The Last Days of Arius According to "Nicene" (= the Orthodoxy Invented by Theodosius in 381 CE) Sources

Period	Topic	Socrates	Athanasius	Epiphanius	Sozomen	Philostorgius	Theodoret
Background	Background to Arius	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.1 (Greek) Ἄρειος… ἐν χρόνοις Ἀλεξάνδρου… τοῦ καθελόντος τὸν αὐτὸν Ἄρειον διὰ… μεγάλης συνόδου· ἀπεκίνηση καὶ ἐξέβαλε τῆς ἐκκλησίας τε καὶ τῆς πόλεως… φασὶν δὲ αὐτὸν Λίβυν τῷ γένει… πρεσβύτερον… τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς Βαυκάλεως. Arius as Libyan by birth; presbyter of the Baucalis; deposed and expelled by Alexander after a large synod.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Background	Background to Arius (appearance and character)	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.1 ἦν δὲ τὴν ἡλικίαν ὑπερμήκης, κατηφὴς τὸ εἶδος… γλυκὺς ἦν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ… Arius is “very tall,” downcast in look, outwardly gentle and ingratiating in address.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Background	Background to Arius (followers and clergy)	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.1.3–2.1 (Greek) Ἄρειος… ἐν χρόνοις Κωνσταντίνου… ἀποσχίσαι πλῆθος· ἑπτακοσίας παρθενεύουσας… πρεσβυτέρους ἑπτά, διακόνους δώδεκα… Σεκοῦνδον Πενταπόλεως καὶ ἄλλους ἐπισκόπους ἔπεισεν. Arius draws a large following “700 virgins,” names clergy and bishops (Secundus of Pentapolis, etc.) who joined him.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Background to the Arian conflict – Alexandrian parish structure	n/a	n/a	«ὅσαι γὰρ ἐκκλησίαι… ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ὑπὸ ἕνα ἀρχιεπίσκοπον…»; «Διονυσίου… Θεωνᾶ… Πιερίου… Σεραπίωνος… Ἀννιανοῦ… ἡ τῆς Βαυκάλεως… καὶ ἄλλαι.» Alexandria has many titled congregations (Dionysius, Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Annianus, Baucalis, etc.) each with its own presbyter, all under a single archbishop; local “quarters/lanes” (ἀμφόδοι/λαυραί) define parish bases.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Background – Diocletian–Maximian persecution and rise of Meletius	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 3.141–3.142 (Greek): Μελιτιανῶν τι τάγμα… ἀπὸ Μελιτίου… ἐπισκόπου… ἐπὶ τοῦ διωγμοῦ… Melitian party arises from Meletius, bishop in the Thebaid, contemporary with Peter of Alexandria, during the persecution. Frames Meletius as orthodox in faith but author of schism; dramatic prison scene with cloak as “divider” between Peter’s party and Meletius’s stricter line on the lapsed.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Peter made “pope” over Meletius / Melitian schism in Latin tradition	n/a	Latin dossier: Peter of Alexandria deposes Meletius for sacrificing during persecution; Meletius stripped of dignity yet gathers followers and becomes leader of the Melitians. He claims he was wronged and loads Peter with reproaches.	«ἀπὸ τῆς προειρημένης ὑποθέσεως τῶν Μελιτιανῶν…»; «Μελίτιος… δοκῶν εἶναι καὶ αὐτὸς ἀρχιεπίσκοπος…» Epiphanius treats the Melitians as the standing factional machinery that later amplifies the Arian dispute.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Party of Meletius establishes separate “church of martyrs”	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 3.143 (Greek): Μελίτιος… καθίστα κληρικούς… καὶ ᾠκοδόμει ἐκκλησίας ἰδίας… οἱ μὲν… “ἐκκλησία καθολική”, οἱ δὲ… “ἐκκλησία μαρτύρων”. Meletius ordains clergy and builds “churches of the martyrs,” distinct from the “Catholic Church”; inscriptions distinguish communities; spread into Palestine (Eleutheropolis, Gaza, Aelia).	Sozomen implies Arius was aligned with the Melitian faction while still presbyter of St Mark’s Church in Boucolia; also notes Meletius’s party as a factor in later Arian-Melitian alliance.	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Pope Peter (outsider to St Mark’s Church) visits and is killed near martyrium	n/a	Martyrdom of Peter: Peter of Alexandria, not from the Baucalis line, visits and is martyred near the martyrium of St Mark (details from the passion-literature) – used to frame his position relative to Boucolia.	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Pre-Arian	Factions in Alexandrian presbyterate: Colluthus, Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius: «ἐν μιᾷ… Κόλλουθός… ἐν ἑτέρᾳ Καρπώνης, ἐν ἄλλῃ Σαρματᾶς, καὶ Ἄρειος…»; «ἕκαστος… ἐν ταῖς ἐξηγήσεσιν ἔριν τινὰ ἐνέβαλον…». Multiple presbyters in different city churches cultivate distinct exegetical lines and personal followings—proto-parties form around each name.	n/a	n/a	n/a
Post-Peter	Confusion after Peter’s martyrdom; Meletius vs. Achillas and Alexander	n/a	n/a	n/a	Sozomen: After Peter’s death, Melitius transfers his abuse first to Achillas and then to Alexander; in the subsequent dispute about Arius, Melitians side with Arius, conspiring against Alexander. Those who regard Arius’s opinion as untenable justify Alexander’s decision and deem his followers rightly condemned.	n/a	n/a
Early conflict	c. 318–319 – Arius as presbyter of St Mark’s Church (Baucalis); origins of dispute	n/a	n/a	n/a	Sozomen: Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria under Alexander, skilled in dialectic and highly esteemed, reacts against what he thinks is Alexander’s Sabellian tendency by teaching that the Son was made from non-existents, that “there was when he was not,” that he was created and changeable. Sozomen stresses that Alexander initially tolerates discussion and only later sides with the consubstantial party, ejecting Arius when he refuses to recant.	n/a	n/a
Early conflict	c. 319–321 – Spread of controversy through Egypt, Libya, Thebaid	Socrates HE 1.5–1.6: Quarrel begins in Alexandria when Bishop Alexander gives a speculative discourse; Arius contradicts; Alexander convenes a local synod; Arius is deposed and excommunicated; letters spread the dispute through Egypt, Libya, and the Upper Thebaid; Eusebius of Nicomedia emerges as chief external supporter.	n/a	n/a	Sozomen 1.15–1.16 broadly parallels Socrates but adds color on Alexander’s initial hesitation and the popularity of Arius’s doctrine among both clergy and laity, contributing to the speed of the spread.	n/a	n/a
Early conflict	Who caused the division in Alexandria	n/a	n/a	Epiphanius: Μελίτιος… ἀνήνεγκε… τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἄρειον… Ἀλέξανδρος… ἀνέτασιν… ἐξεοῖ αὐτὸν τῆς ἐκκλησίας… Melitios informs Alexander; Alexander convenes inquiry and proclaims Arius excommunicated. Epiphanius also reports the story of a presbyter nicknamed Baucalis who, being second in honor after Arius, instigates contention between Alexander and Arius, leading to the homoousios proclamation.	n/a	n/a	Theodoret, HE 1.4–1.5, preserves Athanasius’s line that the Fathers speak “from Scripture” while Arians bring in unscriptural words “as if from a dung-heap,” and uses this to frame the Arian vocabulary as foreign to the Alexandrian tradition—an indirect judgment on the faction behind Arius.
Alexandrian synod	c. 320–321 – Synod at Alexandria and excommunication of Arius	Socrates HE 1.6: Synod at Alexandria debates twice; no agreement; Alexander finally sides with those affirming the Son is consubstantial and co-eternal; Arius refuses to comply; Alexander ejects Arius and a circle of presbyters and deacons; many people side with Arius either from conviction or sympathy.	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.2–3 (Greek): Ἀλέξανδρος… μεταστειλάμενος ἐπυνθάνετο· Ἄρειος ἀναιδῶς ἐξέμεσεν τὴν κακοδοξίαν… συγκαλεῖται τὸ πρεσβυτέριον… ἐκκήρυκτον ποιεῖ ἐν τῇ πόλει. Alexander questions Arius; presbyterium convened; Arius formally excommunicated and proclaimed expelled in the city.	Sozomen 1.15–1.16: Parallel to Socrates, with added emphasis on Alexander’s initial forbearance, then final decision for the homoousios side; lists clergy expelled with Arius.	n/a	Theodoret HE 1.3–1.4 echoes the Alexandrian synod as the first formal condemnation of Arius and stresses that the bishops judged his teaching as alien to the apostolic faith inherited from Dionysius and Peter.
After expulsion	Arius’s letter-campaign and Palestinian support	Socrates HE 1.5–1.7, 1.9: Notes dueling letters; Arius’s collected letters and Alexander’s replies later used by parties; mentions a Bithynian synod of Arius’s allies.	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.4–6 (Greek): Φυγὴ εἰς Παλαιστίνην· ἐπιστολὰς ἐγκυκλίους πρὸς ἐπισκόπους ἑβδομήκοντα… preserves Arius’s letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia; stresses the propaganda circuit.	Sozomen 1.15–1.17: Details the Palestinian ruling: Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis allow Arius and his circle to assemble and order him to seek reconciliation with Alexander; explains Alexandrian custom of one city-bishop with presbyters “having their own church.”	Philostorgius inserts, before Nicaea, a Nicomedia synod where Alexander meets Hosius and other bishops; the homoousios line wins and Arius is excluded—an Arian alternative strand preserved via Photius.	Theodoret, HE 1.7–1.8 focuses more on Alexander’s encyclical against Arius than on the Palestinian accommodation, but still notes Arius’s attempts to gain external backing.
Imperial reaction	Constantine’s first intervention via Hosius	Socrates HE 1.7–1.8: Constantine, distressed by the quarrel, sends Hosius of Cordova with a letter urging Alexander and Arius to drop curious speculations and restore peace; he wants unity more than doctrinal precision at this stage.	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.9 (Greek): Alexander writes to Constantine; Constantine interrogates Arius; Constantine’s encyclical against Arius with incipit «Κωνσταντῖνος… Ἀρείῳ καὶ Ἀρειανοῖς· κακὸς ἑρμηνεὺς…» Epiphanius couples this with the Passover dispute and presents Hosius as envoy for both issues.	Sozomen 1.16–1.17: Expands Socrates—Hosius’s mandate covers both the Egyptian doctrinal fight and the Paschal question; includes more detail on Constantine’s disappointment with their “minute researches.”	n/a	Theodoret HE 1.7 emphasizes Constantine’s zeal for ecclesiastical concord and the emperor’s shock that disputes over “words” disturb the church, preparing the narrative for Nicaea.
325	Council of Nicaea – narrative and mechanics	Socrates HE 1.8–1.9: Council convened at Nicaea; creed with homoousios and anathemas; Arius and allies condemned and exiled; Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais share his fate; emphasizes unanimity in synodical letter.	n/a	Epiphanius, Panarion 69 gives a compressed narrative of the council, stressing the Nicene victory and Constantine’s anti-Arian encyclicals.	Sozomen 1.17–1.21: Richer color; Arius explicitly summoned and examined; about 320 bishops present; creed and Pascha decision; dramatic anecdotes (Acesius “ladder,” Paphnutius on marriage, burning of petitions); seventeen initially on Arius’s side, most yielding later.	Philostorgius (via Photius) offers an Arian-leaning counter-story that downplays homoousios and blames imperial pressure for the formula’s adoption; he preserves pro-Arian sympathies and alternative readings of the debates.	Theodoret HE 1.8–1.12 gives a pro-Nicene theological reading of Nicaea, highlighting the scriptural case for homoousios and Constantine’s pious role; he leans on Athanasius’s accounts when narrating the creed and anathemas.
Post-Nicaea (325–328)	Recall of Eusebius and Theognis; standing of homoousios	Socrates HE 1.14, 1.23: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis send a libellus of repentance, are recalled, and regain sees; Socrates stresses they subscribed to Nicene faith but resisted Arius’s personal condemnation; infers Arius had been recalled before them though barred from Alexandria.	Athanasius, De Decretis / Ep. ad Afros: brands Arian terminology as words “found as if from a dung-heap” (ὡς ἐκ κοπρίας εὕροντες); uses γνώμων Διονυσίου to defend Nicene reading of earlier Alexandrian bishops.	Epiphanius draws on this anti-Arian vocabulary when he later caricatures “Borborites” and other filth-branded sects, using κοπρία/βόρβορος language to tie doctrine to impurity.	Sozomen 2.21–2.23: Adds stories of bribed notary erasing signatures, the “robe” analogy, and reports that Meletians in Egypt came to be called “Arians” as their doctrine aligned with Arius.	Philostorgius presents Eusebius and Theognis as confessors of the true doctrine who suffered unjust exile and were vindicated by recall; he downplays any real repentance or change of mind.	Theodoret HE 1.9–1.10 treats their recall more suspiciously, as the beginning of renewed intrigues against Athanasius and Nicene orthodoxy.
Post-Nicaea	Rise of Athanasius; Melitian and Arian plotting	Socrates HE 1.27–1.35: Tracks charges against Athanasius (Arsenius’s “severed hand,” broken chalice, linen levies, grain accusation), Synod of Tyre, Athanasius’s appeal to Constantine, exile to Trier; stresses procedural mechanics and legal-synodal process.	Athanasius, Hist. Ar. and Apologia Contra Arianos: presents himself as victim of Eusebian and Melitian conspiracy; reads all proceedings as attempts to overturn Nicaea via attacks on its chief defender.	Epiphanius mainly uses Athanasius as a heroic Nicene; he does not dwell on the details of Tyre but assumes Athanasius’s innocence and frames his sufferings as martyr-like.	Sozomen 2.21–2.25: Adds cloak-and-dagger details on hiding Arsenius, arrests and confessions, Constantine’s protective letters, and the staged exposure of the woman accuser; also notes Meletius’s deathbed nomination of John (Archaph) against Nicaea’s settlement.	Philostorgius flips the script, casting the Eusebian party and their councils as legitimate and Athanasius as an obstinate troublemaker, though his fragments here are thinner than Socrates/Sozomen.	Theodoret HE 1.31–1.36 follows Athanasius closely, treating Tyre and subsequent exiles as persecutions of a champion of the Son’s equality with the Father.
c. 332–336	Campaign to reinstate Arius; imperial summons and “repentance”	Socrates HE 1.23–1.27: Details Eusebius’s threats to Athanasius, Constantine’s letter summoning Arius, Arius’s written “repentance/faith,” Socrates’s judgment that it feigns agreement with Nicaea; Athanasius refuses to admit him in Alexandria.	Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 2.1–2: Constantine warns Arius that if he swears falsely, God will judge him; Athanasius uses this to frame the later death as divine punishment.	Epiphanius presupposes this background when narrating the Constantinople episode; he is more interested in the judgment-death than the nuances of Arius’s written formula.	Sozomen 2.29–2.30: Arius recalled, attempts reconciliation at Alexandria and fails, then goes to Constantinople seeking communion; Sozomen preserves Athanasius’s oath narrative and stresses the perjury-judgment motif.	Philostorgius portrays Arius’s formulas as genuinely orthodox and sees his recall as a partial victory overturned only by his suspicious death.	Theodoret HE 1.13–1.14 reprises the Athanasian reading that Arius’s professions were deceptive and that God unmasked him by the manner of his death.
336	Death of Arius – location, manner, and meaning	Socrates HE 1.38: Near the Forum of Constantine a violent relaxation of the bowels causes Arius’s rectum and entrails to pour out; he dies immediately. Socrates underscores Bishop Alexander’s fasting and prayer and treats the shameful death as providential confirmation of Nicaea.	Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 3.1–3: Arius examined; swears an oath; Constantine leaves judgment to God if he perjures himself. Arius later goes to the latrine, “falls headlong, bursts in the middle, and dies.” Athanasius explicitly links the scene to divine judgment and echoes Acts 1:18 on Judas.	Epiphanius, Panarion 69.10 (Greek): Ἀλέξανδρος… δι’ ὅλης τῆς ἡμέρας… καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς… εὐχόμενος…; Arius hurries out by night “μέχρι τοῦ ἀφεδρῶνος” and is found seated inside, “λακήσας καὶ ἔκπνους γεγονώς.” Epiphanius layers Gospel “latrine” imagery (ἀφεδρών) with the rare verb λακάω and “vomiting out” bad faith, turning the death into an acted exegesis of Mt 15:17 / Mk 7:19 and Acts 1:18.	Sozomen 2.29–2.30: Repeats the public-privy death but calls it a “public place set apart for emergencies” rather than using ἀφεδρών; reports competing explanations (divine judgment, natural collapse, magic) and notes later memory of the shunned seat and an Arian’s purchase of the property to erase the stigma.	Philostorgius (fragment via Photius) preserves Arian attempts to blame sorcery for Arius’s death and to downplay its miraculous character, reflecting intra-Arian discomfort with the story’s anti-Arian use.	Theodoret HE 1.14–1.15 follows the Athanasius–Socrates line, stressing the parallel to Judas and the fittingness of a death “equal to the filth which flowed from his mouth,” reinforcing the βόρβορος/κοπρία register in anti-Arian rhetoric.