Why is it significant that Arius taught two Wisdoms? Was this a deviation of some kind?

Both Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Wisdoms. Athanasius wrote that in Arius’ theology, > “There are … two Wisdoms, one God's own who has existed eternally with > God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is > another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13). Alexander similarly wrote that Arius stated, > “Nor is he the Father's true Logos nor the Logos by nature, nor his > true Wisdom” (RH, 16). > > “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and > the Wisdom which was in God, in which God also made everything and him > (the Son) with it” (RH, 16). In Lorentz's summary of Arius’ theology, he said: > “There are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae), and several powers of > God. … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or > Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not > immanent in the Godhead but created, and who could only be given these > titles loosely or inexactly.” (20) Why is it significant that Arius taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms”? Was this a deviation of some kind? (All references are to RPC Hanson's book, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381