Oh the Humility!

[Boromir88]

I was trolling through threads long passed and I kept seeing a many many threads about pride. Plus, all the other threads which you can simply talk about pride...

Like Eomer's here.

Or Squatter's on the Seven Deadly Sins. And then mine, which I also wanted to talk about the Seven Heavenly Virtues, but it turned into being more about Pride.

Pride rears it's ugly head everywhere, and once you think about pride, there is automatically the connection with humility. Humble is what we should be, as humility is a virture, and pride is bad, pride is a deadly sin.

After reading through some of these though, I was struck by the discussion in Eomer's thread on the different levels of pride, and whether all pride is necessarily a sin. There is arrogant-pride, and selfish-pride (presumably bad things), but you can have confidence-pride and pleased-pride, that is pride in yourself, your accomplishments, and goals. In order to achieve something, don't we have to have a bit of pride, and if we do the right thing shouldn't we be proud of it?

That was more of what I was thinking at the time, I don't want to create another thread about Pride, because there are plenty out there, but it did get me thinking about Humility. Of course, I don't think you can talk about one without at least thinking about the other, so feel free to add anything else to the 'pride' debates. When I did a quick search about Humility, I found Lalwende's thread: Humility and Heroes.

So, I do recognize the humility is definitely a noble, virtuous quality to have. However, (and I apologize in advance for my distorted, jumble mind-processing) isn't it annoying to meet someone who is just too humble! Don't we all know someone like that? Someone who is full of so much humility you think it's a fake act and you just want to try and get them to boast about something, so you can rub it in their face.

Then I wondered, are there different types of humility, as there can be different types of pride? Is too much humility a bad thing, don't you need to mix in a bit of that evil pride and have some balance?

I was trying to figure out if any of Tolkien's characters represented an annoying amount of humility, but not sure if that is possible. I thought Frodo, as he seriously does annoy me, but I wonder if that is just the fact that he does annoy me, and not necessarily because he is too humble. I think I will wait for further input however, until I get into Frodo's humility.

[Mithalwen]

There is a touch of the Uriah Heeps about Grima but of course his humility is faux.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

There is a touch of the Uriah Heeps about Grima but of course his humility is faux.

Not quite sure what you mean, are you talking about Grima's need to have a master to please? And being that he is disgruntled as not being Theoden's 'favourite' counselor, he turns to Saruman?

Hmm...I wonder if it has something to do with Tolkien talking about the balance between the 'high and noble' characters, and the 'simple/vulgar' ones? The high and mighty accomplish the physically difficult tasks, that the low and vulgar simply don't have the power to do. These would be characters like Gandalf, Aragorn, and Boromir. Yet it is the 'simple and vulgar' ones who do the dirty jobs, or the emotionally draining (as well as physically) jobs, like Frodo carrying the Ring to Mount Doom. The high and mighty could never do what Frodo did, as they may have some sense of humility, but they still think too highly of themselves to destroy the Ring. Gandalf doesn't want to be tempted by Frodo!

Yet, Frodo, being simple, humble (and hobbits in general) can complete those types of tasks that the 'high and mighty' can't.

Of course it can work for evil too, Saruman being the 'high' character (albeit a fallen one) and Grima being his low servant (albeit also fallen). Then does pride (the dominant characteristic of the 'high and mighty') need a humble (the simple and vulgar) counterpart?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, I do recognize the humility is definitely a noble, virtuous quality to have. However, (and I apologize in advance for my distorted, jumble mind-processing) isn't it annoying to meet someone who is just too humble! Don't we all know someone like that? Someone who is full of so much humility you think it's a fake act and you just want to try and get them to boast about something, so you can rub it in their face.

Shouldn't you say "a person who is so proud of her/his humility"?

And even with the smilie I do mean that in all earnest. It's clear that when the social surroundings embrace certain values, they easily become one of the socially differentiating factors and something people in that community strive for and compete in.

But when one gets recognised or applauded for her/his humility it becomes something the humble person becomes very much cognizant of... and therefore destroys it.

Now why?

There is, I think, a paradox of humility involved. So long as you don't know or think you're especially humble you may be one. But at the very moment you realise you are humble it makes you feel good and maybe even proud of yourself... and then you can kiss humility bye-bye.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Shouldn't you say "a person who is so proud of her/his humility"?

Now there's an interesting spin on things, one is proud of their humility, that you can't say they are humble anymore!

Which certainly does leave a paradox, if humility is a virtue that we try to strive for, how are we unaware that we are being humble, and thus feel proud by our humility? Unless of course you are just humble for the sake of humility, and not for yourself...ack, now I've become twisted into a state of bah-humble confusion.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

ack, now I've become twisted into a state of bah-humble confusion.

Says a man who's sig reads:

This may actually make my ego bigger than the phantom's.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Hmm...I wonder if it has something to do with Tolkien talking about the balance between the 'high and noble' characters, and the 'simple/vulgar' ones? The high and mighty accomplish the physically difficult tasks, that the low and vulgar simply don't have the power to do. These would be characters like Gandalf, Aragorn, and Boromir. Yet it is the 'simple and vulgar' ones who do the dirty jobs, or the emotionally draining (as well as physically) jobs, like Frodo carrying the Ring to Mount Doom. The high and mighty could never do what Frodo did, as they may have some sense of humility, but they still think too highly of themselves to destroy the Ring. Gandalf doesn't want to be tempted by Frodo!

But is it not humility that causes Gandalf to reject the ring? He knows himself, he can imagine/foresee the effect the Ring would have on him and therefore he realises that he is wholly unsuited to be Ringbearer. Unlike Saruman he harboured no illusions of being able to master the Ring. I didn't see him as thinking highly of himself at all but rather someone who freely acknowledged his own weak points and potential failings, someone who didn't find it necessary to dispense with his role of Steward in Middle Earth and chase pipe dreams of world domination.

[Boromir88]

Note also Nogrod, that if you looked into Eomer's thread, all the "Boro"s are highlighted...yep I did a search of myself. Haven't we all?

But is it not humility that causes Gandalf to reject the ring? He knows himself, he can imagine/foresee the effect the Ring would have on him and therefore he realises that he is wholly unsuited to be Ringbearer.~Morwen

I don't know, I always imagined Gandalf's rejection fo the Ring is out of acknowledgement of the Ring's power, and not necessarily something to do with Gandalf's character. Gandalf seems more frightened of what the Ring would do through him, and the effect it would have, so much so he even fears being tempted to take it:

'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly,' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as if by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'~Shadow of the Past

It's like Faramir's reaction, who was able to also reject it, but had the same 'get this thing away from me, I don't want to be tempted!' reaction.

Eventhough, Gandalf is humble enough to reject it, he fears the temptation, and there must be a reason for his fear? Maybe it is humility which leads Gandalf to his rejection of the Ring, but he definitely distrusts himself if he were to take it, or even asked to take it. Would that suggest a type of pride in Gandalf, or at least a fear that Gandalf (if tempted by the Ring) would give into pride?

[Nogrod]

I'm not sure if Gandalf's reactions to the Ring are best or most fruitfully defined in terms of humility vs. pride...

If you wish to talk with the pride - humility vocabulary, one might say there is the somewhat prideful self-assessment ("I could do wonders with that thing unlike you because I'm special.") and the somewhat humble acceptance ("But in the end I couldn't resist the power of that Ring which is more powerful than I am.").

He senses the desire in him to wield it and make good with it - but at the same time he fears / knows that it would turn him into a monster equal to Sauron. So he knows he has power and could make a difference with the Ring in the war (unlike Gollum or Bilbo in a sense that neither of them could have become a "ruler of the world" with it) but also realises his powers might / would not stand against the power of the Ring.

So I would think of that rather in terms of clear thinking, being careful, thoughtful and acknowledging one's place in the world rightly. So self-knowledge and understanding, like Aristotle thought of the virtuous person - where both (wrong) pride and (self-worth -ignoring) humility were vices?

[Boromir88]

So I would think of that rather in terms of clear thinking, being careful, thoughtful and acknowledging one's place in the world rightly.~Nogrod

Yes, but isn't accepting one's place in the world also a part of humility? Gandalf's (and Faramir's) acknowledgement that they aren't running the show, they can only control what is within their power, and that is their own choices.

The opposite would then be Morgoth and Sauron, who knew they weren't in control, and may have known Eru wouldn't allow them to win, but still wanted to run the show, and for whatever reasons rejected the fact that in the end they would lose...that may be more foolish than pride, but still wouldn't that be pride?

Or even Aragorn, who learns his place (from Hama and Gandalf) when he goes to Edoras. He tries to assert his rule over Theoden's and is smacked back down to reality, by being told he is not the King of Gondor yet, and even if he was he has no authority to order the King of Rohan around. Aragorn takes a step back, and places himself in a counselor role to Theoden during the battle of Helm's Deep.

[Morwen]

I don't know, I always imagined Gandalf's rejection fo the Ring is out of acknowledgement of the Ring's power, and not necessarily something to do with Gandalf's character. Gandalf seems more frightened of what the Ring would do through him, and the effect it would have, so much so he even fears being tempted to take it:

Eventhough, Gandalf is humble enough to reject it, he fears the temptation, and there must be a reason for his fear? Maybe it is humility which leads Gandalf to his rejection of the Ring, but he definitely distrusts himself if he were to take it, or even asked to take it. Would that suggest a type of pride in Gandalf, or at least a fear that Gandalf (if tempted by the Ring) would give into pride?

I see Gandalf's acknowledgment of the Ring's power as flowing from and directly tied to his character. If he had less humility his attitude might be more akin to that of Saruman who never seems to question his ability to control the Ring should he lay hands on it or Boromir who in confronting Frodo wished to make distinction between possible effects of the Ring on wizards and half elves and men of Minas Tirith such as himself.
I therefore don't see distrust of self as being tied to pride at all. Pride would give rise not to fear of the Ring and its power but to the complete confidence in one's ability to control it. Gandalf doesn't think he can control the Ring. In fact he is very confident that he cannot. And to me it is that, not pride that gives rise to his fear of temptation.

ETA:

Yes, but isn't accepting one's place in the world also a part of humility? Gandalf's (and Faramir's) acknowledgement that they aren't running the show, they can only control what is within their power, and that is their own choices.

I do agree with this

[Mnemosyne]

I think this discussion so far has forgotten about one of the most obviously humble characters of all: Sam Gamgee.

All of the hobbits are self-effacing, to be sure; but Sam really takes the cake when it comes to putting others (especially his Master) above himself, to the point that one wonders a). if he has serious self-confidence issues, possibly brought on by the Gaffer's sharp tongue, or b). if he actually has some appreciation of his own talents but never expresses it because it's not his place.

Then there's his attachment to Frodo, of which pride plays a huge part:

Originally Posted by Letters 246

Sam was cocksure, and deep down a little conceited; but his conceit had been transformed by his devotion to Frodo. He did not think of himself as heroic or even brave, or in any way admirable--except in his service and loyalty to his master. That had an ingredient (probably inevitable) of pride and possessiveness: it is difficult to exclude it from the devotion of those who perform such service. In any case it prevented him from fully understanding the master that he loved, and from following him in his gradual education to the nobility of service to the unlovable and of perception of damaged good in the corrupt. He plainly did not fully understand Frodo's motives or his distress in the incident of the Forbidden Pool. if he had understood better what was going on between Frodo and Gollum, things might have turned out differently in the end. For me perhaps the most tragic moment in the Tale comes in II 323 ff. when Sam fails to note the complete change in Gollum's tone and aspect. 'Nothing, nothing,' said Gollum softly. 'Nice master!' His repentance is blighted and all Frodo's pity is (in a sense) wasted. Shelob's lair became inevitable.

Sorry for the long quote, but I'm a huge fan of context. I'd say that this is the closest anyone in LotR comes to having pride in one's humility--Sam is proud of his devotion as Frodo's manservant, which necessarily means putting himself in a lowered position.

There's one other incident with Sam's pride vs. humility that I can think of off the top of my head, and here the interesting thing is that we've got his duty and station warring with impressing the girl:

Originally Posted by The Scouring of the Shire

'Well, you can't say fairer than that,' said the gaffer. 'Mr. Frodo Baggins is a real gentlehobbit, I always have said, whatever you may think of some others of the name, begging your pardon. And I hope my Sam's behaved hisself and given satisfaction?'

'Perfect satisfaction, Mr. Gamgee,' said Frodo. 'Indeed, if you will believe it, he's now one of the most famous people in all the lands, and they are making songs about his deeds from here to the Sea and beyond the Great River.' Sam blushed, but he looked gratefully at Frodo', for Rosie's eyes were shining and she was smiling at him.

Finally, we have his later history to look at. Sam becomes ennobled in Shire society, through Frodo's inheritance and his being elected a whopping number of times to the mayoralty, which would have to imply that he does know deep down by now that he has the skill to use money, power, and influence effectively. But I still can't see him without some of his "oh, it was nothing" demeanor, both because that's how hobbits are and that's how Sam is. And that's really effective stuff politically, especially if it gets around how you're actually friends with the King, etc.

So going back to my a vs. b above, I don't think that Sam ever had issues with self-confidence. There may have been things he thought he couldn't do, but that was due to restrictions of class. He was a fine gardener and a fine cook and he knew it, and he tried to serve his Master in the best way possible. But all of those things, he thinks (at least in LotR), aren't what it takes to save the world. Sam must have learned that it did somewhere along the way, or else he never would have stood for going beyond his station. He just never let that on.

I think this had a point relevant to the thread somewhere, but if it did, I lost it.

[Galadriel55]

Going back to pride and humility. I think that pride is good at the right times and at the right quantity (for example, it was pride that kept Hurin from begging Morgoth to let him go; Maeglin lacked pride, so he told Morgoth about Gondolin). Exessive pride can kill people and even nations, but sometimes pride is what keeps them up. I guess there is "good pride" and "bad pride". By bad pride I mean something like overconfidence, boastfulness, and being ashamed of asking forgiveness or asking for help. Good pride is just standing up for whatever nation/place/belief/value/etc you belong to. It's an interesting thing, pride, isn't it?

[Durelin]

The subject of humility and having pride in humility (thus making you no longer humble, technically) always makes me think of Gawain and the Green Knight.

I guess you're getting into completely philosophical grounds to ask if someone can be humble without being aware that they are being humble. And if they are aware they are being humble, and know that it is valued...then they aren't humble anymore? Is it the action or the intent? (That over-simplyfies it, but I'm going with it)

I think in Tolkien it would be the action. Mnemo's analysis of Sam seems to suggest the importance of action over intent. Sam intended to serve Frodo to show his dedication, his strength, and his value as Frodo's 'servant.' His actions were praiseworthy, as he intended them to be. But that doesn't stop them from being praiseworthy or being humble -- he humbled himself to serve Frodo, as it was his desire to please (a base term) that encouraged him to do so.

This thread has also touched on a lot of definitions of humility, and I'm not about to define it, but I am going to suggest an ultimate act of humility in self-sacrifice.

Putting others before the self has already been touched on in this thread as a definition of humility. Self-sacrifice is of course epitomized in the literal sense of sacrificing your life. But the causes for which a person 'makes the ultimate sacrifice' can often be described as prideful, or at least based in pride.

Boromir is probably one of the first characters that comes to mind when one thinks of pride. He is driven by pride much of the time. And in the end that pride leads to self-sacrifice, through which he is humbled even before Aragorn.

But there is another side to Boromir. That of shame. Boromir humbles himself to self-sacrifice only after he is shamed after trying to take the Ring from Frodo -- he recognizes his weakness and is shamed. (As it could be said Gawain only learns true humility after he experiences great shame.)

So is shame necessary for humility? And is pride necessary for shame? Well, maybe not *necessary*...

(I did this from memory and looking at...*gasp* chapter summaries to make sure I remembered things correctly...I don't have the books with me and it's been a while...)