A Refutation of the Lessons
A Refutation of the Lessons
by Prochancellor Jorundr Strong-Heart
So often are budding young scholars - especially of Dunmeri history and legend - told to “consult the Lessons.” What they are referred to are, of courses, The 36 Lessons of Vivec, a set of sermons given by the demigod Vivec, patron of the dark elves and warrior-poet of the Tribunal. The Lessons are often shown as a reliable source of information on ancient Dunmeri history, but I wish to give warning to those who would accept it as infallible.
The Lessons do indeed provide much insight into Dunmeri religion, specifically the religion of the Old Tribunal of ALMSIVI. What is often glossed over, however, is that the Lessons only provide this much insight into their religion because they’re the religious texts of the Tribunal Temple. They’re propaganda in the purest form.
In particular to note is the “birth of Vivec,” which occupies the first several sermons of the Lessons. According to the Lessons, Almalexia and Sotha Sil (respectively named Ayem and Seht) implanted an egg into a netchiman’s wife that later became Vehk, the early name of Vivec. While his early life is shrouded in mystery, we are mostly aware that he was a contemporary of Almalexia and Sotha Sil and was neither a brother/sister to them or created by them. Furthermore, the Lessons make one crucial error - the ascension of ALMSIVI.
The Tribunal ascended to godhood around 1E 700. At the time, all were adults and all were senior advisors to Indoril Nerevar. Most importantly of all, all ascended at the same time. This means that the story presented in the sermons - the creation of Vivec by the already divine Almalexia and Sotha Sil - could not be possible.
If the Lessons cannot even get the birth of their author correct, how can we trust them to give us accurate information on any other encounter, whether it be the biography of Nerevar, the history of the Dunmer or even the accomplishments of the Tribunal?
Don’t misunderstand me - I don’t believe the Lessons have no value, but rather, I see their value as nearly entirely cultural in nature as opposed to historical, and I implore all my students to study them from cover-to-cover, but please do not assume that they are valuable historical sources.