From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon#Christianity):
In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Solomon is commemorated as a saint, with the title of "Righteous Prophet and King". His feast day is celebrated on the Sunday of the Holy Forefathers (two Sundays before the Great Feast of the Nativity of the Lord).
Is this information accurate? If yes, how do we know that king Solomon repented of his sins described in 1 Kings 11?
I can feel a "vacation" from the forum coming soon (who knows for how long), so I'm just going to post now the things I've looked for and found relating to this thread. Two notes on this though: First, I had not yet looked through Tertullian, Sts. John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Justin Martyr, and John Cassian, and a few other lesser-known writers. Second, there are sometimes differences in the reference addresses among the various sites that have the Church Fathers (New Advent, CCEL, etc.), especially with Letters/Epistles, so if you're going to quote a passage elsewhere please verify it before you do so (don't be lazy like I'm being).
St. Augustine thought that Solomon "made a bad end" and had not repented:
And hence we may understand with what temperance he [David] possessed a number of wives when he was forced to punish himself for transgressing in regard to one woman. But in his case the immoderate desire did not take up its abode with him, but was only a passing guest. On this account the unlawful appetite is called even by the accusing prophet, a guest. For he did not say that he took the poor man's ewe-lamb to make a feast for his king, but for his guest. In the case of his son Solomon, however, this lust did not come and pass away like a guest, but reigned as a king. And about him Scripture is not silent, but accuses him of being a lover of strange women; for in the beginning of his reign he was inflamed with a desire for wisdom, but after he had attained it through spiritual love, he lost it through carnal lust. (2 Chro. 1:10-12; 1 Kings 11:1-3)
-- St. Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, 3.21
As regards Solomon, it need only be said that the condemnation of his conduct in the faithful narrative of holy Scripture is much more serious than the childish vehemence of Faustus' attacks. The Scripture tells us with faithful accuracy both the good that Solomon had at first, and the evil actions by which he lost the good he began with; while Faustus, in his attacks, like a man closing his eyes, or with no eyes at all, seeks no guidance from the light, but is prompted only by violent animosity. To pious and discerning readers of the sacred Scriptures evidence of the chastity of the holy men who are said to have had several wives is found in this, that Solomon, who by his polygamy gratified his passions, instead of seeking for offspring, is expressly noted as chargeable with being a lover of women. This, as we are informed by the truth which accepts no man's person, led him down into the abyss of idolatry.
-- St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 22.81
Little need be said of Solomon, who is spoken of in Holy Scripture in terms of the strongest disapproval and condemnation, while nothing is said of his repentance and restoration to the divine favor. Nor can I find in his lamentable fall even a symbolic connection with anything good. Perhaps the strange women he lusted after may be thought to represent the Churches chosen from among the Gentiles. This idea might have been admissible, if the women had left their gods for Solomon's sake to worship his God. But as he for their sakes offended his God and worshipped their gods, it seems impossible to think of any good meaning. Doubtless, something is typified, but it is something bad, as in the case already explained of Lot's wife and daughters. We see in Solomon a notable pre-eminence and a notable fall. Now, this good and evil which we see in him at different periods, first good and then evil, are in our day found together in the Church. What is good in Solomon represents, I think, the good members of the Church; and what was bad in him represents the bad members. Both are in one man, as the bad and the good are in the chaff and grain of one floor, or in the tares and wheat of one field. A closer inquiry into what is said of Solomon in Scripture might disclose, either to me or to others of greater learning and greater worth, some more probable interpretation. But as we are now engaged on a different subject, we must not allow this matter to break the connection of our discourse.
-- St. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 22.88
In another place St. Augustine says that Adam and Aaron were also deceived, though apparently including Solomon in their company does not imply that he thought Solomon likewise repented (City of God, 14.11). In all cases, however, the serious consequences of sin are finally corrected by the work of Christ (City of God, 17.8-10).
Yet St. Augustine quotes Solomon many times, said that prophecy and wisdom can be found in his words, that his works were divinely inspired, included the works of Solomon in his canon, and said that what we find in these works cannot contradict anything else in Scripture:
After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people, who, as was said before, began to reign while his father was still alive. This man, after good beginnings, made a bad end. For indeed “prosperity, which wears out the minds of the wise,” hurt him more than that wisdom profited him, which even yet is and shall hereafter be renowned, and was then praised far and wide. He also is found to have prophesied in his books, of which three are received as of canonical authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But it has been customary to ascribe to Solomon other two, of which one is called Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, on account of some resemblance of style—but the more learned have no doubt that they are not his; yet of old the Church, especially the Western, received them into authority—in the one of which, called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied.
-- St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 17.20 (see Letter 102.28-29)
We must fear, lest the divine precepts should be contrary to one another. But no: let us understand that there is the most perfect agreement in them, let us not follow the conceits of certain vain ones, who in their error think that the two Testaments in the Old and New Books are contrary to each other; that so we should think that there is any contradiction here, because one is in the book of Solomon, and the other in the Gospel. For if any one unskilful in, and a reviler of the divine Scriptures, were to say, "See where the two Testaments contradict each other. The Lord saith, Rebuke him between him and thee alone.' Solomon saith, He that reproveth openly maketh peace.'" Doth not the Lord then know what He hath commanded? Solomon would have the sinners' hard forehead bruised: Christ spareth his shame who blushes for his sins. For in the one place it is written, "He that reproveth openly maketh peace;" but in the other, "Rebuke him between him and thee alone;" not "openly," but apart and secretly. But wouldest thou know, whosoever thou art that thinkest such things, that the two Testaments are not opposed to each other, because the first of these passages is found in the book of Solomon, and the other in the Gospel?
-- St. Augustine, Sermons on the New Testament, 32.8
Like St. Augustine, St. Irenaeus also believed that Solomon was inspired and wise (cf Against Heresies, 4.20.3), but also speaks of the fall of Solomon and says that it serves as an example to us:
While, therefore, he served God without blame, and ministered to His dispensations, then was he glorified: but when he took wives from all nations, and permitted them to set up idols in Israel, the Scripture spake thus concerning him: 'And King Solomon was a lover of women, and he took to himself foreign women; and it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. And the foreign women turned away his heart after strange gods. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord: he did not walk after the Lord, as did David his father. And the Lord was angry with Solomon; for his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as was the heart of David his father.' (1 Kings 11:1) The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him, as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord.
-- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.27.1
St. Cyprian seems to take a similar path, saying that Solomon was inspired by the Holy Spirit (Epistle 54.20; Epistle 62.5; Epistle 64.2; Treatise 7.23; Treatise 8.9; Treatise 11.12), yet also speaks of his fall without going on to say that he thereafter repented:
The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, 'Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' (John 5:14) Conceive of Him as saying this also to His confessor, 'Lo thou art made a confessor; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.' Solomon also, and Saul, and many others, so long as they walked in the Lord's ways, were able to keep the grace given to them. When the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.
-- St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 6.2
Nor let any one marvel, beloved brethren, that even some of the confessors advance to these lengths, and thence also that some others sin thus wickedly, thus grievously. For neither does confession make a man free from the snares of the devil, nor does it defend a man who is still placed in the world, with a perpetual security from temptations, and dangers, and onsets, and attacks of the world; otherwise we should never see in confessors those subsequent frauds, and fornications, and adulteries, which now with groans and sorrow we witness in some. Whosoever that confessor is, he is not greater, or better, or dearer to God than Solomon, who, although so long as he walked in God's ways, retained that grace which he had received from the Lord, yet after he forsook the Lord's way he lost also then Lord's grace. And therefore it is written, 'Hold fast that which thou hast, lest another take thy crown.' (Rev. 3:11) But assuredly the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away, were it not that, when righteousness departs, the crown must also depart.
-- St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1.20
Likewise with St. Jerome (Letter 22.39). Finally, St. Gregory the Theologian considers him "the divine Solomon" (Oration 8.9), but also speaks of his fall from grace, and does not mention a later repentance (Oration 30.2).
Other Fathers spoke of Solomon as being divinely inspired, a prophet, guided by God, filled with wisdom, etc., but without commenting (in the texts I have available to me) on whether he repented or not, including St. Ambrose of Milan (On the Duties of the Clergy, 3.2), St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Defense Before Constantius, 12; Discourses Against the Arians, 1.4 & 2.14), St. Basil the Great (On the Spirit, 29; Letters 8.8 & 8.12), and St. Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 1.9; 1.10; 2.13; 3.11).
On the other hand, I found only one Father who seemed to explicitly believe that Solomon did in fact repent, that being St. Cyril of Jerusalem (quoting Prov. 24:32 in Catechetical Lectures, 2.13)