Tolkien spoke about the role of the ur-hero in his works. Rather unsurprisingly, he defined true heroism as being based on fortitude, nobility, strength and mercy, qualities that he felt that Frodo was somewhat lacking, at least in some areas:
But, for one thing, it became at last quite clear that Frodo after all
that had happened would be incapable of voluntarily destroying the
Ring. Reflecting on the solution after it was arrived at (as a mere
event) I feel that it is central to the whole ‘theory’ of true
nobility and heroism that is presented.
Frodo indeed ‘failed’ as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did
not endure to the end; he gave in, ratted. I do not say ‘simple minds’
with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the
absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it is
unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not
perceive the complexity of any given situation in Time, in which an
absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget that strange element
in the World that we call Pity or Mercy, which is also an absolute
requirement in moral judgement (since it is present in the Divine
nature). In its highest exercise it belongs to God. - Letter #246
This was also heavily tied into his views about morality in general, that without normalcy, acts of heroism look far less impressive:
Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify
their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic courage,
or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and forbearance. A
judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how some men can rise
above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as he may deplore the
evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to see how hatred once
provoked can drag them down. But this will not alter his judgement as
to which side was in the right, nor his assignment of the primary
blame for all the evil that followed to the other side. Letter #183
He took some time to defend Frodo against the charge of having been a scoundrel because he ultimately proved not to be as heroic as some of his critics would have liked;
Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of
will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the
destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his
time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the
Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), ‘that one
ever-present Person who is never absent and never named’ (as one
critic has said). See Vol. I p. 65.2 A third (the only other)
commentator on the point some months ago reviled Frodo as a scoundrel
(who should have been hung and not honoured), and me too. It seems sad
and strange that, in this evil time when daily people of good will are
tortured, ‘brainwashed’, and broken, anyone could be so fiercely
simpleminded and self righteous. Letter #192
There are some brief mentions of humility in Tolkien's letters, especially in relation to Frodo's "failure" as a heroic figure
Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely (as an
instrument of Providence) and had produced a situation in which the
object of his quest could be achieved. His humility (with which he
began) and his sufferings were justly rewarded by the highest honour;
and his exercise of patience and mercy towards Gollum gained him
Mercy: his failure was redressed.
and
Frodo undertook his quest out of love – to save the world he knew from
disaster at his own expense, if he could; and also in complete
humility, acknowledging that he was wholly inadequate to the task. His
real contract was only to do what he could, to try to find a way, and
to go as far on the road as his strength of mind and body allowed. He
did that. I do not myself see that the breaking of his mind and will
under demonic pressure after torment was any more a moral failure than
the breaking of his body would have been – say, by being strangled by
Gollum, or crushed by a falling rock. - Letter #246
He also touches on the subject of humbleness:
The Quest was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was
bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo’s development
to the ‘noble’, his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as
Frodo considered alone was concerned. He ‘apostatized’ – and I have
had one savage letter, crying out that he shd. have been executed as a
traitor, not honoured. Believe me, it was not until I read this that I
had myself any idea how ‘topical’ such a situation might appear. It
arose naturally from my ‘plot’ conceived in main outline in 1936.I did
not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark
age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality
would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the
practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into
apostates and traitors.
But at this point the ‘salvation’ of the world and Frodo’s own
‘salvation’ is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of
injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that
Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To
‘pity’ him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a
mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity
even if disastrous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure
him in the end – but by a ‘grace’, that last betrayal was at a precise
juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing any
one cd. have done for Frodo! Letter #181
