Revolution vs Evolution

This is an interesting query, ABC Singh. Dictionaries differentiate them quite conveniently abruptly, and in fact they are distinct from each other at first sight like two animals of different species.

Thus, for now let us say 'evolution' is a series of changes that happen in something, while 'revolution' is change(s) that are made. The former is a slow and perhaps an endless process (though we tend to look at them in phases), while the latter is markedly fast and abrupt (it can also be violent) and with it (if successful) there is always a levelling-off. For example, nobody causes the biological changes plants and animals are (and have been) undergoing, naturally. This is evolution, and it happens on its own. On the contrary, the changes in France before and mainly after 1789 were made by human agents, some planning and controlling the course of action, and most doing the acual storming. That was a revolution--the French Revolution.

However, below the surface the distinction is not so straightforward as this.

To understand the meaning of the English word 'revolution' and see its difference from 'evolution', let us trace its origin and the "evolution" in its meaning so it acquired the very meaning we are currently discussing also. The concept of revolution has been there since ancient times. Even Aristotle dedicates Chapter 5 of his Politics to επανάσταση (epanástasi̱ ) or revolution. However, our subject in this post is the history of the English word "revolution" in the sense of sudden changes and upheavals.

(To be continued)