Germans. The city consists of two parts—the Domberg or Dom, which occupies a hill, and the lower town on the beach. The Dom contains the castle (first built in the 13th century, rebuilt in 1772), where the provincial administration has its seat, and a cathedral (1894–1900) with five gilded domes. It has its own administration, separate from that of the lower town. The church of St Nicholas, built in 1317, contains many antiquities of the former Roman Catholic times and old German paintings. The Dom church contains many interesting shields, as also the graves of the circumnavigator Baron A. J. von Krusenstern (1770–1846), of the Swedish soldiers Pontus de la Gardie (d. 1585) and Carl Horn (d. 1601), and of the Bohemian Protestant leader Count Matthias von Thurn (1580–1640). The church of St Olai, first erected in 1240, and often rebuilt, was completed in 1840 in Gothic style; it has a bell tower 456 ft. high. The oldest church is the Esthonian, built in 1219. The public institutions include a good provincial museum of antiquities; an imperial palace, Katharinenthal, built by Peter the Great in 1719; and very valuable archives, preserved in the town hall (14th century). The pleasant situation of the town attracts thousands of people for sea-bathing. It is the seat of a branch board of the Russian admiralty and of the administration of the Baltic lighthouses. Its port has a depth of 4 to 6 fathoms, and a roadstead 312 m. wide, which freezes nearly every winter. The exports consist chiefly of grain, timber, flax, hides, wool, a species of anchovy, and hemp, and the imports of manufactured goods and machinery. The value of the aggregate trade amounts to an average of seven to nine millions sterling annually. There is considerable trade with Finland. Baltic Port, 30 m. W., is a sort of annex to the port of Reval.
The high Silurian crag now known as Domberg was early occupied by an Esthonian fort, Lindanissa. In 1219 the Danish king Valdemar II. erected here a strong castle and founded the first church. In 1228 the castle was taken by the Livonian Knights, but nine years later it returned to the Danes. About the same time Lübeck and Bremen merchants settled there, and their settlement became an important seaport of the Hanseatic League. It was fortified early in the 14th century, and in 1343 sustained a siege by the revolted Esthonians. Valdemar III. sold Reval and Esthonia to the Teutonic Knights in 1346, but on the dissolution of the order, in 1561, Esthonia and Reval surrendered to the Swedish king Erik XIV. A great conflagration in 1433, the pestilence of 1532, the bombardment by the Danes in 1569, and the Russo-Livonian War, destroyed its trade. The Russians besieged Reval twice, in 1570 and 1577. It was still an important fortress, having been enlarged and fortified by the Swedes. In 1710 it was surrendered to Peter the Great, who immediately began the erection of a military port for his Baltic fleet. His successors continued to fortify the access to Reval from the sea, large works being undertaken, especially in the early years of the 19th century.
REVEILLÉ (Fr. réveillez, imperative of réveiller, to awaken, Lat. re- and vigilare, to watch), the signal by call of bugle or beat of drum to announce to soldiers the time to awake and begin duty.
REVELATION, BOOK OF, in the Bible, the last book of the
New Testament.
Title.—According to the best authorities א CA (in the subscription) 2, 8, 82, 93, the title of this book is ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου. Some cursives (1, 14, 17, 25, 28, 31, 33, 51, 90, 91, 94, 97) read ἀπ. (+ τοῦ ἁγίου 1, 25, 28, 31, 38, 51, 90, 94) Ἰωάννου τοῦ θεολόγου; Q and 12, ἀπ. Ἰ. τοῦ θεολ. καὶ εὐαγγελίστου; P and 42, ἡ ἀπ. τοῦ ἀποστόλου Ἰ. καὶ εὐαγγελίστου. The word “apocalypse” gives the current title not only to this book, but to a large body of Jewish and Christian writings. This is one of the first instances of its use in this sense in existing literature. An earlier use is probably to be found in the title of the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, which = γραφὴ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως τοῦ βαροὺχ υἱοῦ τοῦ Νηρίσυ. The title is different from what the New Testament use of the term would have led us to expect, i.e., Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ, which are indeed the opening words of this book. With the latter phrase we might compare Gal. i. 12, where we have ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “revelation from Jesus Christ.” For the book is a revelation made by God to Jesus Christ, who through His angel made it known to John for transmission to the churches. Instead of this the Church substituted the name of the disciple through whom the message was delivered for that of his Master, and designated our Apocalypse “The Apocalypse of John.” This title was familiar before the end of the 2nd century.
MSS. and Versions.—There are six uncials, א, A, C, P, Q, ג, the last of which has not been edited or collated. Of the rest, P and Q are imperfect. The known cursives amount to 229, according to von Soden (Die Schriften des Neuen Testamentes, I. i. 289). There are six ancient versions of various values. (a) The best is the Latin, which is found in the Old Latin (g h m and the text used by Primasius) and the Vulgate, of which there are eight MSS. written between the 6th and 15th centuries. (b) The Syriac version appears in two forms, the Philoxenian (A.D. 508), recently discovered and edited by Gwynn, and the Harclean (A.D. 616). The true Peshitta did not contain the Apocalypse. (c) The Armenian version. The Apocalypse was admitted to the canon, according to Conybeare, in the 12th century through the influence of Nerses, who revised an older version traceable to the opening of the 5th century. (d) The Egyptian version is found in two forms, i.e. the Bohairic and Sahidic. The former has been edited by Horner, who is now also engaged on an edition of the latter. (e, f) The Ethiopic and Arabic versions have not yet been critically edited.
External Evidence and Canonicity, 2nd Century.—It is possible that the Apocalypse was known to Ignatius, Eph. xv. 3 (Rev. xxi. 3); Philad. vi. 1' (Rev. iii. 12). Some have thought also that Barnabas (vi. 13, xxi. 3) was acquainted with our text, but this is highly improbable. Andreas of Caesarea mentions Papias as attesting the credibility of Revelation, and cites two of his remarks on Rev. xii. 7. The fact that Eusebius does not mention Revelation among the New Testament books known to Papias (H.E. iii. 39) may be due to the historian's unfriendly attitude to the book. Moreover, Papias may be one of the presbyters to whom, as having actually seen John, Irenaeus (v. 30 = Eusebius, H.E. v. 8) appeals on behalf of the number 666. From these possible and highly probable references we pass on to the clear testimony of Justin Martyr, who is the first to declare that Revelation is by “John, one of the Apostles of Christ” (Dial. lxxxi. 15), and a book of canonical standing (i. 28). In the latter half of this century it meets with very wide recognition. Thus a treatise of some description was written upon it by Melito of Sardis in Asia Minor (Eus. H.E. iv. 26), and quoted by the anti-Montanist Apollonius (H.E. v. 18) and Theophilus of Antioch (H.E. iv. 24). In Carthage its currency is proven by the references of Tertullian, and the phraseology of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas (§§ 4, 12); in Alexandria by the citations of Clement (Paed. i. 6. 36; ii. 10. 108, &c.); in Rome by its inclusion in the Muratorian canon, and in Gaul by its use in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons (Eus. H.E. v. 10. 58), and in Irenaeus, who defends the apostolic authorship of the Revelation of John (Haer. iv. 14. 1, 17. 6, 18.6, 20. 11, 21. 3; v. 26. 1, &c.).
But in certain quarters the authority of the book was denied. Thus Marcion rejected it on the ground of its Jewish character (Tertullian, c. Marcion, iv. 5), and the Alogi assigned both Revelation and the Gospel to Cerinthus (Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3). This attitude is more widely represented in the next century.
Third Century.—The attack on Revelation was resumed by abler antagonists in this century. The objections of the Alogi were restated and maintained by the Roman presbyter Caius in his controversy with the Montanist Proclus (Eus. H.E. ii. 25. 6; iii. 28. 2), but met with such overwhelming refutation at the hands of Hippolytus (see Gwynn, Hermathena, vi. 397–418) that no church writer in the West subsequently except Jerome seriously called in question the authorship of our book.
Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 255) wrote a moderate and effective criticism, in which he rejects the hypothesis of the
