A panegyric on the Great Constantine, the Equal-to-the-Apostles

[f. 1r–v]

Composed by [Saint] Ștefan Brâncoveanu and devoutly dedicated to His Highness1 his father and Prince of all Ungrovlahia, Prince Ioan Constantin Basaraba. Recited before His Highness by Radu, his brother. Printed in Bucharest, 1701, by Antim, the hieromonk of Iviria.

[f. 2r]

Most Faithful and Most Serene Lord,

There was no need for me to give any further reason for dedicating this work to Your Highness, since, as [your] son, I truly have sufficient motivation to offer you a small fruit of my mind. I wish, however, to make it clear to you that, apart from this, I shall have a further opportunity to address [this] text to you. Firstly, who cannot see that your speech harmonised2 most fittingly with Your Highness, and that, whilst honouring the Great Constantine in a most magnificent manner, you also inspired others with such a noble example, towards piety in the manner of the Apostles? [f. 2v] There is also another reason [why I offer you this small fruit of my mind], namely that, in publishing this composition and wishing to find favour with almost everyone, I decided to follow the example of that man from Samosata who, in order to make himself more easily known to all, considered that, by imitating Timothy the flute-player, ‘the best in the city is the one in whom others place their trust and who is sufficient in place of all’3. So he said, very wisely, that for everyone to praise his words, it was enough for the first and most distinguished person to praise him. I, too, drawing on this idea, say that your Serene Highness’s gaze is sufficient, [and] not that everyone should praise the word, for this is beyond what is due, but [at least] that they should look upon it with a cheerful eye. Strengthen, therefore, the general cheerfulness through your deepest [kalokagathian] kindness [f. 3r]. ‘May we have you for many years to come, in good health, happy in all things and protected by God.’4

Your Glorious Highness’s obedient and most devout son

Ștefan Brâncoveanu

[Ff. 3v–4v]

Imagine

[f. 5r]

A WORD to the effect that Constantine the Great was a great saint, both because he was Emperor and because he was the first [Christian] Emperor5

Holiness is the lofty summit of Christian virtue, difficult to attain. Truly, the burden of the Cross is light, since the Truth Himself said so6, and, to reach the Heavenly Jerusalem, it suffices merely to trample underfoot the triad abhorred by God7, which is opposed to human salvation. And yet, how few are the chosen ones amongst the many who are called?8 With all mercy, with all chastity [f. 5v] and almost all other virtues, might not a single evil deed, bringing death, deprive us, with endless sorrow, of the eternal joy, of the unspeakable gladness of Heaven? And if, to escape the profound darkness of Hell, the terrifying face of Gehenna, it is necessary to labour and enter through the narrow gate9, what toil and what effort are required for one to attain a more fitting dwelling in endless bliss and a place of holiness amidst the radiance of the saints? Therefore, holiness is difficult to attain and, since circumstances10, in turn, make the ascent more arduous, it follows that worthiness is greater where circumstances are also more difficult. Two circumstances [f. 6r] revealed to the Great Constantine, whom we celebrate today, that holiness is a difficult thing to attain. The first [difficult circumstance was] that he was Emperor, [and] the second that he was the first to strive for holiness. Pay close attention to this demonstration, so that the worthiness of the one we celebrate—the Emperor equal to the Apostles—may be understood!

The fact that circumstances either make the attainment of things more difficult or easier is a premise which everyday experience shows [to be] very true, for generals find it harder to defeat the enemy with a smaller army, due to a shortage [of soldiers], but achieve victory more easily with a larger one, thanks to the additional support. There are many arguments which clearly prove that two [difficult] circumstances also combined in the case of Constantine the Great, to place him in a difficult position [f. 6v], with a view to [attaining] holiness. Let us begin with the empire, which was his first obstacle.

Who does not know that poverty prepares the soul to honour God? The poor man is not subject to pride, from which so many evils flow. ‘Poverty humbles man.’11 The poor man easily keeps his irrational passions in check, easily subdues his body, even if it is hard to control, easily rejects vain pleasures, easily embraces self-restraint, easily lives in purity, easily becomes temperate, and easily composes within his soul, in due order, a most beautiful chorus of varied virtues. ‘Anyone could see,’ Chrysostom affirms in glowing terms, ‘that the ease of purity, care for the soul, the fact of being moderate with serenity, [f. 7r] of not becoming conceited quickly and of freeing oneself from megalomania, and, simply put, any other virtue, can take root much more easily in the souls of the poor.” Misfortune and need lead the sinner to repentance, as the prophet [David] recognised and confessed: ‘O Lord, in our distress we remembered You’12. And, in such a circumstance—so full of piety and virtue pleasing to God, which poverty offers in great abundance— is it any wonder if it is possible for someone to take courage, to rise higher and to earn a place in the choir of the saints? It is also true that whenever John the Golden-Tongued cries out: ‘Who could be happier than the poor man?’. Does not wealth grow hand in hand with so much wickedness and so many vices? Do you hear the word ‘wealth’? Understand it to mean heaps of evil, as in the Iliad! [f. 7v] With wealth, pride reigns supreme13, envy holds sway, murder increases, strife dominates, pleasure rules tyrannically, softness tyrannises, falsehood rises, truth is banished, faith perishes, chastity is corrupted, virtue is detested, wickedness is embraced, the law is trampled underfoot, God is insulted. Like a mighty storm, this carries the rich man hither and thither across the sea of pleasures, darkens his understanding, confuses his mind, crushes his soul with unbreakable chains14 and, just as long garments hinder one’s gait, so too does excessive wealth [hinder] [spiritual] progress15: ‘Garments reaching down to the heels hinder the body, whilst excessive wealth [hinder] the souls. Indolence (as a worthy teacher of the Church said), [f. 8r] carelessness and idleness16 drain and scatter the soul”17. Silver incites one to do evil because it widens the path to wicked desires, and when the nature inclines joyfully towards wickedness (according to [Saint] Gregory of Nyssa), “it swiftly sets out towards what is most base”. Likewise, when it leaps towards evil like fire towards dry wood, according to the maxim of the most wise theologian [Gregory]18, ‘good will be hard for human nature to grasp, just as fire is hard to grasp by a more damp substance.’19 How could the ‘rich not run more swiftly towards sin’ – according to the holy eloquence of the Golden-Tongued20 – since the abundance of material comfort offers such ease to evil desires? Oh, how close the rich man is to perdition! Oh, how far the rich man is from salvation! ‘It is hard [f. 8v] for the rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven’21.

So, for the rich, is holiness not, after all, a very difficult thing? At the same time, does not good fortune seem irreconcilable with holiness? [Indeed it is,] with the exception of all those who lead a private life and hold no power, for they are subject to the laws, have no absolute freedom to [commit] evil and, thus, do not possess complete and absolute control over their desires. Anyone who reigns over a vast realm, anyone who makes laws for others whilst believing, in their own judgement, that obedience to the law is unbecoming [to them], will certainly easily become one who violates moral laws.

The ancients called any ruler a tyrant, and, little by little, this epithet came to be applied to unjust rulers, perhaps because, as just rulers are very rare, a single evil so widespread [f. 9r] was worthy of being designated by a common name. It is difficult for a king not to become a tyrant, especially when he has no one above him on earth. Many of their predecessors, either hating any kind of yoke, easily fell into atheism, or, desiring power at any cost, counted themselves among the gods. The flattery that he was the son of Olympian Zeus22 could not have convinced Alexander the Great [of Macedon] 23, had he not found him easily persuaded by the loftiness of the throne upon which he sat and his arrogance born of his immense success. O harsh obstacle to virtue, where is your sceptre!? And in what sort of struggle did you find yourself, most holy soul of the Great Constantine!? Because of the precious diadem [which you wore], you had many opportunities for pleasures, [f. 9v] for passions, O lover of Christ the King! And yet, on the vast sea of human life, the multitude of love for sensual pleasures did not lead you astray; rather, like another most wise Odysseus, you closed your ears to the honeyed song of the destructive sirens, guarding your hearing for the sake of the Lord’s saving voice, Who says: ‘Listen to Me!’ And now that you have reached the most secure harbour of bliss, triumphing over perils and the surging waves, how can the Church not rejoice with great fittingness today? How can the true faith not exult over such a saint? 24

It is difficult for a king not to become a tyrant, especially when he has no one above him on earth. Many of those who came before, either hating any kind of yoke, fell easily into atheism, or, desiring power at any cost, counted themselves among the gods.

When the most righteous emperor was afflicted by the dreadful leprosy, he did not accept the wicked remedy of the Jews—which the troublemakers advised him to adopt—of killing many children25 [f. 10r] to wash away his defiled illness with their innocent and delicate blood26. And, even though his self-love compelled him and urged him [to do so], he resisted [their] assaults in a most noble manner, and the most merciful one preferred to forgo the benefits of good health rather than allow his innocence to be tarnished. In the most pious building of churches, he did not look to his worldly dignity, nor to the zeal for his supreme office, [but rather] the generous guardian of the people, the bearer of the sceptre, sought to work alongside the labourers operating the construction machinery on this creation made by human hands. In the making of laws, he did not seek the exceptional nature of his sovereignty, so that [thus] the legislator might submit to the laws27.

What is truly astonishing is not so much that Constantine the Great was an emperor and was canonised, but rather that no emperor before him had ever been canonised.

And, if the most pious autocrat overcame such great opposition in order to accomplish28 [f. 10v] deeds pleasing to God and the Saviour, did he not overcome a great obstacle, to stride like a giant towards holiness? And yet, had another obstacle not been overcome, his holiness—equal to that of the Apostles—would rightly not have been so admirable! Indeed, what is truly astonishing is not so much that the Great Constantine was an emperor and became a saint, but rather the fact that no emperor before him had ever become a saint. Had he seen other imperial footsteps on the path to virtue, which leads straight to sainthood, he would have journeyed more easily, and we would have regarded him with less admiration. However, as he was the first to tread [this path], his achievement is all the more heroic and worthy of admiration.

The beginning, as the poets so aptly described it [f. 11r], has a wild and fearsome appearance and, for this reason, does not allow anyone to approach [it]. And, however difficult the task may be, it is not as difficult as the beginning is (says the philosopher): ‘Perhaps the greatest thing is the beginning of all things, as they say, and that is why it is also the hardest!’29 What fear once instilled in sailors that ‘Do not pass beyond the [Pillars of] Heracles’30! No one dared to cross the boundaries marked out by the column of the hero who had triumphed in twelve battles, but, after the first victorious ship had crossed with great success, and once the inscription on the pillar had been exposed as a lie, since then, sailors have boldly sailed beyond those boundaries, and many take to the sea not only for the love of gold, but also out of curiosity. Certainly, it was a great and praiseworthy feat of daring [f. 11v] was shown by the first man to cross the ancient boundaries and to reveal that part of the sea—which had previously been universally believed by all to be impassable—to be calm and navigable. The fortune, wealth and glory of this world do not so easily allow a man to take flight towards the 31 heavenly City. ‘It is hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’32 The first leader who dared to open the closed path was Constantine the Great. The Most Wise always envisaged the image of human splendour of which the prophet Isaiah wrote: ‘All the glory of man [is] like the flower of the field’33. He knew that the retinue, the pomp and the grandiose trappings of the past are fleeting things, deceptive dreams [f. 12r], and therefore, turning his mind away from all earthly beauty, that is, from all that is but a shadow, he desired to become a citizen of Heaven, a beholder of divine beauty, and his desire grew so great that he became an example of royal holiness. How many great men are honoured as saints by the Church, how many sovereigns are praised in hymns sung with a mighty voice, how many emperors are glorified—all these follow in the footsteps of the Great Constantine as if he were their guide. All are indebted to him for guiding them towards Heaven. From this, let the subtlety of [your] thought reach the definitive conclusion of his worthiness, equal to that of the Apostles.

The fortune of this world, its wealth and glory, do not so easily allow man to take flight towards the Heavenly City. The first leader who dared to open the closed path is the Great Constantine.

Two circumstances hindered his progress in virtue and, above all, in holiness, but the most holy leader overcame these two with extraordinary fortitude. He boldly sprinkled holy water upon the rich [f. 12v] and the poor, the noble and the humble, the powerful and the subjects. The rich take heart, for Constantine, who was the richest, entered heaven with such glory, where his treasure from his youth lay, fulfilling the Gospel commandment: ‘Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven’ (Matthew 6)34. The noble take heart, for Constantine, who was the noblest, desired citizenship in the City above, having learnt from Paul that ‘it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as heirs’ (Paul to the Romans, chapter 9) 35. The emperor takes heart, for Constantine, who reigned with such power, strove to attain the inheritance of Christ’s promise: ‘Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you’ (Matthew, chapter 25) 36. The poor [f. 13r] [and] the unfortunate take heart because, if wealth [and] glory have been overcome by the desire for virtue, how can poverty—which is an opportunity for doing good—not progress easily! ‘Lord, in our distress we have remembered you.’37

Behold the blessed one, just like the Apostles, and rejoice in the fruit of the example he has left us. Oh, what joy he will receive upon seeing our forebear, the Prince38, how, with all his wealth, all his glory, all his reign, he in no way neglects the deeds of faith; how, upon the brow of [his] greatness, the world discerns no ray more brilliant and luminous than the reverence for God, how, bearing the name of Constantine, he also bears the image of Constantine’s virtue. Most Serene Prince, you have overcome the obstacle of power! We acknowledge your victory on the basis of your justice, your affection and your gentleness. We acknowledge this triumph, for we see the Orthodoxy of God triumphing. Everyone rejoices and exults in the virtues that flourish within you; and for this reason, the multitude of your virtues follows, O Prince promoted by God, and rightly does everyone draw this conclusion, for true is the prophet’s saying: ‘As [is] the ruler39 of the city, so [are] all who dwell therein’40 (Sir. chap. 10).

The End.

And thanks be to God.

This translation is the completed and revised version, from Katharevousa Greek, of the panegyric to Constantine: Saint Stephen Brâncoveanu, Λόγος Πανηγυρικός εἰς τὸν Ἰσαπόστολον Μέγαν Κωνσταντῖινον, 1st edition, (ἐν Βουκουρεστίῳ: Ἐτυπώθη παρὰ Ἀνθίμῳ Ἱερομονάχῳ τῳ ἐξ Ἰβηρίας, 1701), published in digital form, pp. 122–131 (see: https://rei.gov.ro/teze-doctorat), in our doctoral thesis, defended in 2021, entitled: Popescu, ThD Andrei-Ion, ‘The Greek Panegyrics of Saints Stephen and Radu Brâncoveanu: Text, Translation and Theological Commentary’ (doctoral thesis, ‘Lucian Blaga’ University, 2021), published online on 6 August 2024). The original of this translation was consulted in digital form on the Romanian Academy Library’s platform, and is also available on the Dacoromanica online platform (see: http://digitool.dc.bmms.ro:8881/R?RN=847209032).

Nor have I overlooked the first translation of this panegyric, published in 1891, by Academician Constantin Erbiceanu: Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘Panegyric Address to Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles’, in Biserica Ortodoxă Română (BOR), vol. XV (1891), pp. 298–304, which I have consulted in places for the present translation. However, for linguistic reasons, I have retranslated the original Greek text in its entirety, as 2021 marked the 130th anniversary of the first translation, and we are therefore dealing with a clear evolution of the Romanian language over the course of more than a century; for this reason, I considered it essential for contemporary readers to update the 19th-century language used in Erbiceanu’s translation (translator’s note).

• 1

  The Greek term used here is the superlative adjective ‘γᾰληνός -όν’ = calm, tranquil, serene, the Latin equivalent of which is ‘serenus’ – serene, bright. It can also be used as an imperial title – ‘most serene’, as it appears in the Greek Papyrus of the Byzantine period. Catalogue … du Musée du Caire, 3 vols., ed. J. Maspero, Cairo 1911–16, 243.2 (VICE). The reason I have used the dative ‘to the Most Serene One’ in this translation is to highlight one of the attributes with which Saint Stephen Brâncoveanu addresses both his father and the ruler, Constantin Brâncoveanu, given the theological connection between spiritual stillness—captured through its Greek etymology and its synonymous rendering in Latin—and the light or serenity that expresses this inner peace, cf. Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek: “γᾰληνός -όν” (Brill, 2015), accessed on 29 November 2019, https://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&id=25162 and Gheorghe Guțu, Latin–Romanian Dictionary, Bucharest, Humanitas, 2012, p. 553 (translator’s note).

• 2

  The verb ‘ἁρμόζω’ has several meanings, including to fit together, to join, to bind quickly, to put in order, to suit, to agree, etc. See LSJ The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae), 243, accessed on 9 August 2019, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/lsj/#eid=15645 (translator’s note).

• 3

  From the marginal note ‘Λουκιανὸς ἐν τῷ ἀρμονίδης.’ we deduce that the quoted text was taken by Saint Stephen Brâncoveanu from Lucian’s work Ἁρμονίδης (translator’s note). See Lucian, Loeb Classical Library: Harmonides (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 220–221, accessed on 9 April 2020, https://doi.org/10.4159/DLCL. lucian-harmonides.1959https://www.loebclassics.com/view/lucian-harmonides/1959/pb_LCL430.221.xml (trans.).

• 4

  This final sentence has been translated from Greek into Romanian for the first time, as it is missing from the 1891 translation by Erbiceanu (translator’s note).

• 5

  I have retained this addition by C. Erbiceanu, which foreshadows Emperor Constantine’s future identity as a Christian. See Constantin Erbiceanu, ‘Panegyric Address to Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles’, in the Romanian Orthodox Church (BOR), vol. XV (1891), p. 299 (translator’s note).

• 6

  The biblical source of this text is quite evident: [“Εἶναι ἡ Ἁγιότης τὸ δύσβατον ὕψος τῆς χριστιανικῆς ἀρετῆς. Τὸ φορτίον τοῦ Σταυροῦ εἶναι βέβαια ἐλαφρὸν(...)”] in “Ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πρᾷός εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν.” (Matt. 11:29 BYZ), as well as in “Ὁ γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστός, καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν.” (Matt. 11:30 BYZ) cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks; Romanian translation: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls; for my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”(Matthew 11:29–30), cf. The Bible, that is, the Divine Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, Bucharest, Church Books Printing House, 1914, p. 1353 (translator’s note).

• 7

  In this context, the Holy Martyr Ștefan Brâncoveanu does not refer to the Holy Trinity, but to the ‘trinity’ that opposes the salvation of humankind, whose origins lie in the work of the devil, which seeks to prevent the deification of humankind (translator’s note).

• 8

  The text “ἀλλὰ μὲ ὁλα ταῦτα πόσον εἶναι ὀλίγοι ἀπὸ τοὺς πολλοὺς κλητοὺς οἱ ἐκλετοί;” / “But, nevertheless, how few are the chosen ones amongst the many who are called!” refers to the following biblical passage: “Οὕτως ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι, καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι ἔσχατοι· πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί.” (Matt. 20:16 BYZ). Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks; Romanian translation: ‘So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last, for many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew XX, 16), cf. The Bible, that is, the Divine Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, p. 1365 (translator’s note).

• 9

  “Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης ὅτι πλατεῖα ἡ πύλη καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ἀπώλειαν καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι᾽ αὐτῆς·14 τί στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωὴν καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν”. (Matt. 7:13–14 BGT). Byzantine NT, BibleWorks; Romanian translation: “Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter through it; For narrow is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” cf. The Bible, that is, the Divine Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, p. 1348 (translator’s note).

• 10

  See the meaning of the adjective ‘περιστᾰτικός -ή -όν’, associated with difficult circumstances or a critical situation: τὰ π. πράγματα = αἱ περιστάσεις Plut. Superst. 169c καθήκοντα π. – reasonable actions, dictated by unfavourable conditions Diog. 7.109 (opposite to ἄνευ περιστάσεως). Cf. Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek: ‘περιστατικός’ (Brill, 2015), accessed 26 August 2021, https://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&id=93059 (translator’s note).

• 11

  The source of inspiration is also indicated in the margin of the Greek text: Παροιμία [parable/proverb] (see Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek: “παροιμία” (Brill, 2015), accessed 18 October 2021, https://dictionaries.brillonline.com/search#dictionary=montanari&id=90126). This fragment of text is now being translated for the first time, as I discovered, upon consulting the original translation of the panegyric published in 1891, that this short Greek passage: ‘πενία ἄνδρα ταπεινοῖ’ had been omitted from the Romanian translation by Academician C. Erbiceanu (see Erbiceanu, ‘Panegyric Address to Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles’, p. 300), and, of course, was also absent from the subsequent, revised editions of 2014 (see L. S. Desartovici, ed., The Martyrdom of the Brâncoveanu Saints, Bucharest, Sofia Publishing House, 2014), p. 137; L. S. Desartovici, ed., The Words of Brâncoveanu’s Sons, Bucharest, Sophia Publishing House, 2014, p. 36; and in Priest N.-C. Câdă, ed., Saint Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu: Self-Sacrificing Confessor and Generous Benefactor, vol. II, Bucharest, Cuvântul Vieții Publishing House of the Metropolis of Muntenia and Dobrogea, 2014, p. 243 (translator’s note).

• 12

  The full original Greek biblical text is as follows: ‘κύριε ἐν θλίψει ἐμνήσθην σου, ἐν θλίψει μικρᾷ ἡ παιδεία σου ἡμῖν’ (Isa. 26:16 BGT), cf. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Alfred Rahlfs, BibleWorks: BNT Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece – LXX Septuaginta (LXT): 28th Revised Edition/LXT of Old Greek Jewish Scriptures, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft and the Württembergische Bibelanstalt/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), 1935, 2012, accessed 20 June 2021; Romanian translation: ‘Lord, in our distress we have remembered you; in our slight affliction your discipline is upon us.’[Isa. 26:16] in The Bible, that is, the Divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Bucharest, Church Books Printing House, 1914 (translator’s note).

• 13

  Arrogance or haughtiness, regarded as a sin that destroys the soul, is the translation of the Greek feminine noun ‘ὑπερηφανία, ἡ’. See G.W.H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961, p. 1439 (translator’s note).

• 14

  For the phrase ‘άλύτοις συραῖς’, I have partly retained Erbiceanu’s 1891 translation (translator’s note).

• 15

  Here we are referring to spiritual progress, based on the meaning of ‘προκοπή, ἡ’ = spiritual progress. See Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1153–54, for a comprehensive overview of the meanings (translator’s note).

• 16

  Of the various meanings, in this context, ‘ἀνάπαυσις -εως, ἡ’ refers to bad rest, rest without prior toil, that is, idleness or sloth; cf. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 115 (translator’s note).

• 17

  The text used here is attributed to Saint Dorothea of Gaza, as noted in a marginal note in the original Greek: ‘Δωρόθε’ (translator’s note).

• 18

  The person referred to in the phrase: “σοφωτάτην γνώμην τοῦ Θεολόγου” is Saint Gregory of Nazianzus; irrefutable proof of this is the fact that he is the authentic author of the text that immediately follows (translator’s note).

• 19

  This short passage by Saint Gregory the Theologian: ‘(…)δύσληπτον μὲν τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, ὥσπερ καὶ πῦρ ὕλῃ τῇ ὑγροτέρᾳ·’ (cf. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologia graeca. Tomus XXXV: Gregorius Nazianzenus, Apologetica (Oration 2), Patrologiæ Cursus Completus (MPG), vol. 35, Paris, 1857–1866), p. 421, accessed on 14 April 2020, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/Cite?2022:016:12934), is now being translated for the first time in this panegyric, as I have found that it was omitted from the 1891 translation. I have also come across the same short text in one of the writings of Saint John of Damascus (translator’s note).

• 20

  This text refers to Saint John Chrysostom (translator’s note).

• 21

  See Matthew 19:23 (translator’s note).

• 22

  Zeus, or Dia, was the son of Saturn; he was known as ‘the Olympian’ because he lived on Mount Olympus, having been saved from death by his mother, who tricked Saturn into eating a stone. Throughout his life, he indulged in numerous orgies, leading a very debauched existence, about which many pagan myths tell. For further details regarding his true life, see the work Chronograph, transcribed from Cyrillic into Romanian by Deacon Gheorghe Băbuț, Oradea, Pelerinul Român Publishing House, 2005, pp. 335–347 (translator’s note).

• 23

  Alexander the Great, also known as Alexander III or Alexander of Macedon, born in 356 BC at Pella, Macedonia [north-west of Thessaloniki, Greece], died on 13 June 323 BC in Babylon [near Al-Hillah, Iraq], was King of Macedonia from 336 to 323 BC. He defeated the Persian Empire and laid the foundations for the Hellenistic world. See The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Alexander the Great’, accessed 17 October 2019, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great (n. trans.).

• 24

  This short passage: ‘πώς να μὲν σκιρτά ή εὐσέβεια εἰς τοιοῦτον Ἅγιον’ was omitted from the translation published in the B.O.R. Journal in 1891 and from subsequent revisions; for this reason, we reproduce it in full here (translator’s note).

• 25

  Certainly, Saint Constantine the Great was not the murderer of these children, nor even of his own son, Crispus. Regarding this last point, in our doctoral thesis: ThD Andrei-Ion Popescu, ‘The Greek Panegyrics of Saints Stephen and Radu Brâncoveanu’, pp. 140–156, basing our argument on the words of Saint Nicodemos of Mount Athos, we noted—though not sufficiently explained—that Saint Constantine the Great is said to have killed Crispus, which does not incriminate him as a ‘murderer’ nor does it cast a shadow over his holiness; rather, it makes it shine even brighter: ‘Dositei himself adds that the common ecclesiastical view is that, prior to his baptism, Constantine killed his wife, Fausta, the daughter of Maximian, and his son, Crispus, which is why he inscribed on the silver statue the words ‘To my wronged son’. So he killed Crispus unjustly because of Fausta’s slander, and Fausta justly, as she had slandered Crispus and caused his death. Therefore, if we accept that Constantine the Great was baptised later, because he was waiting to be baptised in the Jordan, this in no way detracts from his holiness (…).” (Νικοδήμου Αγιορείτου, Συναξαριστής των Δώδεκα Μηνών, ἐν Βενέτιᾳ: Ἐν τῃ τυπογραφιᾳ Πανου Θεοδοσιου του εξ Ιοαννινων, 1819, p. 4. However, in what follows, we wish to explore these words of the Athonite saint in greater depth so that they are not misunderstood; to clarify and re-examine the assertions made in our doctoral thesis from a historical, theological and spiritual perspective, and even to correct them where necessary, across these three dimensions, so that they correspond fully to historical and patristic truth—namely, that Saint Constantine the Great was not the murderer of his son: “1. This is not the only slander directed against St Constantine the Great. There are many others, almost as numerous as those directed against the Saviour, the Mother of God, the Holy Apostles, and St Mary Magdalene, the Myrrh-bearer, for she was equal to the apostles. The saints did not omit this episode from the life of St Constantine the Great, nor did the Lives of the Saints, for they do not distort the truth. 2. Saint Theophan the Confessor does not mention in his History that the killing of Crispus in the year 325 AD was carried out by the Holy Emperor Constantine the Great: ‘In this year, the twentieth anniversary of the reign of Constantine Augustus was celebrated. And the First Ecumenical Council was held, comprising 318 Fathers (…). In this year, Crispus, the emperor’s son, fell asleep in the Lord. And the construction of Byzantium began. [...] The First Ecumenical Council was therefore convened in the twelfth year of the indiction, the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine the Great, in the month of May, [on] the 20th.” (St Theophanes the Confessor, Chronography, Basilica Editions, Bucharest, 2012, pp. 43–46). 3. The execution of Fausta, on the orders of St Constantine the Great, took place in the year 328 AD. ‘St Jerome (c. 347–420 AD), a Latin Christian priest, [...] clearly tells us that Fausta was killed three years after the death of Crispus, and this information is of great historical importance, as we shall explain below (St Jerome, Chronicle). [...] The most important testimony from the Latin ecclesiastical writer, St Jerome (347–420), is that Fausta’s death occurred three years after Crispus’s death (St Jerome, Chronicle)”. (Kostas V. Karasthatis, Constantine the Great: Accusations and Truth: A Historical Study, trans. by Fr. Ion Andrei Gh. Țârlescu, Egumenița Press, Galați, 2013, pp. 179, 201.) The English translation of this chronicle states that, according to Blessed Jerome, Crisp was killed in the year 325 AD, whilst Fausta was executed in the year 328 AD. (See Blessed Jerome, Chronicle, trans. by Roger Pearse et al., in Tertullian.org, 2005, pp. 313–314. See also Jerome, Chronicle (2005), pp. 188–332, Tertullian.org, accessed 31 December 2022. 4. St Jerome did not rebuke St Constantine the Great for his haste in judging Crisp’s case (but in other cases, he did dissuade him from acting hastily), because, in Crisp’s case, the emperor exiled him, but did not put him to death, precisely so that he might have time to judge him fairly and at his leisure, sheltered from the pressure of the place and the moment when everyone was plotting against him; and his murder (by the conspirators) was not carried out on the emperor’s orders. 5. St John of Damascus tells us clearly that the emperor decided not on an unjust death, but on what was good and just for his son: ‘The emperor, quite rightly, condemned his wife, Fausta, to death, for she had acted like Phaedra of ancient times with Hippolytus, the son of Teyeu [sic! Theseus – ed.], and, quite rightly, he also blamed his son, Crispus, because he desired her carnally and forced himself upon her. Therefore, in accordance with the laws of nature, as a father, he punished his son. Afterwards, having learnt the truth, he killed her too, having judged her with the most just of all judgements.” (St John of Damascus, The Martyrdom of St Artemius, ch. 45, in PG 96, p. 1252). 6. The killing of Crisp cannot be understood simply as though the Saint had killed him personally, with his own hands, but, being emperor, only his order could have brought about his death, either directly (if it had been an order for execution) or indirectly, if it was an order of exile misapplied through the intervention of the conspirators (as indeed it was). This order of exile was just (as St John of Damascus states), from the point of view of the charges (that his son, Crisp, had intended to commit adultery with his stepmother, Fausta, a sin punishable by death under Roman law, recently enacted by Saint Constantine the Great himself), which Saint Constantine the Great had before him when he was compelled to decide what was to be done, but was, at the same time, also unjust (as St M. Mc. Artemie puts it), from the perspective of reality (since Crisp had neither committed nor attempted to commit the adultery in question). Thus, the order given by Saint Constantine the Great—just from the perspective of the accusations, unjust from the perspective of reality—led, through a succession of events (unwanted by the Saint), to the unjust killing of his beloved son, Crisp; the conspirators deceived the Saint into committing an unjust, indirect killing through a sequence of events he did not desire, although he had intended to apply the law justly and as an example, even exiling his own son, so that, on the one hand, no one would dare, regardless of their political and economic power, to do such a thing, and, on the other hand, to have sufficient time to verify the accusations—whether they were just or unjust—in order to determine what to do, ultimately, with his son: whether to execute him or, conversely, to rehabilitate him. Cf. Rev. Dr. (ThD) Alexandru Anastasiu, Orthodoxy and Evolutionism, in the series The Tetralogy of the New Man – The Holy Fathers and Scientists on the Origin, Fall and Renewal of Man, vol. 4, Mariam Publishers, Râmnicu Vâlcea, forthcoming.

• 26

  The last three words of this sentence: ‘ἁπαλὸν τὴν ῥυπαρὰν ἀσθένειαν’ were omitted from the 1891 translation; we are therefore now filling this gap (translator’s note).

• 27

  Although Saint Constantine the Great was emperor and could have acted according to the principle of ‘princeps legibus solutus’ (the prince is exempt from the law/above the law), he nevertheless, out of humility, submitted to the law (translator’s note).

• 28

  I have retained here the meaning used by Erbiceanu, although the verb ‘κατορθόω’ has the following meanings: 1. to hold straight, to maintain or to straighten. 2. to put back in place; 3. to lead properly. Cf. M. A. Bailly, Dictionnaire grec-français, Paris: Libraire Hachette, 1894, p. 1086 (translator’s note).

• 29

  Here we have a marginal note on the right-hand side, which reads: ‘Περὶ σοφιστ. ἐλέγ.’, indicating that this text is of Aristotelian inspiration: ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΣΟΦΙΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΩΝ (“Sophistical Refutations”): “μέγιστον γὰρ ἴσως ἀρχὴ παντός, ὥσπερ λέγεται.” See W. D. Ross, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Aristotelis topica et sophistici elenchi, 183b, accessed 22 April 2020, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/Iris/ Cite?0086:040:101270 (translator’s note).

• 30

  I have retained this addition as it appears in Constantin Erbiceanu’s 1891 translation (translator’s note).

• 31

  Although the original term, used in the Greek text, is ‘ἀκρόπολιν’, derived from the noun ‘ἀκρό-πολις, εως, ἡ’ (see Henry G. Liddell and Robert Scott, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon Abridged, Oxford, Simon Wallenberg Press, 2007, 29), in this translation we have adopted the meaning of ‘fortress’/‘stronghold’, as this is more in keeping with theological discourse; a meaning which is also found in Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 66. This word is composed of two parts: ‘ἄκρος’ = the highest, superior, and ‘πόλις’ = city, thus denoting the highest part of a Greek city, usually the original site of a settlement (see Online Etymology Dictionary, ‘acropolis’, accessed 18 July 2019, https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=acropolis). One of the best-known acropolises is the Acropolis of Athens, which contains the Parthenon and other notable buildings, most of which date from the 5th century BC. Cf. Lexico, ‘acropolis’, accessed 18 July 2019, https:// www.lexico.com/ en/ definition/ acropolis (translator’s note).

• 32

  Cf. Matt. 19:23 (BYZ): “Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι δυσκόλως πλούσιος εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν” in the Byzantine New Testament, BibleWorks (translator’s note).

• 33

  There is also a marginal note here, ‘κεφ. μ’, which refers to the Old Testament text in Isa. 40:6 BGT: ‘φωνὴ λέγοντος βόησον καὶ εἶπα τί βοήσω πᾶσα σὰρξ χόρτος καὶ πᾶσα δόξα ἀνθρώπου ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου’, cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks (translator’s note).

• 34

  There is a marginal note on the left-hand side which records this biblical reference: ‘Ματθ. Κεφ. στ΄’, that is, the text from Matt. 6:20 (BYZ): ‘θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ’. Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks (translator’s note).

• 35

  The reference on the left-hand side, ‘Παῦλ. πρὸς Ρὡμ. κεφ. θ΄’, refers to the text in Rom. 9:8 (BYZ): ‘Τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, οὐ τὰ τέκνα τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας λογίζεται εἰς σπέρμα’. Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks, (translator’s note).

• 36

  Also on the left-hand side, on the same page, is the third note: ‘Ματθ. Κεφ. κέ.’, referring to the biblical text in Matt. 25:34 (BYZ) ‘Τότε ἐρεῖ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῖς ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ, Δεῦτε, οἱ εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός μου, κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου’. Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks (translator’s note).

• 37

  See the original Greek biblical text: “κύριε ἐν θλίψει ἐμνήσθην σου ἐν θλίψει μικρᾷ ἡ παιδεία σου ἡμῖν” (Isa. 26:16, BGT). Cf. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Alfred Rahlfs, BibleWorks: BNT Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece – LXX Septuagint (LXT) (translator’s note).

• 38

  Saint Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu (translator’s note).

• 39

  A closer grammatical analysis of the word ‘τὸν Ἡγοῦμενον’ shows that it is a middle, accusative, singular participle of the verb ἡγέομαι. In Friberg’s Analytical Greek Lexicon [Fri], we find ἡγέομαι with 1 aor. ἡγησάμην; perfect ἥγημαι; (1) in the New Testament, as a present participle, associated with ἡγεμών (leading, governing) (Phil. 15:22); the substantivised participle is ὁ ἡγούμενος (the leader) (Phil. 14:12); the plural is οἱ ἡγούμενοι (the community leaders) (Heb. 13:7); (2) as making a decision after weighing up the facts or circumstances – to take into account, to consider, to hold an opinion (John 1:2); to regard with a double accusative (Phil. 2:3) (…), and in Danker’s Greek NT Lexicon (DAN)-[DANK], ἡγέομαι [cf. Lat. duco] appears with the meaning: 1. ‘to act in a leading capacity’, to lead (Luke 22:26; Acts 15:22; Heb. 13:7). Regarding Paul as a speaker in Acts 14:12; 2. very frequently, with the meaning of ‘to regard oneself as’, to believe, to consider, to infer (Acts 26:2; 2 Cor 9:5; Phil. 2:3, 6; 1 Thess. 5:13; 2 Thess. 3:15; 1 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 10:29; John 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:13). Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks (translator’s note)

• 40

  We also find a final note in this first panegyric: ‘Σειρ. Κεφ. ί.’, referring to Sir. 10:2 (BGT) ‘κατὰ τὸν κριτὴν τοῦ λαοῦ οὕτως καὶ οἱ λειτουργοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὸν ἡγούμενον τῆς πόλεως πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες αὐτήν.’ Cf. Byzantine NT, BibleWorks.