MASTER OF THE

See also:

• MASTER OF THE REVELS

REVELS  3—The history of the Revels office has an interesting place in that of the English stage (see also DRAMA, and THEATRE) . Among the expenses of the royal Wardrobe we find provision made for tunicae and viseres in 1347 for the Christmas Judi of Edward III.; during the reign of Henry VII. payments are also recorded for various forms of court revels; and it became regular, apparently, to appoint a special functionary, called Master of the Revels, to superintend the royal festivities, quite distinct from the Lord of Misrule (q.v.) . In Henry VII.'s time he seems to have been a minor official of the household . In Henry VIII.'s time, however, the post became more important, and an officer of the Wardrobe was permanently employed to act under the Master of the Revels . With the patent given to John Farlyon in 1534 as Yeoman of the Revels, what may be considered as an independent office of the Revels (within the general sphere of the lord chamberlain) came into being; and in 1544 Sir Thomas Cawarden received a patent as . Master of the Revels, he being the first to become head of an independent office, Magister Jocorum, Revelorum et Mascorum omnium et singularium nostrorum vulgariter nuncupatorum Revells and Masks . Cawarden was Master till 1559 . Soon after his appointment, the office and its stores were transferred to a dissolved Dominican monastery at Blackfriars, having previously been housed at Warwick Inn in the city, the Charterhouse, and then at the priory of St John of Jerusalem in Clerkenwell, to which a return was made after Cawarden's death . Sir Thomas Benger succeeded Cawarden, and Edmund Tylney followed him (1579-1610); it was the appointment of the latter's nephew, Sir George Buck, as deputy-master, with the reversion to the mastership, which led to so much repining on the part of the dramatist, John Lyly, who was himself a candidate . Under Tylney, the functions of Master of the Revels gradually became extended to a general censorship of the stage, which in 1624 was put directly in the hands of the lord ' There are several analogies in Jewish literature . Thus the Testaments of the XII . Patriarchs—a universalist work—and the Book of Jubilees—a particularistic work—are from different authors, though they are written within a few years of each other by Pharisees and use much common material .

Similarly with regard to the

Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Ezra . 2 Several converging lines of testimony tend to prove that John the son of Zebedee was, like his brother James, put to death by the Jews . First, we have the express testimony of Papias to this effect, which is preserved in George Hamartolus and in an epitome of Philip of Side . Attempts have been made to explain away this testimony by Lightfoot, Harnack, Drummond, and Bernard (Irish Church Quarterly, 1908, 52 sqq.) . Secondly, Papias's testimony receives support from Jesus's own words in Mark x . 39; for, as Wellhausen remarks on this passage, " the prophecy refers not only to James but also to John; and if it had remained only half fulfilled, it would hardly have kept its place in the Gospel." The third strand of evidence is found in the Martyrologies, Carthaginian, Armenian and Syrian . Bernard (op. cit.) has tried to prove that the Martyrologies do not imply the martyrdom but only the faithful witness of John . Finally, Clement of Alexandria (Bousset, The Offenbarung, p . 38) furnishes evidence in the same direction; for in Clem . Alex . Strom. iv . 9, 71, the Gnostic Heracleon gives a list of the Apostles who had not been martyred, and these were: " Matthew, Philip, Thomas and Levi " (corrupt for Lebbaeus) .

If we accept this evidence, the martyrdom cannot have been later than A.D . 69, and may have been considerably earlier . In either

case such a fact, if it is a fact, is against an Apostolic origin of the Johannine writings . John the Presbyter is in that case " the disciple whom Jesus loved " and the founder of the Johannine school in Asia Minor . But the question is still at issue . 2 The word " revel " meant properly a noisy or riotous tumult or merry-making, and is derived from 0 . Fr. reveler, to rebel, to riot, make a noise; Lat. rebellare.chamberlain, thus leading to the licensing act of 1737 (see DRAMA) . See E . K . Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage (1904); and his Notes on the History of the Revels Office under the Tudors (1906), with authorities quoted .