Two centuries on, Napoleon’s Civil Code still defines many aspects of French life—and influences legal systems from Louisiana to Lithuania.

Exhibits, lectures, books, scholarly reviews.... This year has seen a flurry of tributes as academics celebrate the bicentennial of an institution that quietly regulates the everyday lives of the French. That institution is the Civil Code, which since 1804 has governed the relationships among private citizens and offered mechanisms for resolving their disputes, be they commercial or familial. Long known as the Napoleonic Code, it was named after the leader who conceived it and who actively participated in its drafting, initially as first consul and later as self-proclaimed emperor.
    Generations of history students have faced the classic exam question: “Did Napoleon carry on the French Revolution that began in 1789 or did he subvert it? Were his actions in line with the political ideals that overthrew the monarchy or did he undermine them by installing an imperial dictatorship?” The answer, of course, is all of the above. The Civil Code, Napoleon’s proudest achievement and most enduring legacy, is a perfect example: It stipulated that there was only one law of the land, and that everyone—regardless of social standing or religion—was equal before it. Yet at the same time, it repealed many of the freedoms won during the Revolution—married women, for instance, saw their rights reduced to those of minors or the insane. While in many ways liberating, the Code nevertheless put the interests of society and the State before those of the individual.
    Napoleon did not invent the concept of a legal code; that distinction goes to the Roman Emperor Justinian, who in the 6th century included such a document in his Corpus Juris Civilis. And of course, not all of the Civil Code’s original 2,281 articles have survived. Many of them were very much a product of the era, and some, particularly those regarding the family, even reflected Napoleon’s personal views. (He knew he couldn’t have children with Josephine, and while drafting the Code was setting the stage for either their divorce or her repudiation.) But Napoleon did succeed in his ambition to build an enduring work, a Code that would be the defining architecture of France’s institutions, then in post-revolutionary turmoil.
    Indeed, it has outlasted even France’s most adversarial regimes and to this day remains the law of the land. French citizens can pick up a copy of the familiar little red book at their local librairie, buy it on CD-ROM or download it from the Internet. And its success—not only in France but also throughout much of Europe, South America, Africa and Asia—has helped make civil law, along with common law and socialist law, among the most influential legal traditions in the world.
    FRANCE Magazine recently spoke with Professor Jean-Louis Halpérin, a legal historian and one of the organizers of the Comité de Célébration du Bicentenaire du Code Civil, about the impact and continuing influence of Napoleon’s magnum opus.

What are the major innovations of Napoleon's Civil Code?
First and foremost, the Code had a profoundly unifying effect on French law. Before the Revolution, laws were different from one province to another. The North followed customs dating back to the Middle Ages, while Roman Law dominated in the South. Moreover, certain matters—marriage, for example—were regulated by canon law, established by the Church. Still other issues were resolved directly by the king.
    Then the French Revolution imposed the idea that the law should be uniform and equal for all. The Code of 1804 is therefore based on the concept of a legal system that’s identical for everyone. It made a clean break with everything that had come before. Such a sweeping overhaul was not typical of that period; the Prussians, for example, had drawn up a new code 10 years earlier, but it contained elements of Roman Law.
    Napoleon’s new Code notably established the concept of equal rights, the abolition of aristocratic privileges, the eradication of feudalism and the separation of religion and the law. Indeed, the Civil Code—unlike other European legal systems of the day—never refers to God, but it does guarantee religious tolerance.

So the Civil Code flowed directly from the ideals of the Revolution?
Yes and no. It also ran counter to the Revolution—in some respects, it was authoritarian, conservative, even reactionary.
    This was particularly true of family law, which was heavily paternalistic and strengthened the power of the husband—married women had no legal rights whatsoever. The institution of divorce was maintained but with considerable restrictions; it would be granted rarely and only as an extreme measure. Women couldn’t resort to divorce simply to escape the confines of marriage.
    Overall, though, the Code was designed to place individuals into a structure, to re-create a social fabric that was damaged by the Revolution but that benefited the State and was regulated by the State.

Was the Code applied swiftly throughout France?
Yes, for the most part. There was only weak local resistance in a few regions. In the South and in the Pyrenees, for instance, some people contested the new inheritance rules, which divided property equally among offspring. But by the 1830s, that resistance had faded away. The Civil Code was largely perceived as liberating and didn’t arouse general resistance. Moreover, proof that the nation had been united could be seen in the fact that the Code was never translated into regional languages.
    It’s a text that sets forth general principles and doesn’t contain a single superfluous word. People quickly understood that judges would apply these laws to the letter. But at the same time—and this may seem paradoxical—there was also room for judicial interpretation. The Revolution had developed a court system and created the Cour de Cassation, or Supreme Court; jurisprudence thus moved forward along with the Code.

What accounted for the immediate adoption of the Code throughout early 19th-century Europe?
The explanation is, quite simply, French imperialism. Many territories were annexed during the Revolution and the Empire, with French rule extending to Belgium, Italy and part of Germany. French laws, including the Civil Code, were introduced in all of these places. And no local versions were drawn up; at the most, translations were tolerated, as in Italy where it became the codice napoleone.
    That worked particularly well in vassal states ruled by Napoleon’s brothers—Joseph in the Kingdom of Naples, Jérôme in Westphalia, Louis in Holland…. But while the Code was maintained in Europe through the strength of arms, it also began to take root through the strength of conviction and the free flow of ideas. It was clear, well written and easily transposable from country to country. For that reason, it was retained in all the territories that ceased being French in 1814 after Napoleon’s defeat. It’s interesting to note that when the Belgians seceded from the Netherlands in 1830, they kept the French Civil Code—and didn’t replace the word “French” with “Belgian” until 1945! They still use the French Civil Code today, although of course the changes they have made to it during the past two centuries aren’t the same as those made in France.

So the Code was welcomed in the foreign countries where it was imposed?
It was often supported by the local bourgeoisie because it was synonymous with freedom—it upheld the freedom to start a business, established the role of the contract, gave hallowed status to private property. Resistance came more often from the peasant class, which feared the division of property.
    In Poland, for example, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw applied the Civil Code throughout the 19th century. The Poles welcomed it because it was a way for them to distinguish themselves from their Russian rulers—even though their Code was translated from French into Russian! But the Catholic Church managed to exclude every aspect of the Code dealing with secularization—the institution of civil marriage, divorce and so on.
    In Germany, the Code was the subject of ongoing debate among legal scholars. England, which had a tradition of common law, rejected the idea of a civil code, but we owe the very word “codification” to Jeremy Bentham, the British legal scholar and philosopher.

Like England, the United States also opted for common law.
Yes, although Louisiana initially had a Civil Code as did the area known as Lower Canada (present-day Quebec). Louisiana’s history is a bit complicated: France sold it to the United States in 1803, but it didn’t become a state until 1810, and its legal system was influenced not only by the French but also by the Spanish. In 1808, Louisiana adopted a French-language Civil Code inspired by the Napoleonic Code, but it was applied sparingly and was revised in 1825 and 1870.
    Other American states also considered adopting a civil code. California raised the issue in the mid-1800s, initially rejected it, then finally adopted a code in 1872. It soon fell into disuse, however. In New York, legal scholar David Dudley Field sparked a debate by proposing several codes of civil procedure. A Criminal Code was adopted in 1881, and a Civil Code was passed but was vetoed by the state governor.
    That represented a victory for the legal profession over the legislative branch of government. Lawyers didn’t want a code, which they sometimes saw as taking democracy too far—they preferred a legal system they themselves could develop. But a theoretical debate on the subject continued up to 1900 with the so-called “legal realism” movement. Even those who opposed codification were at least somewhat familiar with the Napoleonic Code, and French legal literature played a role in the debate.

What are the major differences between common law and civil law?
The main difference is the way in which legal standards are established. Common law is based on precedent; it is developed by court decisions, and texts are always subject to legal interpretation. In civil law countries, you have a text—the Civil Code—that the courts are obliged to uphold. It’s a more abstract, less procedural and also less pragmatic kind of law.

Does this make for fundamental differences between common law and civil law countries?
Fundamental differences don’t stem from the fact that you have or don’t have a code. The two systems can in fact have similar principles; the main difference is methodology. The actual content of the laws can vary among civil law countries just as it can among common law countries.
    Civil Code countries and the American legal system also have something in common: The U.S. Constitution has served as a basic law for more than two centuries, and its interpretation by the courts can be compared to what happens in France with the Civil Code. For legal historians, these are both fundamental texts that have been maintained for more than two centuries; of course, changing times and the changing role of the courts have made adaptations inevitable.

It seems that contract law varies the most from one system to the other.
That’s true. Civil law is inspired by Roman law and by a theoretical system constructed by German legal scholars; the result is a theory of obligations and contracts that is foreign to common law countries. Trusts, for example, are typical of common law countries and difficult to transpose to civil law countries.
    Another example is something called a “guarantee from hidden flaws.” In civil law countries, this means that the seller must guarantee that the item being sold has no flaws or structural defects. In common law countries, it’s the buyer’s responsibility to keep his eyes open; he can’t complain if he purchases, say, a sick horse, because it’s assumed that he probably got the horse for a better price, and in any case, he should have had the horse checked first. In civil code countries, such things can be used against the seller.

How much of Napoleon’s Civil Code remains intact?
In France, about half of the articles remain as originally written—particularly those relating to property and contracts. Everything pertaining to the family has of course been modified to accommodate the many changes in mentality and standards of behavior that have occurred since Napoleon’s day. That’s the case, for example, as regards divorce and, more generally, everything relating to the wife’s role vis-à-vis her husband.

And abroad?
Outside of Europe, there isn’t much left of the Napoleonic Code. A few traces remain in Louisiana, but in 1994, Quebec adopted a new Code that is quite different from the French Napoleonic model—particularly in the areas of contract law and individual rights. Romania too has just adopted a new Code—but it enlisted the help of Canadian experts. Russia, meanwhile, has had a new Civil Code since 1995, but the influence of French law on it is negligible.

How then do you see its future?
Our own Civil Code has become something of a patchwork. It is now composed of original, revised and new articles. Moreover, new codes—regulating labor, the environment and other areas—have also been introduced. Add to that the fact that we now have more and more international and European regulations and you can see how the Code’s influence is being progressively diluted. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it is quite normal. We may, however, eventually see the emergence of a European Code, and I believe the French could make a significant contribution to such a document.
For further information about the Civil Code as well as a listing of anniversary events, visit bicentenaireducodecivil.fr.