# Urth Digest, Vol 73, Issue 62

*The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 28 Sep 2010*

<https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5761>

> Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
> in each message remains with the person who wrote it.
> Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
> archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
> retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

---

### Andrew Mason
*28 Sep 2010, 13:58*

>>> Jeff Wilson wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 9/26/2010 2:24 PM, Andrew Mason wrote:

>> As I understand it, what properly distinguishes an autarch is that he
>> rules himself: that is why Ymar and his successors chose that title.
>> However, most people probably don't know that; having lived under an
>> autarch for a thousand years, they think of that as the normal term
>> for a ruler. Both Jonas (as Roy mentioned) and Cyriaca refer to
>> ancient rulers as autarchs, before pointing out that strictly speaking
>> this is wrong.

> This doesn't distinguish them from Typhon, who owes fealty to no one else.

As I understand it, 'rule himself' doesn't just mean 'owe fealty to no
one else', but 'control, discipline himself', 'not rule only in his
own interests', etc. But I'll have to check the passage to be sure of
that.

However, I don't think that matters to my original point. All I meant
is that Ymar and his successors called themselves autarchs, that
Typhon (and apparently earlier rulers) did not call themselves
autarchs, but monarchs, but that people in the Commonwealth sometimes
used 'autarch' for earlier rulers, because that was the term they were
used to. This can be so whether or not there is any principled basis
for the distinction.

---