THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
his magnum opus, the Conciliengeschichte, the fruit
of years of study (7 vols., Freiburg, 1855-74,
2d ed., vols, i.-vi., viii.-ix., 1873-90; Eng. transl.
of vols. L, ii., and part of iii. — to the Second
Council of Nicava, 7S7 — by W R. Clark, 5 vols.,
Edinburgh, 1883-96). The contents of the work
are as follows : Vol. i. goes to the Synod of Gan-
gra; ii., from 381 to the year 553; iii., to the year
813; iv., to 1073; v., to the year 1250; vi., to the
year 1409; viii., from 1434 to 1520; ix., to
the year 1536. It is universally admired for
the breadth of its survey of the field, and for
the relatively complete use of its material and
unprejudiced historical attitude. The work, of
course, is not everywhere based on
The the same thorough critical examina-
Concilien- tion, and has in places already be-
geschichte. come antiquated. But it marks a
new stage in the study of conciliar
action, which in Hefele 's hands broadened out into
a history of the Church and of the development of
dogma.
The book placed him in the first rank of Roman Catholic scholars, and in 1868 won him a place as consultor on the commission to arrange for the approaching Vatican Council. He spent a part of 1869 in Rome on this business, and The returned thither the next year to take Vatican part in the council as bishop of Rotten- Council, burg. On his arrival in Rome, he at once took a prominent place as a leader of the antimfallibilist minority. His solid learning and his courage did much to hold them together, and he took part in all their important moves, supporting them also by a small book on the question of Honorius published in Naples. It discussed the questions whether Honorius (q.v.) had declared as de fide a heretical proposition ex cathedra, and whether a general council, claiming the right to judge him, had condemned him as a heretic. It attracted great attention, and greatly displeased the majority, calling forth several counterblasts. In the debate of May 17 Hefele delivered an impressive speech, voted non placet in the decisive session of July 13, and supported Haynald's proposal at a meeting of the minority on the 17th to repeat this vote in the public session of the following day; when this fell through, he signed the solemn protest of the minority to the pope, and left Rome before the final vote was taken. The next few months were full of doubt and difficulty for him. He had at first decided not to proclaim the new dogma in his diocese; but at last, after giving up hope of concerted action on the part of the bishops in the minority, and under pressure from the nuncio at Munich and the Ultramontane party in his diocese, he published it on Apr. 10, 1871. He explained his position clearly, saying that he did not regret the stand he had taken at the Council, and expressing a hope that future conciliar treatment of the parts of the program left unfinished might remove the misgivings which had forced him to take it. On the ground that an authoritative exposition of the definition was still lacking, he gave one of his own which softened it as much as possible. His submission was received with bitter
reproaches by the Old Catholics and by others, and unworthy motives were freely imputed. But there is no doubt that it was only the logical outcome of a life devoted to maintaining the unity of the Church, to which he felt bound to bring even this costly sacrifice. His remaining years were spent in untiring work in his diocese, to which he had restored peace by his decision. This left him little time for writing, though he succeeded in completing the revision of the first four volumes for the new edition of his great work, which was completed by the addition of two more volumes by Cardinal Hergenrother. He left behind him in Wurttemberg the memory of an unselfish, lovable personality, revered far beyond the bounds of his own Church.
(A. HEGLERf.) K. HOLL. Bibliography: No complete biography has yet appeared. Consult A. Werfer, in Deutschlands Episkopat in Lebembildern, iv. 2, Wurzburg, 1875; Funk, in TQS, lxxvi. 1 sqq. ; Deutsches Volksblatt, 1893, nos. 127-129 ; and Gruss Gott, vol. x., nos. 4-6. Other phases of Hefele's activities are discussed in: J. Friedrich, Geschichte des vatikanischen Konzils, vol. i.— iii., part 2, Bonn, 1877-87- H. Roth, Dr. K. J. von Hefele, 1894.
HEGEL, he'gel, GEORG WILHELM FRIEDRICH:
German philosopher; b. at Stuttgart Aug. 27, 1770' d. in Berlin Nov. 14, 1831. He studied Life. philosophy and theology at Tubingen 1788-93, and lived as a private tutor, first at Bern 1793-96, then at Frankfort 1797-1801. In 1801 he settled at Jena as lecturer on philosophy in the university, and Schelling's coeditor of the Kritisches Journal der Philosophie. He was at that time fully agreed with Schelling (q.v.); and their journal, of which he wrote the larger part, was the organ of the system of identity— a philosophy which attempted to represent matter and mind, nature and spirit, world and God, as identical. However, this alliance did not last long, and after Schelling's departure for Wurzburg in 1803 it turned into philosophical antagonism. After the battle of Jena (1806), Hegel removed to Bamberg, where for some time he edited the Bamberger Zeitung. From 1808 to 1816 he was rector of the Aegidien gymnasium at Nuremberg. In the latter year he was appointed professor of philosophy at Heidelberg; and in 1818 he was called to Fichte's chair at the University of Berlin. It was here that he made himself the dominant figure in the philosophical world, and established the school of philosophy known as Hegelianism. By his defense of existing political institutions he attained to great political influence in Prussia.
The impression which Hegel made in Germany was at one time almost overpowering. His philosophy swept away all other philosophies, Philosophy, and before he died it began to make itself felt as an actual power both in State and Church. However, four years after his death a controversy was raised among his followers by Strauss's Leben Jesu (Tubingen, 1835), and further embittered by Strauss's Christlichc Glaubenslehre (1840), with the result that the Hegelian school was divided into three groups, called the right, the left, and the center. The adherents of the right (G. A. ( labler, H. T. W Hinrichs, K. T. Goschel) represented supernaturalism ; those of the left (Strauss,