Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/159

123 NAPOLEON AND HIS CODE 123 to construct a framework upon which he and others could labor by dissecting, discussing, testing and remodelling so as to fit modern conditions. Following the same policy he directed the draft to be sent next to the judiciary for comment and criticism to be submitted within three months. This done, the instrument was submitted for examination and revision to the legislative section of the Council of State, and then to the whole Council, where Napoleon's direct participation commenced. NAPOLEON'S PART In the opinion of Professor Esmein^^ "the part that Napoleon took in framing it [the Code] was not very important" and "in- teresting as his observations occasionally are, he cannot be con- sidered as a serious collaborator in this great work." But the same author states that, "in the discussions of the general assembly of the council of state that Napoleon took part, in 97 cases out of 102 in the capacity of chairman" ^^ and it seems clear from this that his share in the process of codification was by no means formal or perfunctory — much less a nominal one like Justinian's. More- over other critics, even if unfriendly to Napoleon, are disposed to place a higher estimate upon the value of his labors in this con- nection. One'*" of them summarizes Napoleon's direct contribu- tions to the subject matter of the Code as including the articles governing the civil status of soldiers (Arts. 93-98) and aliens (Arts. II, 726, 912), the latter being discriminatory, and the systems of adoption and divorce by mutual consent. But his influence extended much farther. A none too friendly critic^ observes: ".. .his contributions to the discussion were a series of splendid surprises, occasionally appropriate and decisive, occasionally involved in the gleaming tissues of a dream, but always stamped with the mark of genius and glowing with the impulses of a fresh and impetuous temper- ament. " 6 Encyclopaedia Britannica, ii ed., 634. " Id. Mr. Rose (40 Am. L. Rev. 832, 850) speaks of "102 sessions, over 57 of which he presided," while the Cambridge Modern History (Vol. IX, 151) mentions 35 out of 87.
 * " I Continental Legal History Series, 288.
 * ^ H. A. L. Fisher in 9 Cambridge Modern History, 151, 164.