betraying his abolitionist heritage, but itncould be said that he was honoringnMajor Butler’s legacy—a legacy notnonly of wealth, but of conflict.nBell’s tracing of that legacy is artfulnin its weaving of the fortunes of thenfamily and slavery. Yet one must recognizenthat this big book of nearly 700npages tells and analyzes only part of thenstory.nThere is more to the Buders thanneither the overbearing pride that forcednchildren to rebel against parents, or thenrelationships with and ownership ofnslaves. Major Buder played an importantnrole in the development of cottonnculture and, so, the spread of plantationnagriculture in the late 18th andnearly 19th centuries. He was a politiciannof rank and vigor who presumablynaddressed other questions than slavery.nHis kinship networks united and definedninterests and attitudes in tellingnand hitherto little-considered ways. Innconcentrating on slavery. Bell hasnsometimes noted these facts in vividndetail, but he has not analyzed them ornexplored some of their ramifications innenough depth.nTo view the Butlers through thenprism of slavery is to give focus to ansprawling story. At the same time, itnnecessarily limits and distorts the story.nMajor Butler’s legacy was more complexnthan even the vexatious slaverynissue.nBell’s themes and emphases arenthose of another Georgian, UlrichnBonnell Phillips, who called slaverynand race the “Central Theme ofnSouthern History” in an influentialnarticle which appeared in the AmericannHistorical Review 60 years ago.nBell’s book does not so much supportnas assume Phillips’ argument to relate anremote, if often dramatic and important,nfamily history to the preoccupationsnand assumptions of the late 20thncentury. This he has done so well thatnyou almost forget to note how exceptionalnthe Buders were in their connectionsnand behavior as well as wealthnand slaveholdings.nThe Buder drama is compelling,nless for its moral import than for itsnscope and players — from GeorgenWashington to Henry James. Clearly,nin this year of the bicentennial ofnSouth Carolina’s ratification of the USnConstitution, such family links to thenFounding Fathers claim our attention.nThe chain may be tarnished, but it isnvital.nDavid Moltke-Hansen is director ofnthe South Carolina Historical Society.nThe Dinosaurnby fames L. SauernPresent Concerns by C.S. Lewis,nedited by Walter Hooper, NewnYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.nLewis was fond of referring to himselfnas an Old Western Man, one of ansoon-to-be-extinct species: a veritablendinosaur. As a classically educatednmember of the Anglo-Irish middle class,none born at the turn of the century, hisnopinions to most modernists must certainlynappear Paleolithic. He was not anpolitical man, seldom read the papers,nand thought Tito was king of Greece.nHis political opinions, when he didnexpress.them, might be labeled “cottagenconservatism.” His was a pure rightismnborn of political ignorance and a rightlynordered heart. His private life at thenKilns, with brother and friends, reflectednthe highest order of conservativenliving: oblivious privacy, personal piety,nand intermittent intellectual warfarenwith “principalities and powers.” Thesenessays reflect those few times when thendinosaur made war with modernism:nOxfordius Rex versus Mecha-Godzilla.nThe left has already started to pullnthe Old Thing down. At a recentnconference at Seattle and Seattie PacificnUniversities celebrating the achievementnof Lewis and Chesterton, WalternHooper, Lewis’s literary executor, humorouslynrecounted the latest ideologicalnmethod of Lewis criticism calledn”snapping.” (Hugo Dyson, apparently,nfirst labeled this little game of ideologicalntag, based on a children’s card gamenin which one calls “snap” when thenappropriate card is displayed.) The liberalncritic now walks through C.S.nLewis’s work and cries out his impassionedn”snaps” at the slightest sightingnof out-of-favor opinions.n”Snap,” the dinosaur is no pacifist:n”We know from the experience of thenlast 20 years that a terrified and angrynpacifism is one of the roads that lead tonwar.” Maybe it was an aberration.nAfraid not, “snap,” his opinions onnnnnuclear war are even worse: “If we arengoing to be destroyed by the atomicnbomb, let that bomb when it comes findnus doing sensible and human things —npraying, working, teaching, reading, listeningnto music, bathing the children,nplaying tennis, chatting to our friendsnover a pint and a game of darts — notnhuddled together like frightened sheepnand thinking about bombs.”n”Snap” again, the old fuddy-duddy isninsensitive to feminism: “This is thentragi-comedy of the modern woman:ntaught by Freud to consider the act ofnlove the most important thing in life,nand then inhibited by feminism fromnthat internal surrender which alone cannmake it a complete emotional success.”n”Snap,” Lewis is a democrat, but fornthe wrong reasons: “I am a democratnbecause I believe in the Fall of Man . . .nAristotle said that some people werenonly fit to be slaves. I do not contradictnhim. But I reject slavery because I seenno men fit to be masters.”n”Snap, snap, snap, snap …” thengame goes on.nUnlike the Abolition of Man, thisnbook is not a sustained treatment ofnideas. Nor is the collection representativenof his best work. The ideologicaln”snappers,” on the other hand, willnfind something to snap about on almostnany page. The dinosaur, thoughndead, is still dangerous; even when hentwitches a modernist rodent dies.nLewis was in vogue for a period withnAnglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, andnhe still has friends there. Expect him tonget increasingly short shrift, however,nfrom the journalistic and academicnvermin scampering round his literaryncorpse.n]ames L. Sauer is director of library atnEastern College in Pennsylvania.nWhy Italy Runsnby E. Christian KopffnDemocracy Italian Style by JosephnLaPalombara, New Haven: YalenUniversity Press.nAmericans find Italy a paradox. We lovenvacationing in a country with suchndelicious food, friendly people, and sonmany historical and cultural monuments.nIts politics, however, bother us.nDECEMBER 1988 j 37n