Saga "Darth" is a first name, not a title

Sanctus sanctus sanctus, dominus Joruus C'Baoth.

 

I don't see any evidence that Vader would have been anything before he became Luke's father, but this is off-topic.

It didn't survive the editing room because Lucas changed the story to make it less obvious that a Sith Lord was behind the clone army. That's the only reason.

I guarantee you Lucas was not sitting there fretting about whether or not "Darth" is a name or a title. I doubt he even realizes there's any confusion on this point. To him, it's just the first part of the new name all Sith Lords adopt.

 

The fact that all Sith Lords share it, means that it must mean something Dark Side-related. And a name that means something Dark Side related, is closer to a title than to a proper name.

In the Legendsverse, it was suspected to be based on an ancient word, Daritha, meaning "Emperor" or "Ruler Of Worlds".

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Daritha

Even in the newcanon, it is "title-ish" enough for Wookieepedia, and newcanon splatbooks, to treat it as one:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Darth

 

A person's name is a big part of their identity. Having the name reflecting their sect ties the person's identity to their sect.

 

IMO it's in-universe, the equivalent of a bishop replacing their first name with "Bishop".

 

One could argue that Catholic cardinals all take the middle name "Cardinal".

In actuality, it's just an odd traditional placement of their title. But good food for thought.

 

Not necessarily. That Darth is an exclusive Sith name doesn't make it (closer to) a title. A title refers to a position, rank, or status. When Anakin was named Darth Vader, that only indicates that he became a Sith and that's his new name. And as a Sith, he has the title of Lord. All of them are referred to that way, and that's always been what their title is. Lord Vader, Lord Tyranus, Lord Maul, Lord Sidious, etc... Yoda also refers to Sidious as the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Think of Darth as the Sith "family" name. Only instead of a surname it's a forename.

 

Great insights! I never thought about it that way but ist pretty obvious.

That Maul left the Name Darth behind after Ep I makes all the sense because he leaves the tradional Family Name behind to become his own!

 

Honorific, then. Not like a family name, but like "Mister" but only used by Sith.

Or, it could be compared to "Singh" for Sikhs - it may be used as a middle name or surname, but what it is, is more of a title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singh

 

There are lots of people named Knight. But that doesn't make them knights.

 

It's safe to say that Darth doesn't function in conversation the way a normal surname does. An officer wouldn't say to their fellow officer Henry Jones "Henry, release him - they would say "Jones, release him".

True. But hardly anybody has Mister as a first name or a surname, yet plenty of people are addressed as Mister, under the right circumstances. Like

"Turn around real slow, Mister."

So, "You can't win, Darth" doesn't need to be treated like "You can't win, Jones."

 

Man, now I kind of wish Darth Vader had been named Darth Wilson.

 

Lucas was probably watching Dennis the Menace when he came up with that.

 

Maul didn't leave the Darth title behind after Ep I, he left it behind after losing to Darth Sidious and after the end of the Clone Wars.

The Clone Wars



Darth Maul

Solo A Star Wars Story



Maul

The Rebels



Maul

 

He's still referred to as Darth Maul in Rebels in Season 3's Holocrons of Fate:

Ezra: A Sith, Darth Maul, has them.
He wants it.
Bendu: I do not know this darksider, but I know his kind.

He was also Darth to the 7th Sister Inquisitor back in Season 2, and the Inquistors are a Sith allied group of Dark Siders.

 

Presumably, while Maul himself no longer sees himself as a Darth, people like Ezra or the Inquisitors don't care about his opinion.

 

An interesting Auden allusion in Maul's Rebels title there.

 

Yes of course, but while its a personal choice and he's very ambiguous on Rebels despite still doing Sithly things, cause he's operating alone(without an apprentice which he does kinda still want). What is clear he still practices their beliefs and uses his actual Sith ordained name, Maul. Not all Sith Lords used the Darth moniker, its importance is not that altogether clear and likely not that great. Maul's anti-Sith stance has more to do seeing the destruction with the current Sith Lords comprising of Sidious and Vader (and their allies such as the Inquisitors ) much like how he wanted to destroy Dooku and Sidious during the Clone Wars .

Sith Lord Exar Kun almost again became canon in SOLO(Art of Solo), so its very likely we'll see him re-canonized in the future. That desk of Dryden's was supposed to be from a piece of stone taken of his tomb. Exar Kun was also an inspiration for Maul in the EU.

 

"Mister Vader", "Mister Maul", I need to watch the films and insert Mister in place of Darth. It makes Obi-Wan's confrontation on the DeathStar so different!!

 

Ha! "Only a master of evil, mister!"

I love that

 

Well the terms are from Medieval European feudalism from what we can figure. Jedi Knights and Sith Lords. Maybe Sir or mister would make some sense since mister comes from master. But a knight serves a Lord, not the other way around. The Lord in Sith Lord, implies a ruler not a server. Sith Apprentices are still Dark Lords of the Sith. The Sith master of the Rule of Two seems to imply the Sith Lord Master took on more a more ecclesiastical as well administrative role of their two man or two person religious order. The Sith Master during the Rule of Two, is more like a holy leader, a Pope-like figurehead of their faith as well as basically an emperor as the Sith Apprentice acts as more a knight figure and knights are vassals to the Lords.

Jedi Knights and Sith made a little more sense in the early scripts. The Jedi or Jedi Bendu(and their was other names) served as elite body guards to the Emperor, until replaced and hunted down by their rivals, the Sith Knights or Knights of the Sith or Black Knights of the Sith to eventually Dark Lords of the Sith - which were originally led by a Prince Valorum the Dark Lord of the Sith.

The concept of a Sith Knight almost made its way into Lucas's storyline in TPM as we seen in the concept art of the film. But he seemed to have abandoned it again with the Rule of Two with the Darth Bane storyline( movie and novel).

The Sith origin and what exactly are they lords of , are still a mystery I think. The EU just explained it the Sith were a species and the Dark Jedi came and ruled over them and thus became Dark Lords of the Sith or Sith Lords. Is Sith just like the term Bogan, a term for the Dark Side?! All we know was that a rogue Jedi turned to the Dark Side and started a new order called the Sith.

 

Which reminds me about Timothy Zahn wanting to explain the "Sith" as being the Noghri, who served Darth Vader (hence making him the "Dark Lord of the Sith").

Zahn probably based that on the hero Siegfried being served by a race of dwarfs in the medieval German Nibelungenlied, whose basic storyline inspired Richard Wagner's Ring Cycle. The term "Nibelung" means "dark one"; and in various versions of the Siegfried legend has been applied to both the dark-haired royal family of Burgundy and the dark-complected dwarfs deriving from Norse mythology.

 

I always thought of it as a kind of title or style, that the Sith adopted when they turned to the dark side. I imagined it must be some form of portmanteau of Dark Sith or something. Kind of works either way I suppose.

Perhaps it's a bit like "His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" for example?

There's a few titles for you.

 

The word "sith" was used by Edgar Rice Burroughs in his John Carter of Mars novels (which Lucas certainly read) to describe a kind of giant Martian wasp with a sharp, venomous and deadly stinger.

But its use in the SW scripts was almost certainly meant to evoke something else too: namely the Sidhe, the capricious elves of Celtic mythology (of which "Sith" is an antiquated alternate spelling).

The Sidhe were known for stealing away attractive newborn babies from their parents. Rather like the Jedi of the prequels.

And if "Darth" means "dark Sith", are there "light Sith" also, like the divide between Dark Elves & Light Elves stemming from Norse mythology?

 

There was nymphs from Greek mythology called the Sithnid Nymphs(Nymphai Sithnides).

The Sith do take on a more witch and warrior combination. Lord of the Sith is basically Lucas' version of the Witch-King or Lord of the Nazgul as he was also known. Sith act more like Ring Wraiths, but in that instead of hunting down the one ring they hunt down the Jedi.



We know the Sith are attracted to powerful children of the Force. And we know they do steal children, as we seen with Sidious taking the powerful young Maul away from his ally Talzin to become his Sith Apprentice. In doing so Sidious also severed the Sith and Nightsister alliance that was supposed tor rule the galaxy as Talzin was to be his right hand. Is Maul Palpatine's son I wonder? Maul being taken by Sidious and Talzin apparently seemingly forbidden from taking action(although the EU tells a different tale where she took a more proactive role in rescuing Maul from Sidious but Maul chose Sidious and remained a Sith Lord) seems to indicate the real world historical practice of taking a hostage to become a vassal.

Then youngling babies in Children of the Force are another good example whom he did not want their natural talents to be wasted by the Jedi. And he manipulates young Anakin from adolescence into young adulthood until he too becomes a possession and vassal/servant. The Inquisitors also kidnap babies to become new Inquisitors or maybe killed even. Sidious attempted to possess Vader's son to be his servant. Maul also tempted his desire to possess Ezra but he didn't do it by force and eventually allowed him self determination(saved his life on a number of occasion too). Snoke was attracted to the teenage Ben cause of his Skywalker bloodline and was manipulating him to be his servant and with Ben a handful of Luke's Force sensitive students. Snoke and Kylo ect are still obsessed with killing the Jedi off, much like Bane's Rule of Two Sith were. Dyring Momin's time, the Sith did not appear to have this obsession. Jedi were also prone to wipe out heretical religious splinter groups like the Order Aspectu. They do have a Crusader/Jihadist mentality as well which is a them from Dune as is vendetta. They are still a militant order. possibly an artifact of their ancient origins and links to the Sith.

The Mortis family seems common denominator between the Jedi and the Sith, but they favor the Light Side(with the exception of The Son). The breaks his neutrality and sides with the Light Side. The Force Priestess seems another denominator, bit all which makes them a dead ends really as they are balance tippers not actual balances in the actual episodes.



Sith Lords were changed from being able to be spirits to basically just dying and thats it, that was their punishment for being bad. Although evidence to the contrary appears frequently in new canon. Seemed a late minute moral concern that Filoni had and Lucas agreed with at the time during the Mortis arc when the active spirits of Revan and Bane were cut and The Son was an oddball character. On Rebels the Mortis family are more actual gods rather a race of long lived elusive immortals and there was no mention of the Priestess.

When he(The Son) was asked if he was Sith, he said, "Sith? Yes And no." The Father feared the Sith and others who would exploit their power, " There are some who would like to exploit our power. The sith are but one."

Probably a Dark Sider like Snoke would be yet another. Kylo and his knights act more or less as an early Lucas concept for Sith Lord/ Sith Knights while serving a royal leader that was not Sith.