And also in the Cathedrals of the Archangel saints, Moscow and Tver saints
In the world, Theodore came from the noble boyar family of the Kolychevs, who occupied a prominent place in the Boyar Duma at the court of the Moscow sovereigns. He was born in the year. His father, Stepan Ivanovich, "an enlightened man and full of military spirit," carefully prepared his son for public service. The pious Barbara, the mother of Theodore, who ended her days in monasticism with the name Barsanuphius, sowed in his soul the seeds of sincere faith and deep piety. The young Feodor Kolychev devoted himself to the Holy Scriptures and the patristic books, on which the ancient Russian enlightenment was based, which took place in the Church and in the spirit of the Church. The Grand Duke of Moscow, Vasily III Ioannovich, the father of Ivan the Terrible, brought the young Theodore closer to the court, who, however, was not attracted by court life. Realizing its vanity and sinfulness, Theodore plunged deeper and deeper into reading books and visiting the temples of God. Life in Moscow oppressed the young ascetic, his soul longed for monastic deeds and prayerful solitude. The sincere attachment of the young Prince John to him, which foreshadowed a great future in the field of public service, could not keep the seeking City of Heaven in the earthly city.
Monasticism
demise
Criticism of hagiographic tradition
It is known that the Solovetsky "Life of Metropolitan Philip", which underlies the versions of the life of the saint that are now widespread, was written by personal enemies of the saint, who, for slandering him, were imprisoned by the tsar for repentance in the Solovetsky Monastery. So, one of the leading historians in the field of studying sources of the 16th century, R. G. Skrynnikov, points out that: " its authors were not eyewitnesses of the events described, but used the memories of living witnesses: the “old man” Simeon (Semyon Kobylin) and the Solovetsky monks who traveled to Moscow during the trial of Philip"The "monks who went to Moscow" were the very ones who became perjurers at the trial against their hegumen. Their testimony served as the only basis for the Council's condemnation of Metropolitan Philip. by whose criminal negligence, according to the annals of the Tver Otroch Monastery, “ the saint was strangled by unknown persons in his cell».
Metropolitan Philip of Moscow and All Russia.
early years
Metropolitan Philip (in the world Fyodor Stepanovich Kolychev) was born in 1507 in Moscow. His father was assigned as an uncle to the brother of Ivan the Terrible, Prince Yuri of Uglich, so he prepared Fedor for the service of the sovereign.
The mother taught her son the basics of Orthodoxy, which influenced his future fate. According to various versions, Fedor was in the service of Vasily III, or he began his service later, during the boyar guardianship of Ivan IV.
In 1537, the Kolychevs rebelled against Elena Glinskaya, the mother regent of the infant tsar, after which some were executed, and Fedor fled from Moscow. Life in the Solovetsky Monastery After his escape, Fyodor was a shepherd for a year, and then became a novice in the Solovetsky Monastery.
A year later, he was tonsured there under the name of Philip. In the Solovetsky Monastery, Philip became abbot after 8 years of being there. He showed himself as a smart and economic administrator: he ordered the installation of mills on numerous canals between the lakes, mechanically improved the monastic crafts.
Monastic construction was carried out, cells and a hospital appeared. Philip participated in the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551, where he won the sympathy of the king, as evidenced by the exile to the Solovetsky Monastery of the Trinity Abbot Artemy, the leader of the non-possessors hostile to Ivan the Terrible, and the former member of the Chosen Rada Sylvester.
Metropolitan
Initially, the Kazan archbishop Herman was supposed to become the metropolitan, but because of his rejection of the oprichnina policy, Philip was offered to take the metropolitan throne. He also put forward a demand to stop the oprichnina. After long disputes with Ivan the Terrible, Philip relented.
The first year and a half were calm, so the metropolitan did not put forward any demands, although he interceded for the disgraced. Conflict with Ivan the Terrible Discord in relations with the tsar began in 1568. Letters from the Polish king to the Moscow boyars to move to Lithuania were intercepted. This caused the first wave of terror.
The internal conflict quickly turned into an external one. On March 22 of the same year, Ivan the Terrible, with guardsmen in monastic clothes, appeared at the Assumption Cathedral during the liturgy. Then the tsar's associates asked the metropolitan to bless the ruler, for which they received a reprimand. Ivan the Terrible was extremely angry. On July 28 a decisive event took place in the fate of Metropolitan Philip.
One of the guardsmen during the procession in the Novodevichy Convent did not take off the tafya, although it was supposed to be with his head uncovered. Philip pointed this out to Ivan the Terrible, but the guardsman managed to remove his headdress, and the tsar condemned the metropolitan for slander. After this incident, preparations began for the ecclesiastical trial of Philip.
Exile and death
At the trial, Metropolitan Philip was convicted of witchcraft (a common accusation for that time). On November 8, 1568, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, during the service, Fyodor Basmannov announced the deprivation of Philip of the rank of metropolitan, after which he was removed from his hierarchal vestments and dressed in a torn monastic cassock. Philip was exiled to Tver, where he was killed on December 23, 1569 by guardsman Malyuta Skuratov, most likely at the behest of the tsar. The people were told that the former metropolitan had died of suffocation in his cell.
The relics of Metropolitan Philip were transferred to the Solovetsky Monastery, and later to the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. The canonization of Saint Philip took place in 1652.
Saint Philip the Metropolitan of Moscow in his life, an icon of the 17th century. Image from obraz.org
Escape from home
The future Saint Philip fled from Moscow in his youth. Himself from a noble family of Kolychevs, he did not want to participate in the boyar showdown under the teenage tsar, the future Ivan the Terrible. Yes, and had no inclination to court life, he liked to sit with a book, not only divine, but also from fortification science, and engineering, and historical, and agricultural.
All this was useful to him later, on Solovki, where he would build the most modern irrigation system for his time, and melons would be grown in greenhouses.
Fyodor Kolychev fled from a rich house without money and secretly, and along the way he was hired to tend the peasant herd, receiving his bread. He wanted to become a monk. Having reached Solovki, Fyodor Kolychev took monastic vows with the name of Philip.
Fedor Kolychev leaves his parental home; stigma of a hagiographic icon
On Solovki
In the extremely harsh conditions of the north, working a lot and hard on household obediences, Philip tried to retire to the desert for prayer. There, according to the monastic belief, the bloodied Christ appeared to Philip, predicting his future fate and martyrdom.
The brothers repeatedly tried to choose Philip as abbot, but he repeatedly refused. But in 1546, he takes over as abbess and manages the monastery for 20 years.
Abbot Philip's craving for solitude and prayer was combined with rare administrative abilities, and two traditions of the Russian Church - the non-possessor Nil Sorsky and Joseph Volotsky in his life were united without conflict.
In the Solovetsky monastery; stigma of a hagiographic icon
St. Philip quickly increased the land holdings of the monastery, found rich donors (including the king and his family), and began large-scale construction with the funds received.
Under him, the stone Assumption Church, the refectory chamber, the Transfiguration Cathedral, many outbuildings, a network of canals appeared on Solovki, and several technical devices appeared that facilitated the hard work of the monks.
An excellent harbor with a hotel appeared on Bolshoi Zayatsky Island. The monastery library and sacristy were replenished. At the same time, the strict charter developed by Philip did not encourage money-grubbing. The prayer life of the monastery gave a good example to other monasteries of the White Sea region.
You can't escape fate
Ivan the Terrible remembered the abbot of Solovetsky, who personally knew the saint from childhood. He summons Philip to Moscow and offers to become the metropolitan of the Russian Church.
Ivan the Terrible, who was well versed in people, was looking for an ally in the face of the Church and knew that the future St. Philip is not capable of intrigue and betrayal.
The king hoped for the personal devotion of St. Philip, known to him as a person, rather soft and not at all ambitious.
St. Philip set the Terrible a condition - the right to apply to the king with requests for pardon.
The Church used to have this right, but Ivan the Terrible abolished it.
The tsar put forward his condition - the metropolitan should not interfere in the affairs of the oprichnina. In 1566, this innovation was only two years old and there were no bloody deeds behind it. St. Philip agreed.
With the strengthening of the oprichnina order, the monarch less and less listened to the voice of the Church. The bishops who tried to intercede for the "traitors" he himself suspected of betrayal. And the tsar subsequently broke his promise to allow the metropolitan to intercede for the disgraced.
But for some time, relations between the head of the Church and the head of state remain good. So, in one of his letters to the brethren of the Solovetsky Monastery, the Metropolitan, sending alms from Moscow, asked to pray for the sovereign and his family. The message ended with words in which the spiritual core of the saint is clearly visible: “And I bless you and beat you with a lot of foreheads ... for God's sake, live with love.”
Refusal to bless
In 1567, while investigating the case of the equestrian I.P. Fedorov, one of the first persons in the state, the tsar resorted to mass executions. Many innocent people were subjected to repressions - nobles, their servants, family members, peasants. Muscovite Russia did not know such blood, it was not part of its political traditions.
Metropolitan Philip persuaded the king to abandon the oprichnina: “... I began to ask the sovereign to step back from such an objectionable undertaking. And he reminded him of the Gospel word: “If the kingdom is divided in itself, it will perish,” writes the metropolitan.
Ya.P. Turlygin, “Metropolitan Philip denounces Ivan the Terrible” (1800). Image from aminpro.ru
Having failed to achieve his goal, the metropolitan denounces the guardsmen in public: “We bring a pure and bloodless sacrifice to the Lord for the salvation of people, and innocent Christian blood is shed behind the altar and people die in vain!”
He publicly in the temple refuses to bless the tsar, urging Ivan Vasilyevich to first forgive those who "sin" to him.
Slandered and killed
The tsar did not expect such a firm and public opposition from Metropolitan Philip. The public condemnation of innocent murders, the call for mercy caused rage. The tsar gives the order to seize the metropolitan and put the head of the Russian Church on trial for a "vicious life."
Bishop's robes were torn off Metropolitan Philip right in the temple, during the service, and replaced with a tattered cassock.
Some hierarchs resisted the trial, and when, under pressure from the tsar, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church, Metropolitan Philip, on the basis of slanderous testimony, was nevertheless found guilty of a “vicious life,” they did not allow him to be burned, as was the canon for such a crime. The death penalty was replaced by exile in the Tver Otroch Monastery.
N.V. Nevrev, "Metropolitan Philip and Malyuta Skuratov" (1898). Image from rodon.org
But the revenge of Ivan the Terrible, who failed to achieve a public execution for Philip, did not slow down. The guardsman Malyuta Skuratov-Belsky, the personal murderer of Ivan the Terrible, secretly came to the monastery and killed the saint.
In 1590, the relics of St. Philip were transferred from the Tver Otroch Monastery to the Solovetsky Monastery, and in 1652, by order of Patriarch Nikon and with great celebrations, to the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. There they still arrive in a shrine at the southern entrance to the temple, in front of the iconostasis.
Metropolitan Philip
Life in the world
The future metropolitan, then named Fedor, was born in Moscow 11 February 1507 of the year. Fedor's parents were noble boyars named Kolychevs. The boy's mother Barbara raised him in the best traditions of Christianity and even taught him to read from the Holy Scriptures. The father prepared his son for public service and tried to instill military skills in him. Fedor preferred to devote his free time to reading and prayers. When he turned 30, Fedor's family fell into disgrace, and he secretly left Moscow. He moved north, reached Lake Onega, where he had no strength left to go further. Fyodor was taken in by a local peasant and gave him a small job.
Solovetsky Monastery
Fedor did not live long in the village with a kind peasant. Nevertheless, the craving for church life pulled him to the islands in the Solovetsky Monastery. The young novice was diligent in carrying out all the assigned work, and after a year and a half he was tonsured a monk. Fedor was given a new name - Philip. Through 8 years old abbot of the Solovetsky monastery Alexy, nominated Philip to his place. The cathedral supported the decision of Alexy, in turn, the new hegumen was able to flourish the Solovetsky Monastery. Under him, many church and economic facilities were built, the economy was established, the salt works were donated to the monastery by the king. Hegumen Philip participated in the Stoglavy Cathedral 1551 of the year.
Metropolitan of All Russia
Moscow was left without a metropolitan, because the candidate for this dignity did not agree with the policy of the tsar. Then Ivan the Terrible called the Solovki abbot to his capital. Council of Bishops in July 1566 year put forward a proposal to the hegumen to become a metropolitan. Fedor had a firm position in life, he set the conditions under which the king needed to abandon the oprichnina. The tsar could not agree with such a proposal, a dispute ensued between them, Ivan the Terrible quickly got tired of arguing with the stubborn abbot. As a result, the church hierarchs were able to persuade the abbot to abandon their conditions. 25 July the issue was resolved, on that day Philip became Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia.
Confrontation and exile
AT 1568 Ivan the Terrible intercepted the letters of the Polish king to his boyars, where the Poles asked the Russians to cross to Lithuania. This event made the king furious. Mass executions and disgrace began. Philip could not bear the oprichnina violence, and made attempts to reason with the king with a peaceful conversation. As a result, Ivan the Terrible began to ignore the metropolitan. 22 Martha In the same year, the tsar came to worship along with guardsmen, all dressed in monastic clothes, over military uniforms and weapons. At the end of the service, the king asked for a blessing, but Philip did not pay attention to the request. Then the boyars demanded to fulfill the blessing, and instead the metropolitan delivered a diatribe, which said that in Russia, through the fault of the tsar, the blood of the innocent is shed and the state does not protect its citizens. Ivan the Terrible became very angry at such words, and the next day a wave of new executions began. In the summer, another clash occurred between the metropolitan and the tsar: Philip made a remark to the guardsman, who was dressed inappropriately for reading the Gospel. At this moment, Ivan the Terrible did not hesitate to express himself in the direction of the metropolitan. The tsar immediately sent a commission to the Solovetsky Monastery to collect incriminating information about Philip. Moreover, the commission acted by the method of threats and bribery. In November, a trial took place over Philip, the metropolitan, without waiting for the verdict, renounced his rank. 4 november the bishops deprived Philip of his rank, but the tsar asked him to hold a divine service in the Dormition Monastery. At this divine service, the guardsmen tore off the church clothes from the metropolitan, dressed him in monastic rags and arrested him. Having mocked him in every possible way, the saint was exiled to a distant monastery in Tver. Going on one of the campaigns, the tsar wanted to receive the blessing of the saint, and sent Malyuta Skuratov to him for this. 23 December 1569 Skuratov killed Philip in his cell by strangulation.
December 23(January 5, new style) 1569- death day Metropolitan Philip. Around the death of the metropolitan, there are many historical myths that live and multiply to this day.
I'll start with Novoskoltsev's painting "The Last Minutes of Metropolitan Philip" (see below). For this picture, Novoskoltsev was awarded the title of academician in 1889. The painting depicts, allegedly, Metropolitan Philip (praying) and Malyuta Skuratov (entering the door).
But Metropolitan Philip was Orthodox, and the man depicted in the picture prays on his knees, and a rosary with a Catholic roof hangs on his hand. It is clear that before us is a Nikonian, and not Metropolitan Philip. This picture is a vivid example of myth-making about the involvement of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the murder of Metropolitan Philip. I think it would be correct to call this picture - "Patriarch Nikon visits his spiritual child."
By the way, Nikon played a huge role in unwinding the historical myth about the involvement of Tsar Ivan the Terrible in the murder of the Metropolitan and even forced Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to repent for the murder that Terrible had not committed. In the penitential letter of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ( written by Nikon), sent to Solovki in 1652, said: “I beg you, come here and resolve the sin of our great-grandfather, Tsar and Grand Duke John, committed against you recklessly, envy and unrestrained rage” (“Collection of State Letters and Treaties”, part 3 Moscow, 1822). See below the picture, which depicts the "Quiet One", penitent at the tomb of Metropolitan Philip, under the supervision of Nikon. It would be better if these two repented for the church schism they had caused!
Four years after writing the letter of repentance, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky was killed, and soon thousands of ordinary priests and laity shared his fate. Still nothing is heard about the penitential letters of Nikon and his adherents for the murder of Pavel Kolomensky and many thousands of Old Believers.
Freed from Nikon's tutelage, Alexei Mikhailovich changed his attitude towards Ivan the Terrible. I quote an excerpt from a note with the details of the conciliar meeting on December 1, 1666: “And the great sovereign said: why did he, Nikon, write such dishonor and reproach to the memory of the great sovereign, the tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, but concealed about himself, how he he slew the Bishop of Kolomna without Paul's cathedral and tore off his hierarch's clothes and exiled him to the Khutyn monastery, and there he did not become unknown, and in order to interrogate him, according to which rules did he make?
And the holy patriarchs of the former Patriarch Nikon were interrogated.
And the former Patriarch Nikon did not give an answer about the sovereign tsar and Grand Duke Ivan Vasilyevich of all Russia, but about Paul the bishop he said: according to what rule he did not remember the monster and exiled him, and where he disappeared he does not know, but there is de about that on business of the patriarch's court.
And Pavel, the Metropolitan of Sarsk and Podonsk, said that there was no and never happened about that at the patriarchal court, and that Pavel the bishop was excommunicated without a council ”(N.A. Gibbenet “Historical study of the case of Patriarch Nikon”, St. Petersburg, 1884, p. 1012).
But it was already too late. The myth was confirmed by an official document (so to speak, "a frank confession"). Few people now think about the fact that “The Quietest” with Nikon, and not Ivan the Terrible, “confessed” to the murder.
The case of Nikon was continued with even greater success by Karamzin. Here are some little-known facts from the life of this "historian" (more precisely, the myth-maker) based on the book Vyacheslav Manyagin "The Truth of the Terrible Tsar"(p. 13. Moscow. Algorithm. 2007):
“The trouble is that the person who received the title of official historiographer of the Russian State was sick with a severe form of Russophobia.
Considering that he had already paid his debt to the Motherland, at the age of 18 (!) Karamzin retired from public service and got along with the Masons. Since that time, Karamzin has been a member of the Masonic Lodge of the Golden Crown, a person very close to famous figures of Russian Freemasonry. According to Yu. M. Lotman, doctor of historical sciences, “Karamzin’s views were deeply imprinted by the four years he spent in the circle of N. I. Novikov. From here, young Karamzin endured utopian aspirations, faith in progress and dreams of the coming human brotherhood under the guidance of wise mentors.
Let's add to this - and contempt for everything Russian: “... We are not the same as our brave ancestors: so much the better! Rudeness, national and internal, ignorance, idleness, boredom were their share in the highest state: all paths to the refinement of the mind and to noble spiritual pleasures are open to us. All folk is nothing compared to the human. The main thing is to be people, not Slavs ”(Karamzin N.M. Letters from a Russian traveler). Nothing native touches the soul of the “Russian Tacitus”, so sentimental in other cases. Walking along the Kremlin wall, he dreams of how good it would be to demolish it so that it does not spoil the panorama ... "
What is known now about the murder of Metropolitan Philip (and far from everything is known) is critically comprehended in the above book. Manyagin. Below is an excerpt from Chapter 11 "Death of the Metropolitan" from this book (pp. 117-126):
“In Tver, in the secluded cramped cell of the Otroch Monastery, the holy elder Philip was still breathing, praying ... to the Lord for the softening of John’s heart: the tyrant did not forget this metropolitan he had deposed and sent his favorite Malyuta Skuratov to him, as if to take his blessing . The elder answered that they bless only the good and for good. Guessing the guilt of the embassy, he meekly said: “I have been waiting for death for a long time; May the sovereign's will be done!" It was fulfilled: the vile Skuratov strangled the holy husband, but, wanting to hide the murder, he announced to the abbot and brethren that Philip had died from unbearable heat in his cell, ”Karamzin wrote about the death of Metropolitan Philip.
Those who accused and continue to accuse Ivan the Terrible of the murder of St. Philip (although, on their part, it would be more correct to talk about the order to kill the saint), they refer to as many “primary sources” as the chronicles, the memoirs of Taube and Kruse, the writings of Prince Kurbsky and the Solovetsky Life.
It should be said that without exception, all the compilers of these documents were political opponents of the king, and therefore a critical attitude towards these sources is necessary. Moreover, they were compiled many years after the events described in them.
So, the Novgorod Third Chronicle, under the summer of 7077, reporting the strangulation of St. Philip, calls him "a miracle worker of all Russia", that is, the chronicler speaks of him as an already canonized saint. This indicates that the annalistic record was compiled several decades after the death of St. Philip. The Mazurin Chronicle for 1570, reporting on his death, directly refers to the Solovetsky "Life", which was compiled not earlier than the very end of the 16th century, or even at the beginning of the 17th century. The difference between an event and annalistic record is 30–40 years! It's the same as if a biography of Stalin written in 1993, 400 years later, would be passed off as indisputable historical evidence.
As for the "Memoirs" of Taube and Kruse, they are verbose and detailed, but their obviously slanderous nature takes them out of the brackets of reliable sources. Serious scientific researchers do not consider them as such. Thus, the leading specialist in Russian history of that period, R. G. Skrynnikov, notes: “The eyewitnesses of the events, Taube and Kruse, compiled a lengthy, but very tendentious account of the events four years after the trial.” In addition, the moral character of these political crooks, who have stained themselves with numerous betrayals, deprives them of the right to be witnesses at the court of history, and at any other court.
The same can be said about Prince Andrei Kurbsky. Being the commander of the Russian troops in Livonia, he entered into an agreement with the Polish king Sigismund and changed during the fighting. Received an award for treachery with lands and serfs in Lithuania. Personally commanded military operations against Russia. The Polish-Lithuanian and Tatar detachments under his command not only fought the Russian land, but also destroyed Orthodox churches, which he himself does not deny in his letters to the Tsar (specifying only his personal non-participation in sacrilege). As a source of information about events in Russia after 1564, he is not reliable, not only because of his sharply negative attitude towards the sovereign, but also simply because he lived on the territory of another country and was not an eyewitness to the events. On virtually every page of his writings there are "mistakes" and "inaccuracies", most of which are deliberate slander.
Regrettably, but the "Life" of Metropolitan Philip raises many questions. It was written by opponents of Tsar John about 35 years after the death of the saint, and contains many factual errors. R. G. Skrynnikov points out that the “Life of Metropolitan Philip” was written ... in the 90s of the 16th century in the Solovetsky Monastery. Its authors were not eyewitnesses of the events described, but used the memories of living witnesses: the elder Simeon (Semyon Kobylin), the former bailiff at F. Kolychev and the Solovetsky monks who traveled to Moscow during the trial of Philip.
Thus, the "Life" was compiled: 1) from the words of the monks who slandered the saint; it was their slanderous testimony that played a decisive role in the unjust condemnation of Metropolitan Philip by the Consecrated Council of the Russian Orthodox Church; 2) according to the words of the former bailiff Semyon Kobylin, who guarded the saint in the Otrochi Monastery and did not fulfill his direct duties, and perhaps was involved in the murder. Is it reasonable to take the words of such people on faith, even if their words have taken the form of life? The attitude of these people towards the sovereign, their desire to shield themselves and expose others is quite understandable.
Compiled by slanderers and accusers of Metropolitan Philip, the text of the Life contains many oddities. He "has long baffled researchers with his confusion and abundance of errors" (Skrynnikov).
For example, the "Life" tells how the tsar sent the severed head of his brother, Mikhail Ivanovich, to the saint who had already been reduced from the pulpit, but was still in Moscow. But the roundabout M.I. Kolychev died in 1571, three years after the events described. In other editions of the Life, where the scribes noticed this absurdity, the brother is replaced by the nephew of the saint.
It is also surprising that the "Life" conveys in detail the conversation between Grigory Lukyanovich Skuratov-Belsky (Malyuta) and St. Philip, and also talks about how he allegedly killed the holy prisoner, although the authors of the text of the "Life" themselves claim: "no one was a witness to what happened between them."
The unreliability of this episode is indicated by both secular and Orthodox researchers. So, G. P. Fedotov, giving an assessment of the dialogues cited in the Life, indicates that the speech of St. Philip "is precious to us not as an exact record of the words of the saint, but as an ideal dialogue ... since it does not bear the character of authenticity." And he adds that too much in these memorable words belongs to the eloquent pen of the historian Karamzin.
Shielding themselves, the compilers of the "Life" indicate the customers of the slander against St. Philip, which were "the malice of the accomplices of Pimen of Novgorod, Pafnutius of Suzdal, Philotheus of Ryazan, the siggel of Blagoveshchensky Eustathius." The latter, the king's confessor, was a "whisperer" against St. Philip in front of the king: “... constantly appearing and secretly carrying speeches unlike the king in St. Philip." About Archbishop Pimen, the Life says that he, the first hierarch of the Russian Church after the Metropolitan, dreamed of "rapturing his throne." To condemn and depose St. Philip, they held their "council", which, according to Kartashev, became "the most shameful of all that have been throughout Russian church history" ...
Thus, the sources that “testify” to the murder of St. Philip Skuratov-Belsky, by order of the tsar, were compiled in an environment hostile to the tsar, and many years after the events described. Their compilers write from other people's words, they experience a pronounced rejection of the policy of centralization pursued by the Moscow government and willingly repeat rumors discrediting the Moscow sovereigns. These primary sources are too biased and unreliable. Moreover, the facts themselves - the trial of the saint at the instigation of a number of higher hierarchs of the Church, his deprivation of dignity, exile and martyrdom - are not subjected to the slightest doubt by the author of these lines.
However, the accusation of Tsar Ivan the Terrible that all this was done by his direct order has no serious grounds. Unbiased and serious scientific research is needed to reveal the truth. Moreover, it is necessary to analyze the relics of St. Philip for poison. I won’t be at all surprised if the poison is discovered, and it will be the same poison that poisoned Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich and almost the entire royal family.
In addition, when getting acquainted with the details of the murder, the question inevitably arises: why, in fact, did the Terrible order the murder of St. Philip? Of course, if John's cruelty is recognized a priori, then no other evidence is needed. But at the trial of history, I would like to have evidence of a hanger. The ancients in such cases asked: who benefits?
The names of the saint's enemies are well known and have been mentioned above. These are Archbishop Pimen of Novgorod - the second person in the conspiracy of 1569, Bishops Pafnuty of Suzdal and Filofey of Ryazan, as well as their numerous minions. Even at the appointment of the saint to the metropolis in 1566, they "asked the king to assuage (!) his anger at Philip." John, on the contrary, did not have anger at the new metropolitan, even when he asked him for the disgraced Novgorodians or denounced the shortcomings of the government. The tsar was even more eager to see on the Moscow cathedra a man he had known since childhood, famous for his honesty and holiness. For vain and ambitious intriguers, the election of Philip was tantamount to disaster ...
At first, the intriguers tried to drive a wedge of slander between the saint and the king. The instrument was the royal confessor, who, as mentioned above, "openly and secretly bore speeches unlike John against Philip." And Philip was lied to about John. But this attempt failed, since as early as 1566 the tsar and the metropolitan demarcated the spheres of influence in writing: one did not interfere in church administration, and the other did not touch state affairs. When the saint was accused of political unreliability, John simply did not believe the intriguers and demanded factual evidence, which, of course, the conspirators did not have.
Then the lords of Novgorod, Ryazan and Suzdal concluded an alliance with high-ranking guardsmen-aristocrats against Philip. The boyars Alexei and Fyodor Basmanov joined the case. The conspirators changed tactics. To search for compromising material, a commission headed by Pafnuty and the guardsman Prince Temkin-Rostovsky went to the Solovetsky Monastery. Abbot of the monastery Paisius, who was promised the episcopal rank for slandering his teacher, and nine monks, bribed and intimidated, gave the necessary testimony. The rest was a matter of technique.
In November 1568, the conspiring bishops assembled the cathedral. The verdict of the cathedral, like many other documents of that time, was subsequently “lost”. But it is known that Archbishop Pimen, who hoped to become a metropolitan, “denounced” the saint with particular vehemence. It should be specially noted that “the king did not interfere in the decisions of the council, and the opponents of Philip had to turn to the king themselves” ...
… The saint's enemies miscalculated. Pimen did not become a metropolitan - John was not so simple and called St. Philip Abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Cyril. And in September 1569, an investigation began on the connections of the Moscow and Novgorod traitors and their complicity in the elimination of Philip. The saint became a very dangerous witness, and they decided to remove him. When Skuratov-Belsky, who was in charge of the investigation, reached Tver, the saint was already dead. It can be assumed that the tsar sent his trusted servant to the prisoner with a request to return to the metropolis, and not at all with an order to strangle the saint. But the return of Metropolitan Philip to Moscow was by no means part of the plans of the conspirators. And here, as a sin, one of them - the bailiff Kobylin - guarded the holy prisoner. And with this watchman, the prisoner died - either from intoxication, or was strangled with a pillow, or poisoned ... "
The e-book is available here.
