137.  The first function of Modesty, then, being this recognition of place, her second is the recognition of law, and delight in it, for the sake of law itself, whether her part be to assert it, or obey.  For as it belongs to all immodesty to defy or deny law, and assert privilege and license, according to its own pleasure (it being therefore rightly called “insolent,” that is, “custom-breaking,” violating some usual and appointed order to attain for itself greater forwardness or power), so it is the habit of all modesty to love the constancy and “solemnity,” or, literally, “accustomedness,” of law, seeking first what are the solemn, appointed, inviolable customs and general orders of nature, and of the Master of nature, touching the matter in hand; and striving to put itself, as habitually and inviolably, in compliance with them.  Out of which habit, once established, arises what is rightly called “conscience,” nor “science” merely, but “with-science,” a science “with us,” such as only modest creatures can have—­with or within them—­and within all creation besides, every member of it, strong or weak, witnessing together, and joining in the happy consciousness that each one’s work is good; the bee also being profoundly of that opinion; and the lark; and the swallow, in that noisy, but modestly upside-down, Babel of hers, under the eaves, with its unvolcanic slime for mortar; and the two ants who are asking of each other at the turn of that little ant’s-foot-worn bath through the moss “lor via e lor fortuna;” and the builders also, who built yonder pile of cloud-marble in the west, and the gilder who gilded it, and is gone down behind it.

138.  But I think we shall better understand what we ought of the nature of Modesty, and of her opposite, by taking a simple instance of both, in the practice of that art of music which the wisest have agreed in thinking the first element of education; only I must ask the reader’s patience with me through a parenthesis.

Among the foremost men whose power has had to assert itself, though with conquest, yet with countless loss, through peculiarly English disadvantages of circumstance, are assuredly to be ranked together, both for honor, and for mourning, Thomas Bewick and George Cruikshank.  There is, however, less cause for regret in the instance of Bewick.  We may understand that it was well for us once to see what an entirely keen and true man’s temper, could achieve, together, unhelped, but also unharmed, among the black bans and wolds of Tyne.  But the genius of Cruikshank has been cast away in an utterly ghastly and lamentable manner:  his superb line-work, worthy of any class of subject, and his powers of conception and composition, of which I cannot venture to estimate the range in their degraded application, having been condemned, by his fate, to be spent either in rude jesting, or in vain war with conditions of vice too low alike for record or rebuke, among the dregs of the British populace.  Yet perhaps I am wrong in regretting even this:  it may be an appointed lesson for futurity, that the art of the best English etcher in the nineteenth century, spent on illustrations of the lives of burglars and drunkards, should one day be seen in museums beneath Greek vases fretted with drawings of the wars of Troy, or side by side with Duerer’s “Knight and Death.”