Lit In-Universe origin of the Darth title

With the Darth Vader comic shaping up to give us some info on the pre-Bane Sith, I noticed that Momin was always referenced to as "Lord", never Darth. In Legends, the Darth title seems to have originated with Vitiate's Sith Empire, as none of the previous Sith and their decendents (Ragnos, Sadow, Nadd, or Exar Kun) (though Andeddu could mess with that idea). In canon, the oldest one mentioned is Darth Atrius from the Star Wars Annual 4.
Is there a distinction between a Sith Lord and a Darth? Was it in common in the old Sith Empire? And since this part of canon history is still undefined, what changes would you like to see compared with the Legends continuity?

 

Darth was associated with the Sith as early as 3964 BBY in Legends, so it likely was not started by Vitiate as he wasn't known to the Republic until a few centuries later in the timeframe of the Old Republic MMO.

I have no idea what the origin of the Darth title is in canon. They're probably saving that for a possible Sith origin movie.

 

I was hoping the Darth title would have originated with Bane's lineage as a way of honoring his legacy. You become a Darth if you are a legitimate heir to his Rule of Two philosophy. You get a secret name for your recognition within what was to be a secret society.
Darth Atrius probably throws a wrench at that, since they probably lived at around the same time if not earlier.

 

I seem to recall there being speculation that the title came from the Rakatan word Daritha-meaning emperor. Or a corruption of the words Darr Tahh-Daritha means emperor or ruler and Darr means something similar with Tahh meaning death. So it could mean emperor or victor over death-an essential facet of Sith ideology. Same with the Rakatan word for emperor-Sith seek to rule. And given Sith contact and conflict with the Rakata this seems plausible.

 

I'm pretty sure it's on Wookieepedia, and it's what Invictus said.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Daritha

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Xim/Legends

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Xim

 

We kinda went in on this once before. It seems like the Darth title is really ancient and powerful for the Sith.

In canon it's unclear. I assume it's a word in the Sith language.

 

We don't know how old the Rule of Two is in canon, so for all we know, Darth Bane created the Rule of Two in 8000 BBY and Darth Atrius lived in 6000 BBY.

I too think that Bane should be the first Darth and Sidious and Vader should be the last.

 

In the old EU, the Darth title was first supposed to have originated with Darth Revan by means of Rakatan influence ('Daritha', see posts above). But the KOTOR comics screwed it up with this:



Then, as Vitiate's Empire was also shown to use it, the source was moved (boringly) to the original Sith Empire. For example, in the Guide to Warfare, Naga Sadow is referred to as 'Darth Naga Sadow'.

 

Possible correction to my earlier legends explanation;

Darr I think means victor or vanquisher and tahh still means death. So Darr Tah could mean victor over death. Combine that with the rakatan word for emperor-and etymologically its a clean fit for the darth moniker at least if we are talking about legends.

This etymology adds a lot I think to the regality and sheer weight the darth title holds.

 

Yes, but Darth Andeddu's timeframe wasn't yet established at the time of the Darth Sunshine debacle, and Vitus and Hayze are post-Commencement.

 

I think you've put the finger here on the crux of our disagreement. See, the first fandom I've been seriously aware of was Harry Potter, specifically several years before the last book's release. And what made there speculation meaningful and fun was that you knew that there was a coherent universe and a planned storyline behind it all, something you could envision in your mind from the bits and pieces you got, something about which you could know for sure that it had a complete description in the tons of private handwritten notes of Rowling.

It's hard to have that feeling with the Star Wars EU. Although good stories came occasionally out of it, and I enjoy the universe (otherwise I wouldn't post about it), it is really difficult to escape the elements that break your suspension of disbelief, like Bantam-era authors not knowing anything about the pre-Empire period and still writing stories that touch on it, characters that appear or disappear suddenly even if the focus has not changed from one book to another, Force powers that exist or not or vary in strength depending on the author, the hope that after all the movies were released the EU would slowly consolidate itself, and then TCW happening (I still, for example, don't get why Wookieepedia still keeps the TCW information it its 'Legends' section - I have no problem with the cartoon in canon, but it's blatantly clear that it is a total intruder to the world of the old EU and it makes no sense to reconcile the two) or simply authors not taking into account some piece of well-established continuity out of ignorance, malevolence or lack of communication. And that is why I don't and can't think in terms of a slowly revealing tapestry. Better, then, to read each story one happens to enjoy as a standalone work, while keeping everything else in mind as just broad strokes.

(Incidentally, this is slightly better with the new canon and the Story Group. Although blatant errors still happen, assurances come from time to time that there is at least some planning.)

 

I totally agree that one shouldn't approach Star Wars with the idea that we are getting glimpses into a pre-existing continuity. That was never the way it was made nor should one attempt to force it into such a framework, since that is labor doomed to fail. While I doubt that there is any media that works this way (even those created by a single author), SW has had so many different voices over such a long period of time that it simple cannot coalesce into one singular work.

 

A lot of the old EU's continuity problems were either rectified wholly or otherwise by the labors of the authors of various essential guides, Leland Chee, etc...

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rakata_(language)

Multiple wookiepedia articles offer the same in-universe explanation; the title likely originates with the Rakata.

 

Indeed. Though, from what I recall, the only reason we have the Rakatan etymology for "Darth" is because of Heritage of the Sith took for granted that Revan was the first.

Don't actually have the article to hand, mind you, so I could be misremembering.

Still, we also ended up with the Infinite Empire being among the enemies of Adas (which I think may have first come up in Evil Never Dies?), so earlier Darths still works just fine even with the Rakatan origin.

 

Maybe there is no origin. Wasn't there some discussion that Palpatine was "communing" with the Dark Side in figuring out how to name Vader? Maybe the first Darth was told in a vision or dream from the Dark Side to proclaim himself/herself a Darth.

Or maybe the first Darth just thought it sounded cool and told everyone else that the title came directly from the Dark Side, and they believed it. Stranger things have happened in the real world.

 

In legends we know for a fact there was a specific etymological origin for the moniker.

Regarding the communing thing-my personal belief is the second part of the title-Sidious, Vader, Krayt, Caedus, etc... came from contact with the dark side itself-the dark side would suggest a name that represented or reflected who that Sith Lord was.

Which if one thinks about that-means the dark side is conscious and sapient or perhaps close to it.