A history of the
months
The original Roman year had ten
months. Starting with Martius “March”, Aprilis “April”, Maius “May”, Junius
“June”, Quintilis “July”, Sextilis “August”, September “September”, October
“October”, November “November”, December “December”. The months really referred
to the various agricultural seasons and probably two unnamed months then existed
in the dead of winter when not much happened in agriculture. The year began with
Martius “March”. Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, who ruled around 700
BC, added the two months Januarius “January” and Februarius “February”. He also
moved the beginning of the year from March to January and changed the number of
days in several months to be odd, a lucky number. The origin of the leap-year
day being in February can be traced to this period when, there was occasionally
an additional month of Intercalaris “intercalendar” after February. In 46 BC,
Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar, hence it is known as the Julian
calendar. He changed the number of days in many months and removed Intercalaris.
November really meant “the
ninth month”. Originally it had 30 days, until Numa changed it to 29 days.
Finally, Julius Caesar made it 30 days long. If it had remained 29 days then
this year, corporates in India would have had one day less for e-filing tax
returns.
The General’s Book
General Musharraf, President of
Pakistan, thought it fit to write a sort of autobiographical book. The book was
launched, by Musharraf, himself, at a New York event on September 25. It was not
sent out for advance reviews as is customary. With a little help from the US
President, the book reached the best-seller lists. However, across the globe,
and particularly in the western media it continues to draw fire, as a dishonest,
self-serving tale.
Several, Indian newspapers,
carried cartoons relating to the book. One particular cartoon, showed Indian
Army Generals, doubled up in laughter, as they leafed through the tome.
The book is now reaping adverse
appraisals, with most journals trashing it as a chronicle of lies and
half-truths. Among the most savage reviews is from the Economist, which called
the memoir “cliché-ridden and boringly boastful. General Musharraf comes across
as humourless, vain and insecure... heaven forbid that anyone unfamiliar with
Pakistan should wholly trust this book,” the magazine observed. It also said “…
any less than glorious event in his life... is blamed on some less worthy
individual, a dull superior or jealous peer, whom the author is all too happy to
name.” The Wall Street Journal was equally harsh, calling the book “not so much
an autobiography as a highly selective auto-hagiography, by turns
self-congratulatory, narcissistic and mendacious.” The book’s pages caused much
embarrassment to the US Administration. As expected the book is plummeting in
the best seller lists.
