Oh the Humility!

[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...)