The spirit of the gentleman refers to certain convictions as to what a man should and should not say and do, what qualities he should and should not have. It was an aristocratic ethos, which essentially goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, especially to Plato and Aristotle.³ Ever since antiquity, this ethos of the gentleman has been the predominant ideal of personal behavior in the aristocratic upper layer of European society, and also to some extent in the classes moyennes, who were liable to imitate their betters in the hope of some day “arriving there.” The coloring of this ethos kept changing somewhat over the centuries, as different times emphasized different aspects of it, and at some times it was more elaborate than at others, but it always remained recognizably the same ethos. Only in our own times it seems to have finally disappeared completely. In Burke’s days the spirit of the gentleman was still very much alive everywhere in Europe and even in nominally anti-aristocratic America, although it no longer reigned unopposed. As Burke unerringly sensed the French revolutionaries, practicing what the philosophes had preached, wanted to replace it with a different ethos.

The list of virtues discussed by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics— probably the most influential philosophical treatise on ethics ever⁴—renders a fairly accurate picture of the spirit of the gentleman. Reasonableness, fairness, courage, temperance with regard to both the pleasures and anger, generosity, truthfulness, wittiness, affability, and a sense of shame all became part and parcel of the spirit of the gentleman. But he is most of all characterized by what Aristotle calls greatness of soul (megalopsychia): “honor is the object with which the great-souled are concerned, since it is honor above all else which great men claim and deserve.”⁵ A gentleman is, in short, a man of honor. He most of all wants and deserves to be honored. Honored for what? For his money? His power? His noble birth? No. The true man of honor wants and deserves to be honored for his virtue: “honor is the prize of virtue,” its “crowning ornament.”⁶

It is undoubtedly true that the idea of the gentleman was of old associated with money, power, and high birth. But no gentleman ever believed that these in themselves suffice to make a gentleman. It is, as Aristotle has it, a typically plebeian misunderstanding to believe that,

the gifts of fortune also conduce to the greatness of soul; for the high born and those who are powerful or wealthy are esteemed worthy of honor…. But in reality only the good man ought to be honored… whereas those who possess the goods of fortune without virtue are not justified in claiming high worth, and cannot correctly be styled great-souled, since true worth and greatness of soul cannot exist without complete virtue.⁷

Not that money, power and high birth are unimportant. On the contrary, they are definitely an asset for a gentleman. Money makes him “a man of independent means,” giving him a great measure of spiritual freedom to speak his mind and do whatever he thinks fit and good. Moreover, money makes him “a man of leisure,” allowing him the time to study and think, and to take part in the government of the country. Power is important, because taking part in the government, holding a position of power, is considered the task par excellence of gentlemen. Only in such a position can a gentleman really show what he is worth. And society needs gentlemen to rule. For power is a dangerous thing. It had therefore better be in the hands of gentlemen. High birth, finally, is important because children with such a background tend to get a good education, directed at making a gentleman, a man of honor and virtue. Thus, money, power, and high birth are distinct advantages. But in themselves they do not make a gentleman. One can also be a gentleman without them. All it takes is virtue.

When speaking of the spirit of religion Burke meant Christianity. This is the second pillar of civilization. Besides and in combination with the spirit of the gentleman, Christianity is the foundation not only of European civilization, but of higher civilization tout court. This, it appears, is Burke’s view. And he is right. There have been and still are many other civilizations, but none has ever been as civilized, as humane, as enlightened—yes, enlightened—as the Christian civilization that Europe once was.

What Christianity, one might ask, in view of the proliferation of Christian churches and sects since the Reformation? The answer must be that it is a Christianity that can be found in manifold churches, and various ways of worship. Much more important than what divides the different Christian traditions is what unites them: the belief in the Bible as God’s word and in the New Testament as the definitive and full statement of God’s word, the belief that the New Testament commands us, above all else, to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and mind, and one’s neighbor like oneself, and to regard all other human beings, regardless of their religion, convictions, background, or whatever, even when they are enemies, as one’s neighbor.⁸ Since this principle of love (agape), unequivocal as it is, like all principles does not render concrete answers to practical questions, either in daily life or with regard to the institutions of social and political life, such as the family, the church, and the state, the history of Christianity is in a sense a continuous discussion about the right way of applying the principle of love in personal, social, and political life.

There is no equivalent to the principle of love in the pagan thought of Antiquity, including Plato and Aristotle. It is quintessentially Christian, albeit with Jewish roots. Leviticus 19:18 also says “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But the meaning of the notion of neighbor in the Old Testament is much narrower than in the New Testament. It is only with the latter that that notion is extended to include every human being and thus becomes a truly humanist prin-ciple.⁹ Ancient pagan thought therefore differs fundamentally from Christianity with regard to the principle of love.