Borrowing a Blade

[Kasimir]

While this came up in the Syl thread, this was a bit of a digression and I've been wondering for some time if a separate thread should be created for this.
 
Having just re-read His Dark Materials: in which people have bonded animal companions called daemons and to touch another person's daemon is very, very strongly taboo--I wondered if there was a similar taboo against touching (in this context, wielding) another KR's spren(blade). Mostly idle curiosity until EMTrevor pointed this out:
 

“You’re not supposed to let people use your Blade,” Kaladin said. “By tradition, only the king and the highprinces do that.”

“Great,” she said. “You can report me to Brightness Navani for being wildly indecent and ignorant of protocol. For now, can we just survive, please?”

--WoR, Chapter 72.
 
In addition, we have this:
 

“Elhokar lets people use his Shardblade?” Kaladin asked.

“It is a grand tradition,” the ardent said, seeming annoyed that she had to explain. “The highprinces used to do it in their own princedoms, before the reunification, and now it is the king’s obligation and honor. Men may use the King’s Blade and Plate to practice. The lighteyes of our armies must be trained with Shards, for the good of all. Blade and Plate are difficult to master, and if a Shardbearer falls in battle, it is important that others be capable of their immediate use.”

That made sense, Kaladin supposed, though he found it hard to imagine any lighteyes letting someone else touch his Blade. “The king has two Shardblades?”

“One is that of his father, kept for the tradition of training Shardbearers.” The ardent glanced at the sparring men. “Alethkar has always had the finest Shardbearers in the world. This tradition is part of it. The king has hinted that someday, he might bestow his father’s Blade upon a worthy warrior.”

--WoR, Chapter 16
 
The second quote seems to suggest that some element of 'the king lends his Shards to any lighteyes to practice' is a tradition exclusive to Alethkar. It also suggests this has to do with pragmatism: Alethkar, at the very least, wants to always have lighteyes capable of mobilising Shards the moment they are taken. This mentality is reflected in Amaram, who tells Dalinar that they needed "practiced, accomplished Shardbearers" and so he took the Shards for himself. Furthermore, we know there is at least one Highprince who allows a trusted lieutenant to wield his Shards for him. (I seem to remember this but I cannot source the quote. I'd be grateful if anyone could.) Relevant to this, I can only find:
 

It wasn’t uncommon for a highprince to rely on his finest warriors as Shardbearers; it made sound sense, particularly if you were the sort of general who preferred to stay behind the lines and direct tactics. In Thanadal’s own princedom, the tradition for centuries had been to appoint the holder of Resi’s Shards as something known as the Royal Defender.

--WoK, Chapter 58. 
 
I'm not convinced the 'battle pragmatics' is the full story. If it were, it seems that all Shardbearers should be made to share their Shards when not training with them, in order to have a wide pool of men trained with them.

Here's some things I've considered in trying to figure how Shardblade traditions came about.

1. There's an element of class and power linked to this tradition.
 
We have a WoB that the tradition of the safehand arose, at least in part, from an essay "that defined masculine arts as being ones with two hands and feminine needing only one", and which "was in order to let men secure power over Shardblades." In that sense, there is a strong connection between possession of a Shardblade and power. (And of course, we know this since Shardblades are highly coveted and possession of a Shardblade can elevate a darkeyes to a lighteyes.) Given this context, it is not unlikely that the traditions by which only the king and highprinces can lend out Shardblades is just another tradition which demonstrates power and another way in which Shardblades are bound up in the class system.
 
2. There's a very Nohadon (in the in-world Way of Kings) aspect to the tradition of highprinces and the king lending out their Shardblades. This whole 'leader serves the people/shares his power' thing, as opposed to sole concentration of unopposed power. Furthermore, it seems strange that this doesn't apply to normal Shardbearers. If we take what Kaladin says at face value, he might even be suggesting that there is a tradition against lending out your Shards if you're not a highprince/the king. That, I think, might hint at some tentative link to the KR.
 
3. It's worth wondering if the impulse to not share your Blade had an earlier root: from the practices of the KR, who might have very well felt it taboo to use someone else's spren, almost as if it were a dead sprenblade.
 
Anyway, the more I think about it, the less clarity I find in my distinctions. Thoughts?

[king of nowhere]

I think you're reading too much into it. most traditions were born for a reason, but are maintained simply because that's how things were always done. in the past the highprince, the highest autority, lended his shards. now the higher autority is the king. then some princes would loan the shards to some trusted warrior, while others would wear them in battle. seems just an individual thing to me.

Yes, most of your considerations are probably right about how the tradition came into being. but now it's just a tradition.

[Fifth of Daybreak]

While this came up in the Syl thread, this was a bit of a digression and I've been wondering for some time if a separate thread should be created for this.

 

 

Do not speak of that evil!

 

 

 

 The second quote seems to suggest that some element of 'the king lends his Shards to any lighteyes to practice' is a tradition exclusive to Alethkar. It also suggests this has to do with pragmatism: Alethkar, at the very least, wants to always have lighteyes capable of mobilising Shards the moment they are taken. This mentality is reflected in Amaram, who tells Dalinar that they needed "practiced, accomplished Shardbearers" and so he took the Shards for himself. Furthermore, we know there is at least one Highprince who allows a trusted lieutenant to wield his Shards for him. (I seem to remember this but I cannot source the quote. I'd be grateful if anyone could.) Relevant to this, I can only find:

 

I think this is more on the right track. We've got this quote from a KR:

 

 

"It is our duty and our privilege," the woman said, "to stay vigilant for the Desolation. One kingdom [Alethkar Alethela] to study the arts of war so that the others might have peace. We die so that you may live. It has ever been our place."

WoK Chapter 19 Starfalls

Edited May 9, 2014 by EMTrevor

[Kasimir]

king of nowhere, on 10 May 2014 - 01:36 AM, said:

I think you're reading too much into it. most traditions were born for a reason, but are maintained simply because that's how things were always done. in the past the highprince, the highest autority, lended his shards. now the higher autority is the king. then some princes would loan the shards to some trusted warrior, while others would wear them in battle. seems just an individual thing to me.

Yes, most of your considerations are probably right about how the tradition came into being. but now it's just a tradition.

Put it this way: I'm not very good at history but I'm interested in it, so we're approaching this thread from completely different positions. I'm not saying there's something big about this tradition, some hidden truth. I'm simply interested in how it came into being because I'm curious about what that says about the conditions required for it to come about, which are basically going to be socio-historical. I did speculate a bit about a KR link, which is also something I've been wondering about. But that's historical once again--obviously, there's no reason for the new KR to follow the old. In that sense, yes, I'm being boring.

I am partly interested in why it's maintained, and you're right about it, although I think a story about where Shardblades fit into power structures is going to be interesting and a lot less simple than "well, it's up to the individual". But such an interest might turn out to be very well sociological (or at least quasi-sociological), and therefore, understandably, still boring.

EMTrevor: That's probably true, and I do think it's the most likely explanation--I just think it can't be the whole story if one wants to explain why Shardbearers don't normally lend out their Shardblades.

[Numb]

It's a matter of trust. You have to remember what kind of society these people live in. The king can lend out his shards because he has the power. The same way a Highprince can lend his shard to a general or top fight. They are the ones with all the power even without the shard. Now look at it from your average shardbearer that isn't one of the Highprinces family. They are nothing without the shard and even with the shard they are still beneath their Highprince. If now they lend their shards to others what worth do they have to the Highprince? Why does he not just take the shards away(He might not be able to "legally" do it but they can just pressure him in other ways until it happens) and give them to those people instead or better yet those people turn around and stab the shardbearer before he can summon his blade back. I wonder if that would even be deemed wrong in their culture. It's a culture that lives by MAD.

 

Adolin's own supposed close friend tried to maim him in an "unfair" duel in order to get the shards. This was a man Adolin trusted enough to fight side by side surrounded by Parshendi. 

[kaellok]

I don't have the books with me currently, so I apologize for lack of quotes or preciseness, but no matter!

 

There's a few times from Dalinar's PoV where he mentally thinks about how weird and eerie it is to think about lending his Shards to someone else to use (in WoK, watching one of the duels before Adolin).  At the very least, we know there is a very real bond between Blade and Bearer; I think that the 'tradition' of not loaning out your Shards is because of the bond.  I imagine that there is a very real discomforting effect that occurs while a Shardblade you have bonded is used by someone else.

 

As to how the opposing tradition, of the king/highprinces loaning out Blades and Plate occurred?  It's all about Power.  First, by having a set of Shards available to be loaned when necessary, it reinforces the status and power of the king or highprince--they not only have the power granted by Shards, but they have so much that it gives the perception they are not afraid of losing the Shards.  Second, it places a check on the power of Shardbearers that might otherwise challenge that of the king or highprince; if a non-Shardbearer is able to duel them and win, then the highprince/king can remain out of the affair altogether, risking little but reaping the rewards.  At the same time, it helps to regulate who, when, where, and how such challenges can occur (ex. only letting lighteyes make challenges, but not darkeyes).  Finally, especially with the possibility of permanently awarding the Shards on someone worthy, an incredibly helpful myth is perpetuated; if you are the best, you get Shards, rank, and all that goes with it.  So don't become disgruntled with life, just become a better warrior and you will be rewarded.

 

It's a very clever system that reinforces the power inherent within the rank, while also acting as a way to keep those of lower rank from banding together to overthrow them.  Think of Sadeas's bridges; they served a very useful function in getting his army to the plateau faster, but their real goal was to be an incredibly visible target.  Really, the King's Shards are just that, but politically, rather than militarily.