But, further, in 97.2 he gives reas

But, further, in 97.2 he gives reasons for introduced a digression, the first being that from 97.1, the period had not been treated by previous writers except Hellanicus, whose account was sketchy and unprecise in chronology. It would be natural, on the account given above, to see this as referring to that digression from the main logos of Bk. I (the formal cause of the war) which, it was held, is clearly marked between 87 and fin. and 118.3. But, as against this, first, once more, the digression does not continue to the end of the period alluded to, but stops with the surrender of Byzantium. Further, if 80-118.2 stands in his text by its internal relevance within the main argument, it is not immediately obvious why he should have appealed to the deficiencies of outside writing to justify its inclusion. Thirdly, if 89-118.2 is to be taken as the unitary digression for which apology is made, why should the reasons for its inclusion be stated at a point well within the digression?