View Full Version : Was Huan a traitor?
Galadriel55
11-06-2010, 10:31 AM
One part of the Silmarillion that really bothers me is Huan's role in Beren and Luthien's story.
He was one of the hunting dogs of Orome, that he gave to Celegorm. Huan loved Celegorm and was loyal to him until Luthien came. He then betrayed Celegorm because he did not approve of his master's deeds. When Luthien and Celegorm met again, Huan completely went out of his master's control and did not want to be serving him anyore. Even though fate meant Huan to save Luthien so that she and Beren would get the Silmaril etc etc, that's not how, in my opinion, a dog of the Valar should act.
Moreover, when Karharoth entered Doriath, Huan lost patience and decided to try and kill him all by himself. How could he loose patience like that?
1) Love and loyalty are different things. You can have loyalty without love, but not the oposite way. If Huan lost his love for Celegorm when he tricked Luthien, he remained loyal. If he was loyal, he shouldn't have let Luthien escape, even though he thought that was the right thing to do. Sam didn't kill Gollum because Frodo told him not to, although Sam wanted to. Sam was loyal. Huan, as the dog of Valar, should in a way represent them - ie be an example of goodness, not treachery.
On the other hand, Faramir loved Denethor, but didn't always help Denethor. He still remained loyal, though - he always acknowledged Denethor's power over him and he always loved him.
2) Huan renounced his master; he didn't want to serve Celegorm any more. If Celegorm was really a master, he has the power to free Huan of his duties to him. But it doesn't really work the other way around - I think it's treachery if a servant simply renounces his master and duty like that.
3) As Orome's dog, Huan should have some qualities of Orome. Orome could be short tempered, but I don't see him as impatient - that's Tulkas. Orome is a wise kind of warrior (hunter really, but warrior too, a bit). Shouldn't Huan be patient as well?
I know that I've contradicted myself a few times here; I'm not really sure if I'm trying to blame or defend Huan.
Please prove me wrong in any way possible.
skip spence
11-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Technically and from the POV of Celegorm Huan certainly was a traitor. But we can hardly blame him though, can we? He only did what any good soldier should, that is, disobeying orders when those orders go against his moral convictions. This is actually an often recurring theme in Tolkien's work, the conflict between different loyalties, let's say between a worldly authority and a divine authority.
For example, contrast how Beregond defies a direct order from Denethor to save Faramir, and how Feanor and his sons refuse to back away from their Oath even though they often are forced to do Wrong because of it. Who looks better in your eyes?
Morthoron
11-06-2010, 02:39 PM
Huan was not a normal dog (obviously, eloquent dogs are a bit scarce these days). According to the text, it seems to me that Huan was not owned by Celegorm in the traditional sense of a master owning a pet, rather, more of a lord and vassal type agreement; therefore, any fealty Huan held for Celegorm was disavowed when the hound of the Valar perceived that Celegorm was breaking a moral imperative held in Valinor (as Skip inferred, a divine authority).
Galadriel55
11-06-2010, 03:11 PM
I hear what you are saying, and I like the comparison with Beregond. However, Beregond didn't renounce Denethor completely, no matter how much he disagreed with him.
Moreover, if you swear a fealty to someone, you can't just say oh no I don't like serving you any more. Isn't part of fealty that only your master can free you from it, like in Pippin's oath to Denethor?
Inziladun
11-06-2010, 03:40 PM
I hear what you are saying, and I like the comparison with Beregond. However, Beregond didn't renounce Denethor completely, no matter how much he disagreed with him.
Moreover, if you swear a fealty to someone, you can't just say oh no I don't like serving you any more. Isn't part of fealty that only your master can free you from it, like in Pippin's oath to Denethor?
Was Huan a "sworn" vassal of Celegorm, or a willing servant?
....Oromë had given [Huan] to Celegorm long ago in Valinor, and there he had followed the horn of his master, before evil came. Huan followed Celegorm into exile, and was faithful; and thus he too came under the doom of woe set upon the Noldor.... Of Beren and Lúthien
That suggests that Huan had made there a choice, whether to follow Celegorm to Middle-earth and come under the Ban, or to renounce service and friendship and stay in Valinor.
Since Huan was punished for his loyalty to Celegorm there by being put under the Doom of the Noldor, it would seem he was indeed at liberty to choose where his loyalties lay. I see the situation with Beren and Lúthien as being similar.
Though Huan felt love and loyalty toward Celegorm, and followed him as long as he was able, he apparently knew when enough was enough, and recognised the time when blind loyalty to a master with an evil purpose was not the way for him.
Galadriel
11-07-2010, 08:31 AM
Sometimes, one needs to break vows in order to do what's right. Enough said. And I don't think Celegorm deserved him after what he did (or attempted to do).
Ibrîniđilpathânezel
11-07-2010, 09:00 AM
The entire tale of the Simarils is, in a way, a story of the evils of blind loyalty. The sons of Fëanor swore the same oath as their father, and led themselves and their people into tragedy after tragedy, attempting to fulfill it. In the end, the right thing to do would have been to break the oath and change their ways, but none did. In all of Tolkien's work, the subject of free will is a powerful one. Oaths never absolve one of the consequences of choosing to do wrong. Huan was not an ordinary dog, unable to choose to break his training. He was intelligent enough to know right from wrong, and was able to choose to do the right thing rather than rigidly follow his training like a good little doggy. Celegorm may consider that betrayal, but a master who demands that his followers follow him into evil has betrayed them first.
Galadriel55
11-07-2010, 09:17 AM
Celegorm may consider that betrayal, but a master who demands that his followers follow him into evil has betrayed them first.
I like the way you put it, and I agree with you on that one. Thanx everyone for prooving me wrong on this one!
There is another question, though, and no one answered it yet. How can Huan be so impatient? It might not exactly fit under the topic of this thread, but it's still an interesting thing to discuss; I've mentioned it in my 1st post.
skip spence
11-07-2010, 01:15 PM
I hear what you are saying, and I like the comparison with Beregond. However, Beregond didn't renounce Denethor completely, no matter how much he disagreed with him.
But the moral failings of Denethor is on a wholly different level to the moral failings of Celegorm, wouldn't you say? The failing of Denethor really was losing hope, he saw the vast armies of Sauron in his Palantir and realised that while they just might win this one battle they would surely lose the war (save a miracle). In a moment of despair and madness he decided that it would be better if he and his son and heir died together in freedom and in their own house, than later, at the hands of their enemy. He also thought that hope already had passed for Faramir. I don't think Beregond doubted that Denethor always had the best of intentions for his people and that he really did try his best to guard them, though he ultimately failed.
Edit: And pride (as always), he felt that everything depended on him and on Gondor, and if they failed, all must be lost.
Celegorm on the other hand was calculating, ruthless and callous in his dealings with Beren and Luthien. His motivation wasn't a great love for Luthien (though he did fancy her no doubt) but rather a personal hunger for power and riches with (as I believe) the Oath only as a secondary motive (that is, enhancing his chances of winning the Silmarils back). With Luthien by his side, and the realm of Nargothrond under his (and his brother's) control in the absence of Felagund he felt that he could forge, or force, a powerful alliance with Thingol and Doriath and thus become a mighty Elf in Middle Earth. And he was obviously willing to get rid of those hindering him, one way or another.
Pitchwife
11-07-2010, 04:12 PM
Nice topic!
Love and loyalty are different things. You can have loyalty without love, but not the oposite way.
I'd rather say there's loyalty born of duty, and loyalty born of love, and when both are in conflict, the latter tends to beat the former - as in Beregond, who I think felt bound by loyalty to both Denethor and Faramir, but defied Denethor (whom he was duty-bound to obey as a sworn Guard of the Citadel) to save Faramir (whom he loved).
These are human distinctions, however, and I don't think a dog would get what we're talking about here - for them, love and loyalty tend to be the same thing, but in both their master comes first. I don't see a dog turning against its master and siding with another person in a direct conflict, no matter how fond they may be of that person otherwise. (E.g. our three dogs, who were raised and trained mostly by my wife before we moved together, love me dearly and would try to protect me against any danger, but in a romp between the two of us, I'll be outnumbered 4:1.:D) So I guess by purely canine standards, Huan would indeed be considered a traitor - but then again, as has been said, he was a most unusual dog in more respects than just his gift of speech.
As for Huan's impatience, I don't know - isn't it basically a hound's job description to flush the quarry out of its cover, and in some cases even kill it himself? I wouldn't see it as his fault that Carcharoth was too cunning for him and circumvented him.
Puddleglum
11-08-2010, 05:53 PM
Sometimes, one needs to break vows in order to do what's right.
A agree but I think there is both truth and danger in what you say "AS WORDED" since it leaves unsaid what is "RIGHT".
In Tolkien's creation there was a hierarchy of authority - with "right" ultimately deriving from Eru, the One. We don't see him referenced much (tho he does sneak in even to the Trilogy in a side reference) because the Valar were his appointed vice-regents in Arda.
The clearest (I think) addressing of the question of "what is right" in direct language comes in a dialog just before the Downfall of Numenor when Amandil proposes to sail into the west to plead with the Valar (from "The Akallabeth")...
Elendil: Would you then betray the King?
Amandil: If I thought that Manwe needed any such messenger I would betray the King. For there is but one loyalty from which no man can be absolved in heart for any cause.
I would say that Huan made a judgment that in attempting to kill Beren, Celegorm had placed him in a position where he was no longer able to justly "walk the line" between loyalty to master and ultimate loyalty to Eru (tho he may not have thought it in just those terms).
Galadriel55
11-08-2010, 07:37 PM
Great example, Puddleglum! That does explain a lot, doesn't it?
Maybe what Eru stands for in this case really is moral, because I can't say that all the people who had to choose between loyalties knew about Eru. Or at least know enough about Eru. They did follow their morals, though.
I know that there are different morals, but the point I'm trying to prove is right vs wrong in a person's (dog's?) head
Puddleglum
11-09-2010, 07:02 PM
They did follow their morals, though.
I know that there are different morals, but the point I'm trying to prove is right vs wrong in a person's (dog's?) head
I may be misunderstanding your meaning (if so, I apologize in advance) but ...
I think the key point is that it is *NOT* sufficient that one simply "follow their morals" to be justified.
In Tolkien's world (I'll avoid discussing our primary world to reduce controversy) Eru is real and the creator from whom all existence derives - and justification depends on *HIS* (if you will, tho I don't think I'd normally phrase it that way) "morals".
One person (or dog :D) may or may not know clearly what is REALLY right - but they still can't claim absolute justification by simply saying "You can't condem me because I followed my morals".
If/When Eru (or the Valar/Mandos) judge a Fea (spirit) they may well consider "I honestly thought I was doing what you would say is right" as a mitigating factor - maybe even a fully mitigating factor. But I think the Fea (spirit) would still have to come in submission to their judgment, acknowledging their right and authority to pass the final judgment.
BTW, I'm using "Fea" here a bit loosely since it was a matter of uncertainty even to Tolkien (for a time) whether Huan had a Fea (as an incarnated spirit) or was merely an intelligent animal.
Galadriel55
11-09-2010, 08:20 PM
The way I understand your post, Puddleglum, is that there are actually 3 different loyalties - to Eru, to a master/authority, and to one's heart. I'd say that very often two of these are against one.
Gaima has an interesting case. He says something like "when in doubt, wisdom tells us to follow our hearts" when Gandalf refuses to give his staff to him. The 2 loyalties in conflict are to master and to heart; you don't see much of Eru here, though. You could say that since Gaima followed his heart and that caused good things to happen (ie Gandalf "woke" Theoden) and ultimately do what Eru wants, the Eru loyalty was the same as the heart one. You could prove otherwise too, though.
Huan, on the other hand, has a clear case. His heart loyalty and Eru loyalty tell him to betray Celegorm, but his master loyalty says the opposite. It's 2 to one.
Maglor had a 2 to 1 choice too, though, and he chose the one, when he listened to Maedhros and stole one of the Silmarils, killing other people in the process (a bit of the Silmarillion, like Ibrin said).
Interesting thing, loyalty...can cause so much trouble...
Formendacil
11-10-2010, 09:53 AM
The way I understand your post, Puddleglum, is that there are actually 3 different loyalties - to Eru, to a master/authority, and to one's heart. I'd say that very often two of these are against one.
Gaima has an interesting case. He says something like "when in doubt, wisdom tells us to follow our hearts" when Gandalf refuses to give his staff to him. The 2 loyalties in conflict are to master and to heart; you don't see much of Eru here, though. You could say that since Gaima followed his heart and that caused good things to happen (ie Gandalf "woke" Theoden) and ultimately do what Eru wants, the Eru loyalty was the same as the heart one. You could prove otherwise too, though.
Huan, on the other hand, has a clear case. His heart loyalty and Eru loyalty tell him to betray Celegorm, but his master loyalty says the opposite. It's 2 to one.
Maglor had a 2 to 1 choice too, though, and he chose the one, when he listened to Maedhros and stole one of the Silmarils, killing other people in the process (a bit of the Silmarillion, like Ibrin said).
Interesting thing, loyalty...can cause so much trouble...
I assume that "Gaima" means Gríma Wormtongue... not that this really needs to be clarified, for what I have to say.
As far as Middle-earth goes (like Puddleglum I will avoid straying into "the real world"), I am strongly leery of saying anything like "one should have a loyalty to one's heart." This is not to say that the heart does not play a role in loyalty, but I do not think it really deserves a "third loyalty."
Rather, the promptings of the heart (which sounds terribly melodramatic, by the way), are more in the nature of the conscience, which helps one distinguish between sworn loyalty and morality (loyalty to Eru, one might say) when the two seem to conflict. This does not, however, mean that you do the right thing by "staying loyal to your heart," introducing a third morality; rather, a properly formed conscience will prioritize loyalty to Eru, and prompt one to act according.
If one has an undue loyalty to the heart that causes one to deviate from proper loyalty to Eru (ie. to what is "right"), whether that is in order to be loyal to a sworn loyalty or some third party action, that is IMmoral, and to attempt to make it moral on the basis of "loyalty to the heart" is not really given much--or any--support in Tolkien's writings.
Aiwendil
11-10-2010, 10:25 AM
I assume that "Gaima" means Gríma Wormtongue... not that this really needs to be clarified, for what I have to say.
I think she means Hama, the door-warden. Is that right, Galadriel?
Galadriel55
11-10-2010, 05:23 PM
I think she means Hama, the door-warden. Is that right, Galadriel?
I've only read the translation of LOTR, so I wrote the name like it sounds in there. I'm sorry that I got the wrong spelling and pronounciation (darn these stupid translators who changed everything!). It is probably Hama. He is the one who told Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli to put down all their weapons at the doorstep of Meduseld; he died during the battle in Hornburg while defending the gates.
Puddleglum
11-10-2010, 11:47 PM
I've only read the translation of LOTR, so I wrote the name like it sounds in there. I'm sorry that I got the wrong spelling and pronounciation (darn these stupid translators who changed everything!). It is probably Hama. He is the one who told Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli to put down all their weapons at the doorstep of Meduseld; he died during the battle in Hornburg while defending the gates.
Yes, that's Hama.
Which translation?
Galadriel55
11-11-2010, 06:23 AM
I don't remember the name of the translator, and I read it in Russian.
vBulletin® v3.8.9 Beta 4, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.