Humility & Heroes

[Lalwendë]

I knew reading those conference papers would give me some thoughts....and here's just one....

One of the things which strikes me most about Tolkien's heroes and about his characters in general, is just how humble they are, in many ways (both literally in the case of say Sam, and in behaviour, in the case of Aragorn). This is in contrast to a lot of fantasy and action/adventure fiction and drama where we have quite proud heroes who seem elevated when they succeed, as opposed to Tolkien's heroes like Frodo who are only broken by succeeding.

In some ways, you could retitle all Tolkien's novels to be called Pride Comes Before A Fall, because this is one of the major themes which comes through.

Am I alone in finding Tolkien to take a very unusual view on heroism and humility?

And why might Tolkien have taken that line?

I can think of three possible reasons. Firstly, it echoes the English/British character in that we aren't terribly keen on boastful people - it's fine to celebrate a success but we certainly don't like those who treat it as an opportunity for special treatment. Secondly, it could be down to Tolkien's faith, where again, it is not acceptable to lord it over others and to remember that there is someone else who will always be mightier than you, no matter what great things you've done. And thirdly, humility might be so important as it is an echo of the Northern literary tradition which might on the surface seem to be about heroes but is filled with defeat and pessimism.

What do you think?

[The Might]

Well, I do think it is a general trend in Tolkien's works, indeed.
Looking through all the books you can find a general rule pretty soon - if yor are humble, you win, if you are proud or arrogant, you lose. Simple as that, and I cannot think of any exceptions from any book right now, maybe some of you more wiser ones could point something out.

However, I very much doubt that it is a special thing of Tolkien's... thinking back to my childhood and reading Romanian fairytales it was pretty much the same. Usually the hero's older brothers went first on the quest, but due to their pride and arrogance they always failed at some point. The youngest brother however, the main character, always remained humble, no matter in which situation and always saw himself as serving others and not others serving him and in the end was repaid and saved the day.

I do however agree the case of Frodo is indeed out of ordinary. Whilst all the others from the Fellowship (ok, except Boromir) get repaid in one way or the other and live a happy and fulfilling life like Romanian fairytale heroes, Frodo ends up with nothing - he can no longer live in M-e and is forced to leave.

Why I think this happend is this:
Tolkien used the normal fairytale "any victory against evil will only come at a loss, will require a certain sacrifice". And since just letting Boromir die would not be a dramatic enough scene to justify the motto above, he needed to show how the quest damaged Frodo too. It was his sacrifice that gave all others the possibility to continue living on, but it was too late for him.
I actually wonder if that is something special about LotR, but I doubt it. I must admit I don't read a lot of other books, so I don't really know , but maybe someone else can offer some other examples, I'm pretty sure there are some.

Ok, that's all, hope all that made sense, at least a little bit.
And btw, it's a pleasure to be posting on the BW forum again.

[davem]

Ronald Hutton, in one of the Conference papers, makes the point that 'humility', while 'completely alien to the spirit of pagan epic' is almost equally unknown in medieval Christian romance. Where it is to be found is in (as The Might points up) Folk & Fairy tale, & Hutton quotes Gandalf that is is part & parcel of 'stories about dragons & goblins & giants & the rescue of princesses & the unexpected luck of widow's sons'. Hutton points out:

You don't have to invoke theology to explain why the fictions of the common people tend to have underdog heroes

I think the answer is simple - the heroes of LotR are humble because LotR is a fairy story & that's what's expected of heroes in Fairy story - if they are to avoid the pitfalls & the dungeons that await the overbold.

As to the point about it being something in the English British character the point is made in an article in today's Times about Strictly Come Dancing

It underlined what makes Britain great. We have an in-built mistrust of people who think they are it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5201229.ece

[Rumil]

Hi Davem and Might,

Interesting stuff, I doubt the heroes of the sagas hid their light 'neath a bushel. A couple of thoughts...

Boromir versus Faramir- Boromir shades towards pride in inisiting on replacing Faramir on the journey to Rivendell, but manages to subordinate himself to Aragorn (at least while away from Gondor). I think this may have helped the ring gain control, utilising the bubbling pool of pride and perhaps jealously that maybe Boromir was trying to suppress.

Eomer you might describe as less humble in attitude than Faramir, but in away he is 'allowed' as he comes from a less developed culture, perhaps!

Just about 99% of First Age elves are closely descibed by 'Pride before a fall' indeed , in fact nearly all of Beleriand.

Remember Tolkien was a war veteran, few seem to want to talk much about their experiences, no matter how 'heroic' they may have been. According to one author the only way to get Brit WW2 heroes to talk about their experience was to ask them about their oppos, then ask the oppo about the first chap. I have a feeling that the majority of veterans thought that anyone 'going-on' about their service was slightly suspicious in some way?

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien's war experience is another interesting angle on this.

Interestingly, Tolkien and the other Inklings were proud of their war service, in the sense that they had 'done their duty', much as ex-servicemen (and women) are today, in that they have pride in having served but not pride in the 'killing' aspect of war. If I've expressed that correctly...? It's a hard thing to explain! I've also heard about how veterans find it difficult to talk about what they went through but to comrades they can talk for hours...

Boromir's an interesting case. I love reading about him on the journey down the Anduin - it's a perfect study of a man trying to keep his feelings in check as he tries to submit to Aragorn's leadership. He's a man who is full of pride of course and ends up deeply humble.

[davem]

Hobbits are clearly fairytale 'heroes' - hence their humility - but the world they stray into is the world of epic (both pagan - Illiad/Odyssey, Beowulf - & medieval Christian - Morte d'Arthur, Orlando Furioso, even the Fairie Queene). Frodo is, via his journey & his suffering, raised up to that level, but the other Hobbits retain their Fairy story nature. Hence, they can go home but he cannot.

Gandalf, Aragorn & Faramir are not humble in the same way, or to the same extent, as the Hobbits - because it is not 'natural' to them: their humility is not innate - they must consciously humble themselves, fight against the 'sin' of pride. This is the reason that they are in more danger from the Ring - the Hobbits have a natural 'immunity' (obviously not complete immunity, but greater than that of other races). The Ring is not of their world, of the world of folk & fairy story. It is of the high, epic world - again the reason Tom is immune to its power, because he too is of the world of folk & fairy tale. Only when Frodo has 'grown' sufficiently to 'migrate' to the higher, mythic world can he fall to the power of the Ring. At the Cracks of Doom Frodo has lost that innate Hobbit, folksy, humility & like Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel et al must choose to humble himself - which he fails to do. The other Hobbits don't commit the ultimate Sin as Frodo does, but then they never grow enough to be able to.

[Nogrod]

First this humility reminds me of Christianity. Like the Christ, one should be humble (even if I'm not sure He was that humble all the time...). I have no idea how it is in King James or any other English translation but freely translated the Book says "The ones who uplift themselves will be downgraded - and the ones who downgrade themselves will be uplifted" (in Finnish translation they use the same words on both sides of the metaphor).

Secondly it might as well be linked to Tolkien's love of Kalevala and the Finnish folklore - and why not British modesty which is not too much unlike Finnish modesty. But talking about national myths, the Finns really think they are the most modest people in the world. (And how modest is that?)
*should we have a British-Finnish contest on which one is more modest?*

Surely Egill or Gunnar are not the most modest characters you can find, and neither is Wieland / Woland / Wayland / Völundur the smith or any of those ancient northern legends. Even Thor and Odin seem to be quite self-asserting - like King Arthur or Lancelot; or Roland or Siegfried to that matter. They are clearly pagan heroes even if the writers of their stories have instilled Christian features into their stories. Anyway, they have pride in what they do.

But the Finnish folklore is just filled with these ideas of being low key and not making a number of oneself (with the exception of Kullervo eg. Turín, and possibly Ilmarinen eg. the smith eg. the Silmaril-maker) even before the christendom arrived here.

So maybe Tolkien was looking at that one genuine principle that would bring together the Christ-myth (Jewish) with the ancient stories (Finnish) that fit his view of the genuine idea of a good (British) common folk? And the utmost bravery of those we in Finland call the "silent of the earth"...

[The Might]

Awesome, post davem, kudos!

A really interesting idea with this transition between the two worlds and it explains much of what we see happening in LotR.
And yes, of course since Tolkien based so much on folklore it makes perfect sense to give his heroes the same qualities as those of fairytale ones.

I find it interesting actually that Hobbits were so much more humble due to their background and perhaps also due to their closeness to nature and living things. After all, they had in their past, especially during the long journey from the east, endured many hardships as well.

My idea is that either they stayed as humble the whole time, which makes them so special in M-e.

Men on the other hand all had to endure much, the perpetual return of evil in the east, wars, plagues, etc. and this decreased their trust in others and also their humility. They had to stand up more often for themselves, received no help from the outside, and so felt they are the ones that have to get the credit.

[Andsigil]

Lalwendë,

I suppose I don't see the humility of Aragorn as easily as you do. He always seemed proud and rather stately to me, especially when he threatened mayhem to the Rohirrim if they so much as looked at Anduril sideways.

Perhaps it's a relative thing and his humility is great for one of royal blood (as opposed to more common folk).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Lalwendë,

I suppose I don't see the humility of Aragorn as easily as you do. He always seemed proud and rather stately to me, especially when he threatened mayhem to the Rohirrim if they so much as looked at Anduril sideways.

Perhaps it's a relative thing and his humility is great for one of royal blood (as opposed to more common folk).

Really? That's interesting as everyone I speak to has a different perception of Aragorn, some find him pious, others find him humble. I think he does have a tendency to be proud, being who he is, but we can see it shaken out of him somewhat when Gandalf tells him it is disrespectful to take weapons into Meduseld and eventually he becomes a marvellous leader who does not expect loyalty from the Men of Gondor but who earns it and will only accept his Kingship by consensus.

Something else I was thinking about following on from what davem says was whether different types of people are humble in different ways. The Hobbits of course are a humble people in comparison to the greater Men and Elves of Middle-earth, but what about people like Faramir, Galadriel, Aragorn etc? They are not humble people by nature, do they have to learn humility or is it a character trait? Certainly by the end of the books we see our 'heroes' brought humble in attitude (and the end result is really what I am interested in), but are they all like that to begin with and what turns them?

Do we meet many 'humble' people in the Lord of the Rings aside from the Hobbits? Not many....

[Nogrod]

To me the story of Aragorn has always been the story of the poor boy from humble origins and with humble mind forced to show his qualities, forced to learn his stature, forced to take his place that is so unlike his own view of himself had been.

It's like this Sartrean/Nietzschean "become what you are!" - or the traditional "growing up" -story.

So to me Aragorn has always looked a bit reluctant to seize the power the fate has given him - and he only slowly realises that that is the case. And why is that? Because he has been brought up in humility. Take the people of Bree who thought him just plain weird but he didn't make a case out of it; he just silently left the mock behind - to guard the lives of those who scorned him... Well, that's what I'd call humility...

Let's not forget that he had done that for ages before the things started to roll forwards and we only see the part where he struggles to find his new identity as the story-told king of all men.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

I've often thought that Aragorn could have been quite prideful and arrogant, if not for the fact that he "learned better" rather quickly. Remember how, when he was first told about his lineage, he felt quite puffed-up and self-important about it, until he met Arwen and suddenly felt small again. Somehow, he found a proper perspective about his own importance in the world as a whole. Being human, he will not be perfect, of course, but when compared to some of his contemporaries -- Denethor and Boromir come to mind -- he has a much more balanced sense of both pride and humility.

There's also the question of what Tolkien meant by "humble." Sometimes, I think the definition changes. At times, it refers to modesty and meekness, at other times about a more lowly status. The hobbits might be considered humble not because they lack arrogance and pride, but because they are a younger, less complex, more innocent society. They have had struggles to survive in their past, but they were usually against nature, not against legions of orcs and power-hungry Dark Lords. The cost of widsom all too often is the loss of innocence, which all the Shire lost to some degree when Saruman and his lackeys invaded it, but which Frodo lost more than any other, to the point that he no longer could remain a part of it. He had seen too much, endured too much, faced his own pride, failed, and was humbled -- what John Campbell might have called his heroic "descent into hell," a necessary part of his heroic journey to an eventual personal apotheosis.

Not all of Tolkien's heroes in LotR go through this journey, but at least a few do. Gandalf literally descends into hell with the Balrog, and to death, to achieve a rather literal apotheosis and rebirth by the will of Eru -- a thing which might not have come about if he hadn't willingly sacrificed himself and his own goals to save the quest, the success of which was paramount. Aragorn, prideful and stubborn before the doors of Meduseld, must later choose to take the paths of the dead and risk his own life in order to achieve a greater good which may not lead him to the throne, but is the only hope to keep Gondor alive until Frodo's quest can be achieved. He may arrive in Gondor with his standard flying and wearing the Elendilmir, but after this has the proper effect of putting fear and doubt into the enemy, he is much more humble in his demeanor, refusing to put himself forward as the king he has not yet truly earned the right to be.

I think I'm rambling, now. Sleep first, think about this some more later....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

There's also the question of what Tolkien meant by "humble." Sometimes, I think the definition changes. At times, it refers to modesty and meekness, at other times about a more lowly status. The hobbits might be considered humble not because they lack arrogance and pride, but because they are a younger, less complex, more innocent society. They have had struggles to survive in their past, but they were usually against nature, not against legions of orcs and power-hungry Dark Lords. The cost of widsom all too often is the loss of innocence, which all the Shire lost to some degree when Saruman and his lackeys invaded it, but which Frodo lost more than any other, to the point that he no longer could remain a part of it. He had seen too much, endured too much, faced his own pride, failed, and was humbled -- what John Campbell might have called his heroic "descent into hell," a necessary part of his heroic journey to an eventual personal apotheosis.

That's probably quite fundamental to the topic, what Tolkien means by humble!

I think it does come in two ways:
1. Those who are by nature or status humble
2. Those who express and display humility

I think that the second category is particularly important as this is where Tolkien forces his good guys into humility as a requirement of their being 'good'. And that's where, I think, the notion of humility as a desirable character trait in a 'hero' is most important.

Frodo and the Hobbits of course are humble, they don't have to force themselves into humility because in comparison to those they meet along the way, they are at the bottom of the social heap. Not to say that they aren't tempted to 'big themselves up' of course (see Frodo's vision on Mount Doom and Sam's, when he briefly dons the Ring), but the greater people they meet, Kings, Princes, Captains etc, all must come to show their humility in the course of events.

In some cases, they must even humble themselves in order to achieve the things they are entitled to. Aragorn has to humble himself in order to be accepted as King, and Galadriel has to do so in order to be able to return to Valinor.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that the second category is particularly important as this is where Tolkien forces his good guys into humility as a requirement of their being 'good'. And that's where, I think, the notion of humility as a desirable character trait in a 'hero' is most important.

So Hobbits, in the main, are not 'humble' - they are as they are. Only when they transcend their nature (as with Frodo, Bilbo, & later with Sam too) are they able to humble themselves - one cannot lower oneself until one has scaled the heights - & as Chesterton said, one sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak - hence only those Hobbits can pass beyond the Sea. The other Hobbits remain where they were put: "before Saruman, chop wood & carry water; after Saruman, chop wood & carry water" (but by-pass 'Enlightenment' because that's too much like having an adventure.) There is no 'sin' in the world of Fairy story. Sin is of the bigger world - as is Salvation (& Damnation, btw). The great choices are of the greater world - as are the greater consequences (& the greater rewards).

Tolkien's heroes must be humble or they won't win - yet all are humbled in Tolkien's world - some are born humble, like the Hobbits, some attain humility, like Aragorn, Gandalf, et al, & some have humility thrust upon them - like Saruman, Sauron & Wormtongue they are broken & humiliated. But the ones who are so humiliated, brought low, never seem to appreciate the 'gift'. Repentance is never an option. The good guys humble themselves & win. The bad guys are humbled & lose - permanently.

[Boromir88]

Anyone wonder why the arch villain doesn't just shoot the hero right in between the eyes? Instead he always has to lock him in some inescapable (yet somehow escapable) contraption, not take away the hero's handy utility belt, tell the hero he will be leaving for a few hours so outside is a completely inept guard to make sure he doesn't escape? One word - ofermod.

An overmastering pride, an extreme arrogance in your own abilities. You are the super genius, you think you can't be beaten. Though, it's always these guys that get foiled.

I don't want to get into what Tolkien believed ofermod meant, and what it actually does mean (possibly), because I don't think that's important to this discussion. Seeing as we are talking about Tolkien's story here, I think it's quite acceptable to use and apply the word to his characters. (If you disagree - tough. ) As Lalwende brought to my attention many moons ago:

Apparently, Tolkien was preoccupied also with defining the limitations of heroism. His translation of ofermod clearly implies a distinction between the bold and the foolhardy, high spirit and excessive spirit.

For the full essay go here.

Or let me just put it this way...Gandalf doesn't need to talk a big game, he would just do it. If he were to theoretically lay a beatdown on Saruman, he wouldn't brag about how he could kick around Saruman until he's black and blue, he would just do it. The kicker is, if he couldn't he would say so...

"I am Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still."~The White Rider

What's really interesting is White ends up mightier in the end anyway...or does it really?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What's really interesting is White ends up mightier in the end anyway...or does it really?

An interesting thought (as were those in the rest of the post ). But this, I think, is an intriguing indication of Tolkien's notions of humility, in particular humility vs hubris. The proud crow about their achievements; the humble do not. Frodo discounts his own part in destroying the Ring, thinking Sam the true hero. Aragorn does not follow the Numenorean tradition of putting the crown on his own head, but humbly acknowledges that many others, Gandalf in particular, were responsible for this victory. And for Gandalf, while there appears to be satisfaction in what was achieved, he never gives the impression that he feels his White triumphed over Sauron's Black. It was an end achieved by many, and he played a part in it, but he never treats it as a personal victory (not that we see, at any rate). One can just bet that the bad guys would have been quite personal in their moment of triumph, just as we see that Saruman is equally personal in his defeat, carrying grudges and bitterness to the very end. The heroes instead take defeat in a different "personal" sense; they accept that they, personally, failed. They don't push the blame for it off on others, even when others have a lot of share in that blame. Gandalf kicks himself for being foolish enough to fall into Saruman's trap; he pities Saruman for having fallen so far into evil. Saruman, conversely, blames Gandalf for his inability to achieve his goal of getting the Ring, as well as anyone who helped his adversary, so he has to go ruin the Shire just to get even with those he blames for his defeat (not failure; defeat).

Given that I'm in the middle of therapy trying to recover from the post-traumatic shock of being raised by a narcissitic alcoholic mother, I'm finding the narcissism of Tolkien's villains rather intriguing. Thank goodness it was Gandalf I decided to pick as my role model when I was a kid.