ABSTRACT
The word “revolution” stems from the Latin noun revolutio, which is a derivative of the Latin verb revolvere, meaning to revolve.1 As such, it is an exact translation of Polybius’ notion of ἀνακύκλωσις, originally an astronomical term devised to designate recurring, cyclical movements2 (and as such it implies a repetition, somewhat in the sense of a “taking back” as understood in the Kierkegaardian idea of Gjentagelse).3 Eventually, the term “revolution” was transposed to the political realm in the seventeenth century, however, still with the meaning of “restoration.”4 Among the various meanings that the political actors themselves gave to the term as the French Revolution unfolded,5 one, linked to the Jacobins’ understanding of it, would later settle itself as its quintessential acceptation, namely, the attempt to bring about a “wholly new social order”6 through the attainment of control of the state by means of violence.7 Thus, according to Molbech, a revolution is a “complete and general change in the order, connections [or] course of things; upheaval [Omvæltning].”8 It is worth noting the semantic ambivalence of the word in Molbech’s mind and, consequently,
instances of its possible use: “Revolutions in nature. Especially in relation to such an alteration in the constitution of states; a revolution of a state [Statsomvæltning]. The French Revolution.”9 This, in turn, confirms at least two different things: (1) that at least around the decade of the 1830s the word “revolution” (at least in Denmark) could still be used to describe both natural as well as political processes; and (2) that in Kierkegaard’s time there were two different words available in order to designate such phenomena, namely, Revolution and Omvæltning (not to mention other related terms such as Oprør, meaning “rebellion,” “revolt,” or “insurrection”); thus, what we nowadays understand as revolution was at times described by Kierkegaard using the term Revolution, and at other times using the term Omvæltning.10
