Saga Does Palpatine want revenge? If so, why?

Right. For context, here's the whole passage:

Spoiler

Darth Sidious stood high on a balcony overlooking Coruscant, his concealing black robes making him appear as if he were a creature produced by the night. He stood facing the city, his eyes directed at its lights, at the faint movement of its air traffic, disinterested in his apprentice, Darth Maul, who waited to one side.

His thoughts were of the Sith and of the history of their order.

The Sith had come into being almost two thousand years ago. They were a cult given over to the dark side of the Force, embracing fully the concept that power denied was power wasted. A rogue Jedi Knight had founded the Sith, a singular dissident in an order of harmonious followers, a rebel who understood from the beginning that the real power of the Force lay not in the light, but in the dark. Failing to gain approval for his beliefs from the Council, he had broken with the order, departing with his knowledge and his skills, swearing in secret that he could bring down those who nad dismissed him.

He was alone at first, but others from the Jedi order who believed as he did and who had followed him in his study of the dark side soon came over. Others were recruited, and soon the ranks of the Sith swelled to than fifty in number. Disdaining the concepts of cooperation and consensus, relying on the belief that acquisition of power in any form lends strength and yields control, the Sith began to build their cult in opposition to the Jedi. Theirs was not an order created to serve; theirs was an order created to dominate.

Their war with the Jedi was vengeful and furious and ultimately doomed. The rogue Jedi who had founded the Sith order was its nominal leader, but his ambition excluded any sharing of power. His disciples began to conspire against him and each other almost from the beginning, so that the war they instigated was as much with each other as with the Jedi.

In the end, the Sith destroyed themselves. They destroyed their leader first, then each other. What few survived the initial bloodbath were quickly dispatched by watchful Jedi. In a matter of only weeks, all of them died.

All but one.

Darth Maul shifted impatiently. The younger Sith had not yet learned his Master’s patience; that would come with time and training. It was patience that had saved the Sith order in the end. It was patience that would give them their victory now over the Jedi.

The Sith who had survived when all of his fellows had died had understood that. He had adopted patience as a virtue when the others had forsaken it. He had adopted cunning, stealth, and subterfuge as the foundation of his way-old Jedi virtues the others had disdained. He stood aside while the Sith tore at each other like kriks and were destroyed. When the carnage was complete, he went into hiding, biding his time, waiting for his chance.

When it was believed all of the Sith were destroyed, he emerged from his concealment. At first he worked alone, but he was growing old and he was the last of his kind. Eventually, he went out in search of an apprentice. Finding one, he trained him to be a Master in his turn, then to find his own apprentice, and so to carry on their work. But there would only be two at anyone time. There would be no repetition of the mistakes of the old order, no struggle between Sith warring for power within the cult. Their common enemy was the Jedi, not each other. It was for their war with the Jedi they must save themselves. The Sith who reinvented the order called himself Darth Bane. A thousand years had passed since the Sith were believed destroyed, and the time they had waited for had come at last.

 

Yeah, and the other two interpretations don't hold up in a 1983 context, when the film was released. Luke wasn't 'returning' from anything as a Jedi, he was only on the verge of becoming one, and the Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker wasn't an established character, we'd only seen him until then as Darth Vader.
From years on these boards, I've observed that OT purists lean towards the 'Jedi' of ROTJ being specifically Luke (in order to emphasise the over-riding importance of Luke's arc in the film over any subplot relating to the PT), while PT purists insist it's Anakin, to emphasise the importance of the six film narrative, and ROTJ's place as merely part six of that (as opposed to the third part of the OT).

The argument will rage on, no matter what I've said, but you'd think several of the last shots of the film would have made it pretty obvious that the title didn't refer to one individual Jedi.

 

Yes, he was. Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker was established from the beginning as having once been a Jedi Knight.

"I was once a Jedi knight, same as your father."

"A young Jedi named Darth Vader,"

"No, I am your father."

"Is Darth Vader my father?"
"Your father he is."

"Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader."

"I've accepted the truth that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father."

The fact that Anakin Skywalker, the Jedi, destroys his Vader persona and saves Luke is as valid interpretation for Return of the Jedi as it is the return of the Jedi (as an order) to the galaxy.

 

I understand that. I was just thinking that Lucas might have been in that direction at one point, for a brief period and then created Bane.

 

OK, my bad, he was 'established', but never actually glimpsed as that Jedi Knight, apart from about a minute or so of screen time at the very end of the trilogy. We knew virtually nothing about him, except from those quotes you've cited, and there's not much there in terms of actual character.

Anakin specifically being the 'Jedi' referred to in ROTJ is a valid interpretation, but with the PT not existing at the time (and quite possibly never to be made), it's hardly enough to support this barely-glimpsed person being the title character of the film - and certainly not a more credible one than the title referring to the Jedi in the plural/metaphorical sense, which just does work, and is also reinforced by Yoda urging Luke to "pass on what you have learned".
Solely attributing the 'Jedi' of the title to either Anakin or Luke downplays the importance of the other - both of whom were crucial to this 'Return of the Jedi', and without whom it couldn't have occurred. Anakin Skywalker redeemed himself by sacrificing himself to save his son, who lived to continue the legacy of the Jedi.
(FWIW, I don't believe the interpretation of the Jedi of the title specifically being Luke really works at all, for the reasons I mentioned earlier)

But like I said, the argument will rage on, regardless. 'Who shot first', 'Shaw vs Hayden' - too many OT vs PT, gushers vs bashers agendas going on.

 

I posted the quotes so that everyone can form their own opinion, not with the intention of supporting one side or the other. I'll admit that Palpatine = Bane would have been a cool twist. Personally, I find it suspicious that the novelization returns to the present day immediately after introducing Bane.

 

Even before the PT it was an existing theory. The return of Anakin Skywalker is the climax of the movie. It's what Luke's fighting for. It's as valid as the return of the Jedi Order.

P.S: In fact, the return of the Jedi Order is what's going to happen after the events of the movie, not what the movie is about.

 

Not worth the endless back and forth, and it's going off-topic, anyway. All yours.