The Ideal of Christian Poverty in the Refectories of Constantinople

Poverty and Monastic Meals

According to Constantinopolitan monastic rules, poverty was theoretically an example to follow.
The typikon of the Pantokrator monastery (1136) links monks and the poor with Psalm 22:26, which states, ‘The poor shall eat and be satisfied,’ and was sung at supper's start.
This highlights the intellectual inspiration from mealtime readings and the promise of poverty in monastic life.
Byzantine monastic diets were restricted to water, bread, wine, vegetables, and legumes, with exceptions on non-fasting days, feasts, or death anniversaries of founder’s kin. On such days, eggs, cheese, fish, and shellfish were allowed.
Meat was consistently avoided, according to documents.
Communal refectory meals were key daily events in coenobitic monastic life.
The second typikon of St Demetrios-Kellibara (1315?–1328) emphasizes equality among diners, specifying identical schedules, tables, food, drinks, and portions.
However, some sources reveal superiors and aged or aristocratic monks received privileges.
Even monasteries emphasizing equality, like the convent of the Mother of God of Bebaia Elpis (1327–1335), saw hidden privilege acceptance.
At Bebaia Elpis, nuns were instructed not to look at others' plates, meant to be identical, even for refectory workers.
Imperial women at the Lips monastery (typikon dating to 1294–1301) could choose to eat with other nuns or not.
Two centuries prior, aristocratic women at the Kecharitomene convent (typikon dating to 1110–1116) could eat more than other nuns.

Food-related Charity in Urban Monasteries

Urban monasteries frequently offered food, coins, and clothes to paupers at the gate on a regular schedule, supplementing hospitals and hostels.
The typikon of Bebaia Elpis mentions leftover collection into baskets, distributed to the poor at the gate after meals.
Palaiologan period typika emphasize charity to the poor, mirroring aristocratic philanthropy and related literature.
Alexios Makrembolites’ Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor is a famous example, naively suggesting building hospices, hospitals, orphanages and guesthouses like in the empire's past to assist the poor.
The rich argue that contemporary economic conditions differ vastly from Justinian's alleged Golden Age.

Refectories of Constantinople

Information on refectory features largely comes from written sources.
Most capital monasteries had refectories, evidenced in the 1455 early Ottoman survey of city buildings.
İnalcık translated drapez as ‘sumptuous house,’ but it likely comes from Greek trapeza, meaning refectory.
If correct, several Byzantine monastic dining halls existed during the early Ottoman period, but only one seems to have survived.
Byzantine sources indicate refectories' splendour despite references to a poor lifestyle.
Theodore Metochites described the painted cycle in the Chora monastery refectory, attempting to justify its opulence.
He explains the paintings of Christ's mysteries and miracles sweetened the monks' hearts and strengthened their bodies, raising their minds to God and preventing them from focusing on the food, or behaving like scavengers.
Food is a necessary evil for the body's survival, but monks should prioritize their minds and devotion to God.
Ousterhout suggests the Chora refectory was on the church's northern side; when converted to a mosque, the kitchen likely adopted the refectory's position (Figure 11.1).
A 1341 decree regarding the conversion of Fokas Maroules' monastery from female to male mandated replacing female saints with male ones in the refectory.
Stephan of Novgorod (mid-14th century) and Ruy Gonzàlez de Clavijo (early 15th century) reported the importance and lavish decoration of refectories.
Stephen described the Studios monastery's refectory as more wonderful than others.
Clavijo described a large marble table and mosaic depiction of the Last Supper in the refectory.
Clavijo noted the marvellous refinements of the Peribleptos monastery's refectory, including portraits of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos' family (r. 1261–1282) and an ambitious mosaic cycle of Christ’s life.
The refectory had a long polished marble table, white stone slab pavement, white marble sideboards, and mosaic-adorned ceiling and walls depicting Gospel Story incidents.

Identification of Kefeli Mescidi

All mentioned Constantinopolitan refectories have disappeared, hindering account verification.
Striker and Kuban suggested a squared structure with benches at Kalenderhane Camii was a Palaiologan-era refectory, but evidence is lacking.
The lack of material evidence may be remedied by re-evaluating Kefeli Mescidi (Istanbul) as the former refectory of St John of Petra monastery (Figure 11.2).

Monastery of St John of Petra

Kefeli Mescidi was converted into a mosque after 1629–1630 during Murad IV's reign.
Kefeli Mescidi and Odalar Camii were previously equated with the Latin churches ‘San Nicola’ and ‘Santa Maria di Costantinopoli.’
Asutay-Effenberger (2008) posited Odalar Camii as the main church of St John of Petra, while prior scholarship connected Kefeli Mescidi with the monastery or ‘that of Manuel.’
Janin and Van Millingen proposed Kefeli was the refectory of these two complexes.
Material features, topographical factors, and written sources support Kefeli Mescidi's identification as a refectory linked to the monastery of Petra which likely covered a large part of Istanbul's north-western historical peninsula.
Kefeli Mescidi’s plan resembles other surviving Byzantine refectories, like Hilandar monastery’s on Mount Athos, which shared a patron (Serbian King Milutin).
Monastic dining halls were often surrounded by food storage and processing structures; Kefeli Mescidi's main nave was originally flanked by additional structures.
Outer masonry analysis indicates a Palaiologan period dating, with dimensions and masonry quality indicative of a monumental prior structure befitting the trapeza's importance which is supported by written sources from the monastery of St John of Petra.
Most information on St John of Petra dates to the 11th-12th centuries, though it may have been founded earlier.
The monastery and its kitchen were known for lavishness.
Eustathios of Thessaloniki noted St John of Petra's kitchen supplied Emperor Manuel I Komnenos' (r. 1143–1180) wedding banquet with legumes, bread, cheese, wine, and rare items like imported red and black caviar despite it being a fasting period.
St John was likely prosperous in the Komnenian period but was described as merely ‘rich by God’ by 14th-century Russian pilgrims.
‘Rich by God’ emphasizes monastic poverty and the absence of property established by founder John Neusteutes in the 11th century.
He re-founded the monastery between 1084 and 1095 with Anna Dalassene's support.
St John became a major capital monastery in the Palaiologan period.
After 1308, Serbian king Milutin restored it and its hospital, with imperial donations continuing until the Late Palaiologan period, exemplified by Empress Helena Dragaš' (Serbian wife of Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425)) donation.
St John became a significant humanistic culture center and continued functioning after Constantinople's fall, as indicated in the 1455 Ottoman survey.
Clavijo’s account aligns with Kefeli Mescidi’s longitudinal appearance and extension, stressing the monastery's richness in materials and relics.
Clavijo described a great gallery with a 30-pace-long white marble table surrounded by wooden seats and 21 white stone sideboards, along with three smaller single-stone tables.
Sources from the Palaiologan period praise St. John of Petra
Patriarch Kallistos (1350–1353 and 1355–1363) wrote an enkomion for its first founder, John Neusteutes.
John Ioalites, a second founder, restored the complex, including the refectory, around the mid-12th century.
Manuscripts Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 91 (ff 165r-v.) and Paris. Gr. 2748 (ff. 151v–152r) contain inscriptions from the apse and cornices, honoring John Ioalites and John Neusteutes, which alluded to God's gifts donated to Saint Petra, in timber, stone and mosaics.
The third inscription related to Neusteutes stressed monastic poverty, modesty, discretion, and condemned food abuse.
It referenced ‘custody of the eyes,’ moderate food and wine use, limited possession of clothes and objects, avoidance of gossip and temptations, and proper refectory behavior.
Monks were instructed to avoid yawning or coughing excessively in the refectory so as not to provoke other peers.
Despite the richly built and decorated setting, monks were to live moderately, like the poor.
While the identification of St John of Petra's refectory with Kefeli Mescidi isn't definitive, written and material sources often contradict monastic rules which celebrate poverty but the Constantinopolitan settings were characterized by grandeur and lavishness.
The typikon for the Archangel Michael monastery on Mount Auxentios restored by Michael VIII Palaiologos forbade surplus storage, reinforcing poverty ideals.
Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos displayed aversion to monasteries exhibiting contradictory behavior and decried monasteries becoming rich while others lived in poverty.

Design of Constantinopolitan Refectories

Byzantine refectories had a codification between the 9th and 12th centuries, adopting an elongated-rectangular plan with an apse.
The plans evolved from aristocratic triclinia, Late Antique rooms with vaulted niches.
The ‘chamber of nineteen couches’ of Constantinople’s Great Palace, restored under Emperor Constantine VII (913–959), exemplifies this.
Lateral triclinium niches housed tables and couches, as did the central apse for important guests; aristocratic architecture later emulated this.
The 5th-century Lausos palace triclinium (60x12 m) near the Hippodrome featured a rectangular structure with a central apse and six lateral niches.
The Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis (9th century) describes similar structures added to Ravenna’s ecclesiastical palace in the 5th century.
Around 795–800, Pope Leo III built a similar triclinium (aula leonina) in Rome’s Lateran complex.
The switch from secular to ecclesiastical contexts may explain the gradual elimination of lateral niches, reflecting less sumptuous religious needs.
Connections between triclinia and refectories have been suggested, as well as links to early Christian funerary banquets.
Popović suggests the private nature of monastic meals contrasts with secular banquets, implying refectories didn't adopt the triclinium model.
Bek argues Late-Antique imperial architecture and banquets gained a ‘cultic’ aspect with Christian symbolism.
The Charsianeites monastery typikon (1407) shows that the refectory was the only acceptable room to accommodate visitors to the monastery, where they could share a meal with the monks.
The refectory retained the ‘guest-reception’ aspect, likely from the triclinium model, even in its monastic form.
The evolutionary link between aristocratic triclinia and monastic refectories is supported by a Constantinopolitan context where aristocratic and monastic spheres overlapped, due to the lavish monasteries being built, restored, and inhabited by elite or imperial family members.
Funerary commemorations and banquets in the monastery of Bebaia Elpis, exemplified by the monastery of the Philantropos are social gatherings for aristocratic groups.
The architectural origin of Byzantine refectories and their evolution from aristocratic models align with the intrinsic lavishness of these buildings.

Conclusions

Identifying Kefeli Mescidi as a former refectory helps reduce the gap in material evidence regarding Constantinopolitan monastic life.
Comparisons with other refectories in Greece support this idea, with the building suggesting a remarkable structure.
Byzantine refectories shared kinship with aristocratic triclinia, evolving from Constantinopolitan imperial design to monastic organization, aimed at hosting guests and sharing meals within monastic constraints.
Monastery and nunnery members in Constantinople were often aristocratic imperial families, adhering to poverty ideals.
Christian poverty was theoretically displayed in Constantinople monasteries through refectory meals, food policies, and charity, emphasizing the poor's lives as models and promoting sacrifice and equality.
This ideal didn't always translate into practice or architecture, which was often opulent.
Byzantines recognized this contradiction, but the moral elevation from edifying paintings and readings justified the pretext.
Monks paid lip service to poverty, and while they didn't always practice it, the rhetoric reveals attitudes toward the poor in Middle and Late Byzantine Constantinople.
Poverty was a civic and religious responsibility, involving the wider religious community.
In the Palaiologan period, Makrembolites’ Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor may have mirrored anxieties over contemporaneous events, such as the anti-aristocratic Zealots Revolt, in Thessaloniki or the events surrounding Theodore Patrikiotes, a wealthy tax officer who was killed during the civil war (1342).
The rhetorical discourse grounded in lived experience, but reforms and proposals involved the penētes (struggling economically) but not the ptōchoi (dependent on charity).
Misery was endemic, and solutions seemed unrealistic; Christian philanthropy offered quick fixes.
Monastic ambivalence towards poverty mirrored this inevitability.