The article explores the phenomenon of episcopal hunting in Late Antiquity (fourth-sixth centuries CE) as a component of episcopal leisure culture. The study seeks to determine the place of hunting as a form of leisure among bishops and to explain how ecclesiastical attitudes toward this activity evolved over time. Methodologically, the research combines historical-critical source analysis with comparative, historical-genetic, and socio-cultural approaches. On the basis of a range of literary sources including episcopal correspondence, hagiographical narratives, poetry, canon law collections, and imperial legislation, the article argues that hunting played an important role in the social practices of the late Roman elite and served as a means of reinforcing personal and patronage networks. Bishops of aristocratic background often participated in these activities and remained integrated into the cultural environment from which they emerged. It is shown that no universal ecclesiastical prohibition on hunting existed in the fourth and fifth centuries and that abstention from hunting was largely associated with individual models of ascetic or pastoral conduct. Over time, however, hunting came to be viewed as inappropriate and incompatible with the ideal conduct expected of the clergy. These restrictions on clerical hunting reflected broader changes in elite culture as well as shifting expectations regarding episcopal behavior and clerical identity.

Between 1901 and 1913, a religious movement for church reform took place in Russia. The doctrinal foundation of the movement was the doctrine of the «flesh», which asserted that in Christianity, earthly existence in its natural-material forms has its own religious significance, but this significance was rejected by the Church. The question of the "flesh of the world" in Christianity was perceived by Orthodox theologians and the public as a rehabilitation of paganism. For V.V. Rozanov, D.S. Merezhkovsky, who initiated the discussion of this issue between 1889 and 1903, it was a metaphysical question. Associate Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy A.V. Kartashev met them at the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Meetings (1901–1903), where their religious question was raised. As a doctrine, it had not yet been systematized or formalized, existing in the form of large and small maxims scattered throughout the philosophical and religious works of Rozanov, the literary criticism of D.S. Merezhkovsky, and the letters to them of priest A.P. Ustyinsky. In 1903, A.V. Kartashev applied the teleological principle and presented a systemic view of the issue. The purpose of this article is to address this unexplored topic in the early work of A.V. Kartashev and, using hermeneutic, problem-analogical, and chronological methods, to reconstruct the teleology of the "flesh" of 1903 according to Kartashev. The study is conducted within theological discourse, using materials from articles by A.V. Kartashev, D.S. Merezhkovsky, and theologian P.P. Kudryavtsev, who polemicized with the writers. To verify Kartashev's teleology, the doctoral dissertation of Bishop Kirill (Zinkovsky) was used, as well as sections on the attitude of the Church's holy fathers towards the flesh. The analysis of the texts revealed that in 1903, A.V. Kartashev essentially commented on the teachings of Merezhkovsky, but by applying the principles of teleology, he developed a systematic approach to "flesh" as a "phenomenon of cosmic existence." In his teleology of the flesh, A.V. Kartashev relied on his academic knowledge of patristics and declared his agreement with D.S. Merezhkovsky on the "equal holiness" of the flesh and the spirit, but he did not go beyond the boundaries of the church tradition.

The paper examines the relationship between an Irish journalist and special correspondent for London’s The Daily Telegraph Emile Dillon who spent many years in Russia and a French priest Alfred Loisy who was excommunicated because of his involvement into the Catholic Modernism movement. The study draws upon the extensive correspondence between Dillon and Loisy, preserved in their archives in France, UK, and the USA. Information regarding Dillon and Loisy found in their correspondence with other individuals was also utilized. The exchange between Dillon and Loisy was characterized by mutual trust and confidentiality. It allows us to follow the undercover support Dillon provided to Loisy, as Dillon operated under pseudonyms. The motives driving Loisy’s scholarly endeavors were less a matter of academic pursuit than of opportunistic pragmatism. Loisy suspended his revisionist interpretation of the Scriptures when the opportunity arose for him to become a bishop; conversely, he entered into open conflict with Rome when doing so became a prerequisite for securing a professorship at the Collège de France, given the anticlerical policy of the Third Republic of Belle Epoque. Dillon expressed his sympathy for Loisy’s views under a pseudonym, as openly supporting Loisy could have jeopardized his position as the The Daily Telegraph’s special correspondent in the countries where he was stationed.