Definition
To behave in a noisy, boisterous manner. In legal usage, "revel" describes a mode of disorderly conduct — specifically, conduct involving loud, unruly, or bacchanal-like behavior in a public or semi-public setting. The term appears most frequently in criminal complaints and disorderly conduct proceedings, where it functions as one of several enumerated acts describing a defendant's misconduct.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): An instance of merrymaking or celebration; a kind of dance; a wake for the dead.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's 1913 redirects to "Reveal" with a note that "revel" is rare, reflecting that the word had already begun retreating from active common use by the late nineteenth century.
The gap here is subtle but legally significant. In ordinary usage, "revel" carries a festive, celebratory connotation — merrymaking, parties, dancing. In legal usage, the word sheds its celebratory character entirely and takes on a character of disorder and nuisance. A person may revel in the common sense without committing any wrong; to "revel" in a criminal complaint is to engage in the noisy, disruptive conduct that disturbs public order. The legal definition emphasizes the boisterous and bacchanal quality, not the festivity.
Common Confusion
"Revel" should not be confused with mere loud speech or ordinary celebration. Courts that have addressed the term treat it as having a definite legal meaning — boisterous, disorderly conduct akin to that of a reveler in the ancient sense of drunken, unrestrained behavior. It is stronger than "noise" and implies active physical or vocal disorder, not simply enthusiasm or high spirits.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "revel" in historical criminal records, indictments, or disorderly conduct complaints should recognize that it is a term of art, not surplusage. Courts treated it as carrying a definite, independent meaning within standard formulaic pleadings. The word typically appears in a string of conduct terms — "revel, quarrel, commit mischief, and otherwise behave in a disorderly manner" — a pleading formula that tracks common-law disorderly conduct and breach-of-peace offenses.
The key research trap is assuming "revel" is vague or purely rhetorical because it sounds festive. The Rhode Island decision cited in Black's (In re Began, 12 R.I. 309) directly rejected that assumption, holding the word sufficiently definite to sustain a criminal complaint. This matters when assessing the sufficiency of historical indictments or complaints in appellate records.
Because "revel" belongs to the disorderly conduct family of offenses, researchers should trace it alongside vagrancy, breach of peace, and public nuisance materials. It surfaces most often in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century municipal court records and police court dockets, less so in appellate opinions. Its appearance in a charging document is a reliable indicator of the common-law lineage of the underlying offense.
The term has largely disappeared from modern criminal codes, replaced by statutory disorderly conduct language. Researchers working on legislative history of disorderly conduct statutes may find "revel" in earlier draft language or predecessor statutes that these modern provisions displaced.
Historical Dictionary Support
All three historical sources converge on a single, narrow definition: to behave in a noisy, boisterous manner like a bacchanal. Black's (both editions) and Anderson's are in full agreement, with Black's anchoring the definition to In re Began. The second edition of Black's identifies the case explicitly, correcting what appears to be an incomplete citation in the first edition.
No meaningful divergence exists among the historical sources on this term. What they collectively miss is any discussion of the term's gradual disappearance from active legal vocabulary — they present it as a living word, but by the time these dictionaries were compiled, "revel" was already becoming archaic in charging instruments. Anderson's definition, stripped of context, reads as a pure behavioral description without the pleading background that Black's supplies; researchers using Anderson's alone may underestimate how specifically the term was tied to disorderly conduct doctrine.
Jurisdictional Note
The only judicial authority defining the term in historical sources is a Rhode Island decision. The holding — that "revel" has a definite meaning sufficient to sustain a criminal complaint — is consistent with general common-law disorderly conduct principles, but researchers should not assume uniform application across jurisdictions without independent verification.