ARIANESIMO. – This is the great heresy of the fourth century. Its doctrine and history are very complex; consequently, the treatment will be divided into two parts: a doctrinal exposition and a historical compendium.
#### DOCTRINAL EXPOSITION.
SUMMARY:
I. The doctrine of Arius and its origins
II. The various forms of Arianism after the Council of Nicaea (325)
III. Macedonianism
IV. Arianism among the Germanic peoples
V. Arianism in modern times.1. THE DOCTRINE OF ARIUS AND ITS ORIGINS
Arius (v.) was a well-known priest of Alexandria, already advanced in age, when, around 320, he began to teach the heresy to which he gave his name. This heresy consists essentially in denying the dogma of the Trinity, the dogma of one divine essence subsisting in three persons truly distinct from one another, coeternal, equal in all things, united through relations of origin: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To this Trinity, which specifically characterizes the Christian religion, Arius opposes his doctrine, which recognizes a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit; but only the Father is truly God, the one God, infinite, eternal, ungenerated, that is, uncreated (ἀγέννητος ὁ ἀγέννητος: the two terms being taken by him as synonyms). The second person, called the Word or Son, is not truly God: he is a pure creature, brought forth from nothing, like everything that is created (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγον), the first of the creatures of the one God, the most excellent, produced by him to serve as his instrument in the creation of the other beings, the intermediary between him and the world. The Word is not eternal: there was a time when he did not exist (ἦν ποτς, ὅτε οὐκ ἦν). But he is prior to time and prior to the ages (ἀχρόνως, πρὸ αἰώνων), since time and the ages begin only with the world. He is not a son by nature but by grace and adoption (κατὰ χάριν). God adopted him in anticipation of his merits, because he was mutable and fallible. His impeccability is nothing more than an impeccability of fact. He may be called God, but only in the sense in which Scripture calls the just by that name. In reality, he is not truly God. He progressed in virtue and merit and thus made himself worthy of the very name that God the Father and the Church bestowed upon him. He is a kind of demiurge, foreign and wholly unlike the substance and person of the Father. As for the third person, the Holy Spirit, Arius speaks little of him in the fragments of his writings that have come down to us. He too is not God, since he is merely a creature far beneath the Word. “He is the first production of the Word,” his faithful disciples would say later.Essentially antitrinitarian, the error of Arius also undermines at its foundations the mystery of the Incarnation and that of Redemption, since it was a creature, the Word, and not God, who became incarnate. And Arius understands the word incarnate in its etymological sense: the Word assumed from human nature only the flesh, not the rational soul. He did not truly become man (σαρκωθείς, οὐκ ἐνανθρωπήσας). The Arian Redeemer is only half man, just as he is only half God.
The origin of Arianism, rather than in certain phrases of a subordinatianist character (v. SUBORDINATIANISM) found in some Apologist Fathers, should be sought in the Antiochene School, where the tradition of Paul of Samosata was alive. From the beginning of the controversy, Arius presented himself as a disciple of the martyred priest of Antioch, s. Lucian (d. in 312). The first Arians called themselves followers of the latter. Whether rightly or wrongly, it is difficult to answer with certainty. On the strength of a vague passage in a letter from s. Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake Alexander of Byzantium, s. Lucian was made a disciple of Paul of Samosata who had remained for a long time in rupture with the Church. But some recent critics, such as F. Loofs, G. Bardy, and others, distinguish between the martyr and the disciple of Paul mentioned by s. Alexander (G. Bardy, Recherches sur s. Lucien d'Antioche et son école, Paris 1936, pp. 50–59). The doubt therefore remains as to whether s. Lucian was the true father of Arianism. Indeed, it is difficult to deny that he taught at least a verbal subordinatianism like that of Origen and that, in his teaching on the divinity of the Word, he used ambiguous expressions which Arius and the other “collucianists,” such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, would have pressed to their ultimate logical consequences. Arius may have been the first to put them into circulation.
Derived from subordinatianism, Arianism consequently has affinities with Platonism, especially with that of Philo. The system also recalls, in a certain sense, the aeons of the Gnostics. From Arianotelism, certain later leaders of the sect, such as Aetius and Eunomius, drew above all the dialectical method; this led s. Epiphanius to regard them as “new Arianotelists” (De haeresibus, LXIX, LXXVI: PG, 42, 315–570).
II. THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF A. AFTER THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. — The doctrine of Arius, which we have set forth, constitutes authentic Arianism, which was Nicaea (v.). Alongside this Arianism there soon arose what may be called political Arianism, expressed in various formulas, more or less reticent and more or less ambiguous, capable of being interpreted in an orthodox as well as in a heretical sense. Most of these were proposed to the emperors by Arians more or less in disguise, who aimed to demolish the doctrinal authority of the first ecumenical Council, under the pretext of establishing concord among the bishops and religious unity in the Roman Empire, which had officially become Christian. This multiplicity of formulas would not have existed if the emperors had adhered to what had been decided at Nicaea by the great majority of the episcopate, in agreement with the Pope. Unfortunately for the Church, the first Christian emperors, namely Constantine and Constantius II—one must note that neither of them was baptized until on his deathbed, and then by Arians—wished to dogmatize by seeking to replace the bishop of Rome, head of the Church and regulator of its unity, and thus became the plaything of intriguing or vindictive prelates. In 359, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the great champion of orthodoxy, was already collecting twelve creeds of this kind, and there were still others after that date.
At this time, that is, toward the end of the reign of Constantius II, the more or less declared adversaries of the Council of Nicaea and of the formula it had canonized—“The Son of God is of the substance of the Father, consubstantial with the Father” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας Πατρός, ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρὶ)—were divided into three distinct groups:
A) First there was a small number of pure Arians, who were the first to have the audacity to attack the Nicene creed directly, taking up on their own account the most radical formulas of Arius. Like him, they declared that the Son of God, the Word, was wholly unlike the Father (ἀνόμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα).
Their great teacher was Aëtius of Antioch, a specialist in Aristotelian dialectic. Later, Eudoxius of Constantinople and Eunomius of Cyzicus became prominent in their ranks. They were called Anomoeans (from the Greek ἀνόμοιος) and for a time (357–358) succeeded in winning the favor of Constantius. At an episcopal assembly held at Sirmium during the summer of 357, in which three Anomoean bishops—Germinius of Sirmium, Valens of Mursa, and Ursacius of Singidunum—were the moving spirits, a formula was drafted in which the Son was declared inferior to and subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit was said to exist through the Son. It prohibited the use of the terms substance (ὀσία) and consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος). This was the second formula of Sirmium—which they succeeded in having signed by the aged bishop of Córdoba, Hosius—which for a time, according to Constantius’s will, served as the badge of imperial orthodoxy. The Anomoeans also received the names of Aëtians, Eunomians, Heterousians, and Exoucontians. They represent radical Arianism, that of Arius in the first period.
B) Then there was the group of the semi-Arians, also called Homoiousians or Homoeusians, who, instead of calling the Word consubstantial with the Father in essence (ὁμοούσιος), simply called him similar to the Father in essence (ὁμοούσιος). Their first leader was Basil of Ancyra, who, at a council held at Ancyra in 358, drew up a formula in this sense and was fortunate enough to have it adopted by the emperor Constantius, who abandoned the creed of the Anomoeans that he had shortly before approved. At Basil’s instigation, he even went so far as to exile the principal Anomoeans.
Most of the Homoiousians were, in the final analysis, orthodox regarding the divinity of the Word, and differed from Catholics only in the term ὁμοούσιος, which they substituted for the Nicene ὁμοούσις, in which they detected a Sabellian flavor. It may also be said that the bulk of the Arians were of this type. St. Hilary and St. Athanasius showed themselves conciliatory toward them. A great many of them, however, soon compromised themselves by refusing to acknowledge the divinity of the Holy Spirit and falling into what was called the Pneumatomachian heresy, or Macedonianism. They rightly deserved the name semi-Arians, because, while acknowledging the true divinity of the Son, they denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
C) A third group consisted of those who simply affirmed that the Son was similar to the Father (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ), without specifying anything further. Homoeanism was an invention of the true Arians to destroy the credit of the Homoiousians with Constantius, at the Council of Ancyra and at that of Sirmium (358). A first formula drawn up by the Arian Mark of Arethusa eliminated the word ὀσία, essence, and its compounds, which are not found in Scripture, but declared that the Son was similar to the Father in all things (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ κατὰ πάντα): this brought it closer to orthodoxy. After the discussions and vicissitudes of the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359), the formula was relieved of the words κατὰ πάντα (similar in all things), and burdened with the proscription of the word ὑπόστασις, hypostasis. This is the formula that was definitively established at the Synod of Constantinople (early January 360), approved and imposed by Constantius upon the entire episcopate, whose adherence was almost unanimous and had already been obtained through cunning and violence at the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia. It is called the formula of Rimini–Constantinople, or also of Nicaea–Constantinople, because it had been signed at Nicaea in Thrace, near Adrianople, by the orthodox delegates of the Council of Rimini in its first phase (10 October 359).
This was the result of political Arianism: a formula that is a masterpiece of imprecision, capable of being understood in the most diverse, even the most opposed, senses, “which Athanasius and Aëtius,” as L. Duchesne wrote (Histoire ancienne de l'Église, II, 2e ed., Paris 1907, p. 306), “could, with a little good will, have recited together.” It is curious to observe how Homoeanism, which, in its wording, would seem to be the opposite of Anomoeanism, is in reality the same thing; indeed, it is in the Anomoean sense that the expression:
“The Son is similar to the Father” (ὁμοιος τῷ Πατρὶ) was interpreted by those who ultimately accepted it, namely the true Arians, since Catholics and semi-Arians rejected it after having accepted it in a moment of surprise. From 360 onward, it was the creed of the Homoeanism of Rimini–Constantinople that represented official Arianism in the Roman Empire and also, with the addition of certain qualifications, the Arianism of the barbarian peoples.
III. MACEDONIANISM
What is called the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian heresy consists in denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit and making him the first creature of the Son or Word. It is only one part of the Arian system taken as a whole. We have in fact seen that Arius denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit and placed him far below the Word. But until about 360, the question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit remained in the background. The various Arian formularies speak only of the Word; even the Homoean creed of Rimini-Constantinople is silent on the matter. The Anomoeans were the first explicitly to preach the Arian trinity. After 360, an important group of Semi-Arians or Homoiousians separated what had seemed inseparable; while admitting with sufficient clarity the divinity of the Son of God, they rejected that of the third person.St. Athanasius refutes them and calls them Tropicists, τροπικοί, because they explained by means of metaphors or tropes the words of Scripture that conflicted with their thesis. They are more commonly designated by the name Pneumatomachi (“adversaries of the Spirit”), or Macedonians, after Macedonius, the Arian bishop of Constantinople (351–60), although he does not seem to have taught such an error, and Marathonians, after Marathonius, bishop of Nicomedia, one of their leaders. The Macedonians constituted a separate sect, distinguished from the Arians properly so called by their belief in the divinity of the Word.
IV. ARIANISM AMONG THE GERMANIC PEOPLES
With the accession to the throne of the emperor Theodosius (379), Arianism did not take long to disappear from the Roman Empire, not only as an official doctrine, but also as a condemned sect. It nevertheless survived for many years among the barbarian invaders of the Western Empire, in the form of the Homoeanism of Rimini-Constantinople (360). The bishop of the Goths, Ulfila—since 341 the successor of the Gothic bishop Theophilus, one of the Fathers of Nicaea—did in fact attend the Council of Constantinople in 360 and sign its formula. Through him and his compatriots, the Goths, Homoean Arianism—one may simply say Arianism—penetrated among the other barbarians: Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Suebi, Vandals, Burgundians, Lombards.This Arianism was at times persecutory, at times tolerant, but remained doctrinally stationary. We know Ulfila’s profession of faith, written by him in the form of a testament on the eve of his death, which occurred at Constantinople in 383. Obscure and almost contradictory concerning the divinity of the Son, it categorically denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit, “who is neither God nor Lord, but merely a minister of Christ, subject and obedient in all things to the Son.” From the way in which he speaks of the Son, Ulfila seems to approach the Homoiousians-Macedonians: the divinity of the second person would perhaps be safeguarded if he were not frankly subordinationist: “The only Son, our Lord and God, author and creator of every creature, who has no equal, is subject and obedient in all things to God the Father” (cf. this profession of faith in vol. I of the Texte und Untersuchungen zur altgermanischen Religionsgeschichte, Strasbourg 1899, pp. 73–76, edition by M. Kauffmann, Aus der Schule des Wulfila).
The last Arians were the Lombards, who did not convert until toward the end of the seventh century, around 671.
V. L'A. NEI TEMPI MODERNI. — The Protestant anti-Trinitarian sects cannot be directly linked to Arianism: Socinians or Unitarians, Servetists, and liberal Protestants, since what characterizes Arianism is the notion of an intermediary demiurge between God and the world, a notion absent among modern anti-Trinitarians. These are rather connected with the ancient Sabellians or Modalists. The Sabellian error arrives at the denial of the Trinity by a path opposed to that of Arianism. A certain resemblance may nevertheless be found between the «superior man» Christ of the modern anti-Trinitarians and the «demiurge Logos» of the ancient Arians.
Although Arianism did not reappear in the form of a distinct sect, there were, from the 16th century onward, several isolated Arians, such as the Anglicans William Whinston and Samuel Clarke. In a work entitled: Primitive Christianity Review (London 1710–11), the former expressly upholds a mitigated s., recalling that of Eusebius of Caesarea. He also declares that the Logos, created by the Father at the beginning of the world, took the place of a rational soul in Christ. Clarke speaks of the production of the Son by the will of the Father, of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father, and rejects as contradictory the doctrine of three eternal, uncreated persons in the numerical unity of nature (cf. his book: The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, London 1712). Whinston’s and Clarke’s theories were condemned by the upper chamber of the Anglican clergy. For some time they caused genuine turmoil in the Anglican Church (cf. Le Bachelet, Arianisme, in DThC, I, cols. 1859–62).
Systematic expositions of Arianism and its various forms, variously supplied with historical information, are found in the Storie dei dogmi known to all: I. Schwane, I. Ticeront, A. Harnack (II, 4ª ed., Tubinga 1910), R. Seeberg (I e II, 3ª ed., Lipsia 1923). Cf. also the notable work of X. Le Bachelet, article Arianisme, in DThC, I, cols. 1779–1863. On Homoeanism in particular, V. J. Gummerus, Die homniunische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantins, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites in den Jahren 336-361, Lipsia 1900; G. Raseur, L'homniunianisme dans ses rapports avec l'orthodoxie, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 4 (1903), pp. 189–206, 411–31. On the Arianism of the Germanic peoples, and the doctrine of Ulfila: W. Bessel, Über das Leben des Ulfilas, Gottinga 1860; H. von Schubert, Das älteste germanische Christentum oder der sogenannte «Arianismus» der Germanen, Tubinga 1909; B. Capelle, La lettre d'Auxence sur Ulfila, in Revue bénédictine, 34 (1922), pp. 224–233. A more extensive bibliography, with references to the more recent works, in A. Fliche-V. Martin, Storia della Chiesa, III: Dalla pace costantiniana alla morte di Teodosio, Italian translation, Torino 1940, pp. 18–25, 67–71, 135–42, 245–34.
HISTORICAL COMPENDIUM.
SUMMARY:
I. Preliminary considerations
II. Arianism until the death of Constantine
III. The Arian controversy under Constantius
IV. Arianism after Constantius.I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
The Arian controversy was one of the longest and most serious in the history of the Church, lasting in its acute phase for nearly a century and profoundly disrupting its life. Other heresies had been seen in the early centuries, but they had disappeared fairly quickly without causing such turmoil. If Arianism made so much noise, if its history is so tangled, this is due to the fact that the emperors, having become Christian, wished to interfere in the matter under the pretext of ensuring the religious unity of the empire. Had Constantine and Constantius turned a deaf ear to the proposals of certain simulated Arians, skilled courtiers, the controversy would have ended like previous heresies. Condemned at Nicaea as at Rome— and Nicaea would not have been necessary — Arius and his followers would have met the fate of an Artemius, a Sabellius, or a Paul of Samosata, and history would have ignored this endless series of synods and professions of faith, of decrees of expulsion and exile issued against bishops, which form the fabric of this lamentable affair. Imperial Caesaropapism is therefore responsible for this entire crisis.
From the same cause also derives the principal role played in this history by personal disputes. Not daring to attack directly the definition of Nicaea, which they had signed against their will, Eusebius of Nicomedia and other court prelates took revenge on the defenders of that Council and turned the violence of power against them. Hence this relentless pursuit of certain bishops, particularly against St. Athanasius of Alexandria, standard-bearer of Nicene orthodoxy.
Emperor Constantius tormented bishops in every way to make them sign successively more or less imprecise, more or less contradictory formulas, with which he hoped to achieve religious unity. At one point, through cunning and violence, he obtained the signature of the Rimini-Constantinople formula from the majority of the episcopate of both East and West: which allowed St. Jerome to write the following phrase, in which there is more rhetoric than truth: «The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.»
The whole of Christendom was never Arian. Even at Rimini and Seleucia, and after as before, the great majority of the episcopate preserved the faith in the true divinity of the Son of God made man and in the Catholic Trinity. It interpreted in this sense the vague formulas it had been made to subscribe. What proves this is the general repudiation of the signatories that followed immediately afterward, first in the West, then in the East. Certainly, the history of Arianism demonstrates the necessity of an infallible authority in the Church, even outside the ecumenical council, that is, of that authority which had maintained Catholic unity in the first three centuries, outside any interference from secular power, that of the Bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.
It is impossible to write here, even in summary, the highly complicated history of the Arian controversy. To speak of it at greater length would, moreover, be useless, since all the great names of orthodox or heretics involved in the affair, all the councils of some importance that refer to it, are the subject of separate articles.
This history can be divided into three main phases: 1st, Arianism from its origins to the death of Constantine (c. 320–337); 2nd, Arianism under Constantius (337–361); 3rd, Arianism after the death of Constantius (361–381).
II. ARIANISM UNTIL THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE
The beginnings of the Arian controversy before the Council of Nicaea are highly obscure. Around 320, Arius, a priest of the Alexandrian Church of Baucalis, likely began publicly teaching his theory on the "Logos." Invited by his bishop, Alexander, to conform to traditional teaching, he refused and, gathering around himself a number of clerics and laypeople, appealed through letters to several former students of the priest Lucian of Antioch, among whom was Eusebius, bishop of Berytus, later bishop of Nicomedia. Alexander then condemned the innovator in a council, prompting Arius to flee immediately to Caesarea in Palestine, where Bishop Eusebius welcomed him warmly. The dispute intensified not only in Egypt but also in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. The bishop of Alexandria notified the Eastern episcopate and Pope Sylvester of the error and the condemnation of Arius. The matter stood thus when Emperor Constantine, having defeated Licinius (323), attempted to restore concord by hastily sending the bishop of Córdoba, Hosius, to Alexandria. The conciliation effort failed. The emperor then convened the Council of Nicaea (325). The great majority of the assembled bishops—around 300, perhaps fewer—proclaimed their faith in the divinity of the Son of God made man and in the Catholic Trinity through a formula whose principal feature was the expression: ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί: the Son is consubstantial with the Father. The number of opponents was seventeen, who eventually subscribed to the creed, except for two Egyptian bishops, immediately exiled, along with Arius and two of the most prominent "Collucianists," Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, who had nevertheless voted with the majority.The affair seemed concluded, but it was not. The emperor’s sister, Constantia, secretly won over to the heresy, obtained the pardon of Eusebius and Theognis. Arius was also recalled after signing an equivocal formula. From then on, Eusebius of Nicomedia became the trusted advisor of Constantine, inspiring a series of measures against the defenders of the Nicene definition. Successively deposed were Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335), and Marcellus of Ancyra (336), whose orthodoxy was highly suspect because, while a staunch defender of the Nicene homoousios, he interpreted it in a Sabellian sense. Several other orthodox priests met the same fate. The Nicene formula remained officially intact, but its defenders were expelled and replaced with Arianizers. Such was the situation at the death of Constantine (337).
3. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY UNDER CONSTANTIUS
Under Constantine’s successors, the persecution of the orthodox ceased for a time. Athanasius and the other exiled bishops were able to return to their sees. As long as the Western emperor, Constans (337–50), favorable to the Catholics, lived, not only did the West remain sheltered from Arian intrigues, but even in the East nothing too grave occurred, despite the favor shown to the Eusebians by Constantius II, emperor of the East. Nevertheless, the second exile of Athanasius (339–46) must be noted, as well as his journey to Rome, the Roman Council of 340, in which Pope Julius annulled the Eastern sentences against Athanasius and other Nicenes, the negotiations between the emperors for the convening of an ecumenical council at Sardica (343), the secession of the Eusebians, and their open rupture with the Pope and the Westerners. Already at the Synod of Antioch in 341, they had replaced the Nicene creed with four different formulas, in which the word consubstantial did not appear at all. Through cunning, Constantius allowed Athanasius to return to Alexandria, where he remained until 356. But after the death of Constans, having become sole emperor of the entire empire, he openly favored the Arian party, ever vigilant even after the death of its leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia (341). The party’s leaders then moved to the West and maneuvered in several synods to remove Athanasius. They did not succeed. Recalcitrant bishops, such as Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Pope Liberius, were exiled. In 357, the anti-Nicenes openly triumphed. Yet they were far from agreement among themselves. It was then that the two extreme parties emerged: the Anomoeans and the Homoeans, discussed above. Victorious for a moment, the Anomoeans fell into disgrace (358) in favor of the Homoeans of Basil of Ancyra. But the true Arians soon regained the upper hand and were fortunate enough to have their formula signed by the great majority of the episcopate in the two Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) after various vicissitudes. Though the victory was only apparent, Constantius, upon his death (361), could delude himself into believing he had achieved religious unity in his empire.4. ARIANISM AFTER THE DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS (361–81)
Under the brief reigns of Julian the Apostate (361–63) and Jovian (363–64), the Arian question enjoyed a truce. The Western episcopate took advantage of this to recover and erase the shame of the capitulation at Rimini. With the exception of a few Arianizers who managed to retain their sees for some time, the official return to the faith of Nicaea was complete. Tranquility persisted under the Catholic reign of Valentinian I (364–75). In the East, where confusion was extreme due to the numerous expulsions of bishops of every kind, calm did not last long, except in Egypt, where Athanasius was left to die in peace. He had awakened orthodoxy and prepared future actions through his Council of Alexandria in 362 and his Tome to the Antiochenes. The Eastern emperor, Valens (364–78), sided with Arianism in the form of Homoianism, established at Rimini-Constantinople. Catholics were persecuted, though not everywhere. Their great fault was division among themselves over personal and formulaic disputes. The two controversies—Apollinarian and Macedonian—that erupted at this time further complicated the situation. At this juncture, the beneficial action of three Cappadocian doctors—Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus—intervened. They clarified Catholic doctrine on the Trinity, freed it from the logomachies surrounding the words ousia and hypostasis, and worked to achieve official agreement with Rome and the Eastern Catholics. The death of Valens and the accession of Theodosius, who became sole emperor, favored the return of the East to orthodoxy. This return was officially consecrated at the plenary Council of Constantinople in 381, later recognized as the second ecumenical council. Henceforth, Arianism persisted within the empire only as a condemned and more or less persecuted sect. The emperors tolerated it among the Gothic mercenaries who bolstered their armies. It survived only among the Western barbarians.BIBL.:
H. G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites, Berlin 1934-35; E. Schwartz, Zur Geschichte des Athanasius, Berlin 1911; A. Puech, Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne, Paris 1928-30, V. III; G. Bardy, Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son école, Paris 1936; Id., Saint Athanase, Paris 1914; Id., Paul de Samosate, Paris 1923; J. Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien, Louvain 1909; F. Loofs, Eustathius von Antiochien, Leipzig 1882; M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Rome 1975; V. A'ANASIO, COSTANTINO, COSTANZO, EUSEBIO di Nicomedia, EUSTAZIO, MARCELLO di Ancira, NICEA (Concilio di).
A. PIGANIOL