(,) emperor of Constantinople A. D. 1078-1081. He belonged to an illustrious
family which boasted of a descent from the Fabii of Rome. He was looked upon as a brave
general, but his military skill was the only quality that recommended him. It is related in
the life of the emperor Michael VII. Parapinaces, how Michael lost his throne in consequence
of the contemporaneous rebellion of Bryennius and Botaniates, the subject of this article, and
that the latter succeeded Michael on the throne. Botaniates was crowned on the 25th of AMarch,
1078, and soon afterwards married Maria, the wife of Michael, from whom she became divorced by
the deposed emperor taking holy orders. Before Nicephorus could enjoy his crown he had to
defend it against Bryennius, whom he routed and made a prisoner in the bloody battle of
Salabrya. Bryennius met the fate of most of the unfortunate rebels: he had his eves put out,
and was finally assassinated. Nicephorus made himself so detested by his brutal manners, his
ingratitude, and his debaucheries, that his short reignr of three years was little more than
an uninterrupted struggle against rebels, amongst whom Basilacius, who was defeated on the
Vardar by Alexis Comnenus, Constantine Ducas, and Niceiphorus Melissenus, aspired to the
throne. The 1;s.t was still in arms when the two Cotineni, Alexis and Isaac, were compelled to
leave the court if they would maintain their dignity and independence, in consequence of which
Alexis was proclaimed emperor and took up arms against his sovereign. Unable to resist the
torrent, Nicephorus made propositions to Melissenus to abdicate in his favour, but Alexis
Comnenus soon compelled him to do so in his own, and occupied the throne in his stead (1st of
April, 1081). Nicephorus was obliged to become a monk and conform to the austere rules of St.
Basil: lie died some time after his deposition. His complaint that he regretted the loss of
his throne and liberty less than the necessity he was under to refrain from eating meat, shows
sufficiently what sort of man he was. (Zonar. vol. ii. p. 289, &c.; Brvenn. 3.15, &c.;
Seylit. p. 857, &c.; Joel. p. 185; Glyc. p. 332; Manass. p 135.)