' choice, agreed to divide 

 the business coming from time to time into court among themselves 

 alphabetically. This arrangement shows that the scheme of a limited 

 number of legalised attorneys for the Court of Chancery had now 

 entirely ceased to operate, and had been converted into a mere legal 

 pretext to enable these officers to tax all who were driven to such 

 Chancery Court for justice. This regulation for dividing the business 

 was, after some years, set aside on petition of the Master of the Rolls to 

 the crown, as a monopoly and a breach of the liberty of the subject. 

 In 1630 the office of Six-Clerk was, if not a sinecure, at least an appoint- 

 ment of great value. From a ridiculous story told about Sir .Julius 

 Caesar, the Master of the Rolls, in Clarendon's ' Rebellion,' it appears 

 that the appointment at that time sold for so large a sum as 6000/. 

 About this time the under or sworn clerks, or clerks in court (for all 

 these names apply to them), began to be frequently mentioned in the 

 orders regulating the court, and soon grew into a very important body. 

 The under-clerks were the parties who knew the merits of the dilleruit 

 causes, and were interested in getting the work done, so as to gain the 

 fees from the clients. The Six Clerks had begun to sink into the 

 lethargy of sinecurists. Many orders were made to spur them into 

 activity, but all in vain. 



The Six Clerks, in a paper given in by them to the Chancery Com- 

 missioners of 1825, state that, " From the first establishment of tin' Six 

 Clerks, up to the rebellion in the reign of King Charles I., many other 

 important duties were attached to their office. During the usurjiation, 

 however, a part of the duties was assigned to certain new < 

 entitled the sworn clerks, who have ever since continued the execution 

 thereof," The Six Clerks in this statement have fixed rather too early 

 a date to the legal transfer. Great efforts were made for reform of 

 legal procedure during the Commonwealth. Among others there was 

 an ordinance for abolishing the office of Six-Clerk in 1654, but it 

 terminated, with the other ordinances of the Commonwealth, at the 

 Restoration, and the judges endeavoured vigorously to reinstate the 

 Six Clerks in their old position. Lord Clarendon, in 16t>5, limited 

 the under-clerks to twelve to each Six-Clerk ; these under-clerks are 

 sometimes referred to incidentally as the "attorneys of the parties," 

 though it is strongly repeated that " the Six Clerks are the only attor- 

 neys of this court." In 1668 the Six Clerks submitted to their fate : 

 an order was made fully recognising the under-clerks, and dividing the 

 office-fees between them and the Six Clerks. The Six Clerks, having 

 secured their own monopoly, had, by the year 1688, become the 



