the courts which determine the law. To accomplish a European private law by imposition is, in any case, not compatible with the legal Zeitgeist, because it is expression of faith in a centralist political authority: the idea that the European Union able to create uniform law, coupled to legal certainty and predictability, by merely introducing a uniform text, is-as Legrand has noted-a view straight from the Napoleonic era, a legacy of the simplified and mechanistic world view entertained The mere fact that a mandatorily imposed European private law does not accord with the Zeitgeist, is not sufficient reason, of course, to give up the attempt to create a European private law. For further reflection, it is conducive to discuss below the arguments of the most outspoken opponent of a ECC, Pierre Legrand 3. A Successful European Private Law? Legrand, who, being a Canadian, has been privy to the strenuous relations between Anglo-American and continental-European law in his own country, has put forward his uments against a European Civil Code in a number of articles. His most important proposition is that merely drafting uniform rules does not result in uniform lanv. The law is, after all, much more than just formally uniformed rules the meaning of a particular rule in a particular cultural and national context can only be established after studying that context. The legal mentalities within the various cultures are different, after all. They are even irreconcilable in the case of continental and English law Epistemologically, the reasoning in Common Law is inductive with an emphasis on facts and legal precedent; in Civil Law the focus is on systemization. Whereas Civilian lawyers try to fit a legal decision into a logical system, Anglo-American jurists abhor formal rules and consciously choose to shun and counteract continental Civilian influence. This choice derives from unbridgeable differences: an English child is a common-law-lamwyer-in-being long before it even knows whether it will read law. No matter the degree of European legislation, an Englishman will see it with Common Law eyes, a Frenchman with Civilian. This has led Legrand to the poignant conclusion that egal systems(.)have not been converging, are not converging and will not converging Legrand backs up his argument that a uniform text lacking the necessary rationality and morality to effect it, will never lead to uniform law, with a number of Pierre Legrand, Against a European Civil Code, 60 Modern Law Review(1997),59:the idea of a European Civil Code belongs to another era. Europeen, ve loe European legal systems are not converging, 45 International and Pierre Legrand uarterly(1996), 52 ff, same author, ' Sens et non-sens d'un Code Civil Revue internationale de droit Compare(1996), 779 ff, same author, Against a Legrand 1996, at 60, cf. 1997, at 59: Jus is not reducible to lex Legrand 1996, at 74, Legrand 1997, at 46 ff. Legrand 1997, at 51 Legrand 1996, at 61-62 Error! bookmark not definedError! Bookmark not defined. the courts which determine the law. To accomplish a European private law by imposition is, in any case, not compatible with the legal Zeitgeist, because it is an expression of faith in a centralist political authority: the idea that the European Union is able to create uniform law, coupled to legal certainty and predictability, by merely introducing a uniform text, is - as Legrand has noted - a view straight from the Napoleonic era, a legacy of the simplified and mechanistic world view entertained by positivists.18 The mere fact that a mandatorily imposed European private law does not accord with the Zeitgeist, is not sufficient reason, of course, to give up the attempt to create a European private law. For further reflection, it is conducive to discuss below the arguments of the most outspoken opponent of a ECC, Pierre Legrand. 3. A Successful European Private Law? Legrand, who, being a Canadian, has been privy to the strenuous relations between Anglo-American and continental-European law in his own country, has put forward his arguments against a European Civil Code in a number of articles.19 His most important proposition is that merely drafting uniform rules does not result in uniform law. The law is, after all, much more than just formally uniformed rules: the meaning of a particular rule in a particular cultural and national context can only be established after studying that context. The legal mentalités within the various cultures are different, after all.20 They are even irreconcilable in the case of continental and English law. Epistemologically, the reasoning in Common Law is inductive with an emphasis on facts and legal precedent; in Civil Law the focus is on systemization.21 Whereas Civilian lawyers try to fit a legal decision into a logical system, Anglo-American jurists abhor formal rules and consciously choose to shun and counteract continental Civilian influence. This choice derives from unbridgeable differences: an English child is a common-law-lawyer-in-being long before it even knows whether it will read law.22 No matter the degree of European legislation, an Englishman will see it with Common Law eyes, a Frenchman with Civilian. This has led Legrand to the poignant conclusion that `legal systems (...) have not been converging, are not converging and will not be converging.'23 Legrand backs up his argument that a uniform text lacking the necessary rationality and morality to effect it, will never lead to uniform law, with a number of 18 Pierre Legrand, `Against a European Civil Code', 60 Modern Law Review (1997), 59: `the idea of a European Civil Code belongs to another era.' 19 Pierre Legrand, `European legal systems are not converging', 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1996), 52 ff., same author, `Sens et non-sens d'un Code Civil Européen', Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé (1996), 779 ff, same author, `Against a European Civil Code', 60 Modern Law Review (1997), 44 ff. 20 Legrand 1996, at 60, cf. 1997, at 59: `jus is not reducible to lex'. 21 Legrand 1996, at 74, Legrand 1997, at 46 ff. 22 Legrand 1997, at 51. 23 Legrand 1996, at 61-62