I. The signification of the word Urbanity is equivocal, so that when
you read it in different authors who lived in distinct times, you
will find, the sense they understood it in varied exceedingly. It’s
immediate derivation is from the Latin word _Urbanus_, which springs
from _urbs_ a city; but notwithstanding this, it did not imply city in
general; for it’s meaning at first, was confined in an especial manner
to signify the city of Rome.
II. The reason of this was, that the word _urbanus_ began to be first
made use of, at the time that the Roman republic was in the zenith of
it’s prosperity, and this may be evidently inferred, from Quintilian’s
saying the word was new in the days of Cicero; _Cicero favorem, et
urbanum nova credit._ It was then that the generical word _urbs_ began
to be used by way of eminence, to signify the city of Rome, on account
of it’s portentous grandeur; and with the same pace that Rome proceeded
to domineer over the world, that sort of culture which the Romans
looked upon as an excellence peculiar to themselves, proceeded to gain
ground, and prevail in the city, and it was then that the Romans began
to make use of the word _Urbanus_, to express that compound sort of
cultivation that people received there, which seemed not to be confined
to letters and sciences only, but also to comprehend manner and
punctillo also; _homo urbanus_, _sermo urbanus_; and they used the word
_urbanitas_, to express those accomplishments in an abstracted sense.
III. But all authors did not give the same extension to the cultivation
implied by the word _urbanitas_. Cicero, as we know from his book _de
claris oratoribus_, restrained it to a graceful manner of speaking,
which was peculiar to the Romans.
IV. Quintilian thinks, the graceful manner of speaking, which was
peculiar to the Romans, and which consisted in their proper choice of
words, their just application of them, and the decent tone of their
voices, did not comprehend the whole, but was only a part of the
accomplishment that was meant to be expressed by the term Urbanity; and
he assigns as another part appertaining to it, a tincture of erudition
acquired by frequent conversation with learned men; _nam, et urbanitas
dicitur, qua quidem significari sermonem præ se ferentem in verbis, et
sono, et usu proprium quemdam gustum urbis, et sumptam ex conversatione
doctorum tacitam eruditionem, denique cui contraria sit rusticitas_.
V. Domitius Marsus, an author who lived about mid-way between the days
of Cicero and Quintilian, and who wrote a treatise upon Urbanity,
which we are indebted to Quintilian for the knowledge of, strikes
into a new track, and maintains Urbanity to consist in the keenness
and force of a short pithy expression, which delights and inclines
the hearer to be affected in the manner the speaker could wish; and
which is well adapted to excite either resistance or assent, according
to the circumstances of persons and things: _Urbanitas est virtus
quædam in breve dictum coacta, et apta ad delectandos, movendosque in
omnem affectum animos, maxime idonea ad resistendum, vel lacessendum,
prout quæque res ac persona desiderant. (Quintilian ubi supra.)_ This
definition is truly confused, and either explains nothing, or else,
only explains a particular idea of the author, distinct from every
thing that has hitherto been understood, respecting the meaning of the
word Urbanity.
VI. The moral philosophers, who have studied and laboured to explain
the admirable ethics of Aristotle, have considered this word as
equivalent to the Greek one _Eutrapelia_, which Aristotle made use of
to express that virtue, which influences people to observe moderation
in the tone of their voice, and their manner of expressing themselves;
as vicious extremes in these particulars, were apt to degenerate into
rusticity, or else, to be attended with scurrility and buffoonry; and
these are the sentiments of our cardinal Aguirre and count Manuel
Thesaurus.
VII. But neither the word urbanity, nor that of rusticity, which is
its opposite, are made use of to express at present, what they were
understood to imply formerly. They call him now-a-days, an agreeable
or well-bred man, and not a man of urbanity, who speaks in a moderate
and pleasing tone of voice, and who expresses himself in decent and
opportune phrases; and he who delivers himself in an opposite manner,
they do not call a rustic, but a coarse or an unpleasant man, or else
describe him by phrases that are equivalent to those.