In this connection we may notice that consorting or living with the dead has been observed as a character- istic of diseased melancholy. Individuals have inhabit- ed gravej-ards, preferring the proximity and association of corpses with which they had no tie to the cheerful- ness and comforts of home ; and there is recorded one notorious case, in which a gentleman, although on bad terms with his wife while alive, carried her body with him through India, scandalizing the natives, and out- raging the feelings of all, bj' placing the coffin under his bed. This hideous tendency may enter into certain developments of cannibalism, where the feast is cele- brated in memory of a departed friend rather than in triumph over a slain foe (Chambers). Among the Ara- bians the ghouls are fairies that are supposed to feed on human flesh. Symptoms of this necrophilism may be traced in the Gadarene maniacs of the Gospels (Matt, vii, 28, etc.). See D.emoniac.
riecrothaptae (Gr. viKpoc, dead, and ^cnrri^j, to hurji) is one of the names by which the ancient Greeks called the undertakers at funerals. Among the Romans they were called Libitinarii, from the goddess Libitina, who presided over funerals (Livy, xl, c. 19; Plutarch, Qucesf. Boman.).
Nectar was the drink of the immortal gods, ac- cording to the early Greek poets, and was served around to them by the hands of Bebe or Gan?/mede. It is con- founded by some of the ancient writers with ambrosia, the food of the gods. Thus Sappho and Alcman make nectar the food of the gods, and ambrosia their drink. But nectar is the name given by Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and the Greek poets generally, and by the Romans, to the beverage of the gods. Homer describes nectar as resembling red wine, and represents its continued use as causing immortality. By the later poets, nectar and ambrosia are represented as of most delicious odor; and
VI.— M M M
sprinkling with nectar, or anointing with ambrosia, is spoken of as conferring perpetual youth, and these acts are assumed as the symbols of everything most delight- ful to the taste.
Nectaria is the name of a celebrated deaconess in the early Christian Church. She flourished in the lat- ter half of the 4th century, and was the cause of the deposition of a certain Elpidius by the synod of Rimini, as he had ordained her for an office of which she proved herself unworthy by breaches of confidence and perjury. See Sozomen, Ilistoria Ecclesiastica, bk. iv, ch. 24.
Nectarius is the name of two patriarchs of the Eastern Church who figure prominently in ecclesiastical history.
1. The first, who is most widely known, was a native of Tarsus, and with the assistance of the emperor Theo- dosius became patriarch of Constantinople after the de- position of Gregorj' (q. v.) Nazianzen, and immediately before Chrysostom. Nectarius's occupancy of the epis- copal chair between two such men ^vould have re- quired extraordinary merit to make him conspicuous. But, in truth, though he does not seem to merit the epithet applied to him by Gibbon, "the indolent Nec- tarius," the fact of his having been appointed at all is the most remarkable feature in his personal history. When Gregory Nazianzen (q. v.) resigned his office (A.D. 381), it was during the meeting of the second oecumenical council at Constantinople. Nectarius, a senator and a man of the highest family, was at this time intending to visit his native place, and previously waited on Diodorus, the bishop of Tarsus, who was in Constantinople as a member of the council. Diodorus, along with the other bishops, was perplexed as to whom they should nominate to the vacant see. Struck by the majestic appearance and white hair of Nectarius, and taking for granted that he was a Christian and had been baptized, Diodorus requested Nectarius to postpone his departure, and recommended him to Fla- vian, bishop of Antioch, as a fit person to succeed Greg- ory. Flavian laughed at the strange proposal; but, to oblige his friend, put Nectarius's name last on the list, and together witli the other bishops presented it to the em- peror. To the astonishment of all, Theodosius selected Nectarius, and persisted in his choice, even when it was ascertained tiiat this candidate for episcopal honor had not yet been baptized, and had never proposed publicly to join the Church. The bishops at last acceded to the wishes of the monarch who had so rigidly opposed the Arians, while the people, attracted probably by his gentle manners and the venerable appearance of the man, presenting as he did every way a strong contrast to Gregorj', loudly applauded the choice. Nectarius was baptized, and, before he had time to put off the white robes of a neophyte, he was declared bishop of Constantinople. Most important matters came under the consideration of the council over which, it is prob- able, he was now called to preside. He showed his dis- cretion by putting himself under the tuition of Cyriacus, bishop of Adana, but we can hardly believe that Nectarius took any active part in the theological questions which were discussed. It is doubtful whether the canons that were enacted under the name of the second oecumenical council were not passed at two different sessions, a sec- ond taking place in 382. But this does not matter much, as they all bear the name of this council. The princi- pal business transacted in the council, considered in a theological point of view, related to the conforming and extending of the Nicene Creed, mainly to meet the opinions of the JMacedonians. The creed thus enlarged is that used at the mass of the Roman Catholic Church. Other canons regulated discipline, the restriction of the authority of each bishop to his own diocese, and the restoration of penitent heretics. The most important article of all, however, historically considered, was one which was conceded not more on account of the natural propriety of the arrangement than the personal favor