Lore talk:Sword Not Held

Page Name

The "Sword Not Held" does not seem to appear named as such in the lore. While there is a single reference to the "sword not held", there isn't anything referring to it as a proper noun, the "Sword Not Held". The other sources also do not seem to provide clear indication that they are referring to the same sword(s).

"No perils are mentioned in the finding of Moon Axle, but it was known that he was immune to spears, so Vivec had to use the sword not held against him".

This source is the current namesake of the article, and seems to be a strong contender for being the sword featured in most of the artwork on the page. I would be willing to say the art is depicting the sword from that sermon reasonably, it's a sword in Vivec's possession that he doesn't hold.

However, unless I'm missing something, the other sources do not indicate they are referring to the same sword.

"Vivec stood quiet for a moment, then drew his bright sword and severed the mer's hand in one clean stroke."

As the "Sword Not Held" is just the sword not held in the source it appears in, we could argue the bright sword mention here is a separate "Bright Sword".

Similarly, "In a battle with Mehrunes Dagon, Vivec gave his own silver longsword to the Daedra Lord rather than dishonor himself by fighting an unarmed foe. "

This would be the "Silver Longsword", not the "Sword Not Held". While the swords in these other sources could be the sword not held, there is no clear indication, or even really a suggestion that it is the same sword beyond them all being used by Vivec. As such, I would consider this to be original research

"Original Research: Original research is strongly disfavored in UESP articles. Even if a series of statements can logically be put together to reach a conclusion, that conclusion does not belong on UESP unless it has already been stated elsewhere (in valid source material).

A core goal of the UESP wiki is to summarize what's already known, like any encyclopedia, rather than to come up with new information.

Exceptions to this rule may be possible, but those exceptions need to be discussed on the talk page beforehand.

I'm not aware of an previous conversation about the sword(s), so if I missed that I apologize, but without more evidence to clearly establish these are the same sword I don't think we should continue to refer to them as such.

My first thought for how to fix this is to either move this page to a new title such as "Vivec and Swords", and document these swords as if they are potentially different swords (which appears to be very possible). Merging its contents onto Lore:Vivec, and performing similar fixes, would be an alternative, but not an ideal one due to that page's already long length. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 01:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I would second that this appears to be original research. I'm not even convinced that the "sword not held" is even referring to a real sword, considering later vivec says that "The sword is estrangement from statesmanship" and "a thought can break the wagon's axle", i.e. the sword is just a metaphor, and that metaphor is what broke the moon axle. Connecting these references with the others seems to be original research, from what I can tell. Jeancey (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

While the Sword Not Held is not a formal name, it is no doubt a recurring motif often used in Vivec imagery. I would recommend we move the other connections to a notes section on the page. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I don't disagree that a sword is a recurring motif, I disagree that the "sword not held" is the SAME sword as the motif, or that the recurring motif of a sword is necessarily the SAME sword each time. While we have a specific name for the spear that reoccurs, we don't have one for the sword. Honestly, it is equally original research to say that they are 100% all the same sword as to say they are 100% all different swords. We just don't know. In which case, I don't think we should mention it at all, without any in-game specific mentions of a specific sword (as opposed to the references mentioned in this article, which are to general swords).

What I would support is an addition to the Vivec article that says something along the lines of "In addition to the spear Muatra, Vivec has been known to use swords when fighting" and then having all three sources that are used in this article cited on that line. That way, all the source information from this article is used, but the original research of connecting them all and the issues of Undue Weight that crop up when mentioning them all individually are assuaged. Jeancey (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I knew at some point the issue of the Sword Not Held itself would be challenged due to the fact that in the source it’s named that name isn’t capitalized. However the Sermons are a very unique source written in a very unique way and if you read them from start to finish you will notice that proper nouns are given inconsistent capitalization in several spots in the text for unknown reasons. One example I can think of right off the top of my head is this seemingly important concept of the unmixed conflict path being lower case, but later given the proper noun treatment. There’s a lot more cases like this but that should get the idea across.

The Sword Not Held not actually being a physical sword but instead a metaphor? Well your starting to grasp it but only half way, the Sermons is chock full of making the metaphorical out of the physical, and tangible. Vivec's City, his half chimer half Dunmer skin, his spear Muatra, his shaven head are just some examples of physical things given metaphorical meaning in the Sermons. The Sword Not Held is yet another. As for this article being a conflation of a bunch of swords that may or may not be the Sword Not Held, well yeah sure but I would argue this falls under a level of reasonable assumption which is widespread throughout all of our articles. Vivec is associated with this Sword Not Held in text and in depictions to nearly the same degree he is with his famous spear Muatra. If a text described Vivec stabbing a beggar with an unnamed spear, the reasonable assumption would be the spear in question is Muatra. Dagon's Axe has never been given a proper name, but I don’t think anyone would push back on the fact that when Dagon is described with doing something with an axe in a given text, it’s referring to the axe he’s universally depicted with, same logic applies here as all depictions of Vivec with a sword involve the non grasped Sword Not Held.

So in short the article itself is more than justified in of itself and the only adjustments that could be made depending on how the consensus feels is taking the silver long sword mentioned in the Dagon story, and the bright sword mentioned in the beggar story, and moving them to the notes so as not to put undeniable ties to the blades although I’ve stated my case on why I believe the connection can remain between the Sword Not Held, and any other unnamed blade said to be used by Vivec. Dcking20 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I second moving the bright and silver swords to notes. But I definitely think the Sword Not Held is intentionally depicted in all of the artwork. Look closely at every example he is LITERALLY not holding it any of the times. Seems obvious in intent. Tarponpet (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)