Heraclitus and the Backward
Stretching Bow
Matthew Nicholson
Heraclitus, one of the most revolutionary presocratics, set himself apart from his contemporaries not only through his radical ideas but also through his enigmatic delivery. His paradoxical method of teaching found him such little audience that he prefaces his own work by saying that “humans are like the inexperienced when experiencing the words and deeds as [he] sets out,” (fragment 1). For modern readers the task has become even more difficult because we no longer have full manuscripts but only fragments, we view these fragments without the context of antiquity, and as we must rely on possibly corrupt texts. One such corruption finds its way into fragment 51, which reads,
They do not understand how, though at variance with itself, it agrees with itself. It is a backwards stretching [or backwards turning] attunement like that of the bow and lyre. (51)
where the Greek sources have either PALINTONOS (backwards-stretching) or PALINTROPOS (backwards-turning). The import of the statement survives the varying interpretations because, although the words differ technically, the theme of unity within diversity remains regardless of the word choice. However, the two words do add shading to the meaning, and therefore one can be shown more appropriate than the other. In this case, PALINTONOS, or backwards stretching, is more appropriate for several reasons. First of all, it fits its immediate context much more satisfactorily than its alternative. It also holds when compared to the subject matter and diction of various others of Heraclitus’ fragments. And, further, it corroborates the outlook throughout Heraclitus’ work.
Before we decide which word belongs in the fragment however, we must first determine the full meaning of the fragment. Heraclitus above all deplored the lack of understanding displayed by his fellow men, as exemplified in his explanation of the LOGOS, the unifying and universal element that governs and composes all things. One of the key features of LOGOS is that it is one, yet it contains all things, including things supposedly in contradiction or disharmony with one another. Relevant fragments tell us
What is opposed brings together; the finest harmony is composed of things at variance, and everything comes to be in accordance with strife. (8)
and
Things taken together are whole and not whole, being brought together and brought apart, in tune and out of tune; out of all things there comes a unity, and out of a unity all things. (10)
which figure heavily in discovering the significance of backwards stretching. The meaning of these two fragments, 8 and 10, elucidate the meaning of fragment 51: not only are strife and disaccord necessary for things to come into being, but strife and disaccord also actually indicate harmony. Since most people do not understand the workings of the LOGOS, however, their senses deceive them into disbelieving that objects in strife participate in the LOGOS that they cannot perceive.
The metaphor of the bow is at first problematic, especially with variant readings. But in light of the various other fragments it reveals only one of the readings to be compliant with the latent meaning of the passage. Heraclitus is concerned with strife, but not true strife; Heraclitean strife is apparent strife, the perception of which, to the trained eye, reveals the actual unity of all things in the LOGOS. So it is with the bow, which appears to be in a state of internal disagreement. Because, for a bow to exist and serve its purpose, it must have this characteristic internal struggle in which the string of the bow strains to bend and stretch the wooden rod, and the rod fights to stretch and break the string. But it is this very backwards stretching of the rod by the string that creates a bow and gives it the ability to fulfill its intended function. This certainly holds with the other two fragments as, by being opposed, the string and rod are actually in unity in the form of the bow.
For the same reason we discover that PALINTONOS is indeed the appropriate word to describe the bow and Heraclitus’ intent in using the metaphor. The tension between the string and rod is essential to the function of the bow. The tension results from the struggle within the bow. Inherent in the term backwards stretching is in the struggle found in the bow. Stretching, at least in the case of the bow, results from the strife between two objects, nor would stretching exist if the two were not in strife. This is the critical fault with the term backwards turning. It implies nothing of the strife in the bow and more importantly does not even hint at Heraclitus’ idea of unity with strife or strife within unity. Any object can be turned backwards, either in its position or against itself. Imagine for instance that one “backwards turns” a flower. This would presumably entail the bending of the stalk until the flower is in a position where it may rightfully be called backwards turning. But if, when released, it springs back into upright position, it is no longer backwards turning. Similarly, if it stays in that position it is not backwards turning even then, it is merely bent. For the term to fit, we must modify it to mean “in a state of consistently having been forcefully bent backwards.” Backwards stretching is even more appropriate when we realize it does not require modification, because the string and rod of a bow perpetually “backwards stretch,” and even in their state of stasis are they in strife. A backwards-turning object must be actively turning for strife to exist and thus cannot be in a static state. A bow on the other hand can both be backwards stretching and static. Take again for instance what occurs when one pulls apart the two ends of a rubber band. If he brings his hands a meter apart and then stops spreading them, the rubber band and his hands are indeed in strife, the rubber band is certainly stretching, but it is not moving within a space. Where as if one turned it against itself it would either rebound into its original position or lay idle, in strife with nothing, especially not itself. The importance of this last analogy lies in the fact that, while things are brought apart and together, they need not be either to be in a state of disaccord with another object. Thus objects like fire and water never become more opposite, but their simultaneous strife and unity within the LOGOS remains. From these examples we can see that backwards turning does not satisfy the mandates of context, which show that whatever word Heraclitus used must agree with the function of the bow, not vice versa. Since it has been show that the bow can be at the same time backwards stretching (which puts it at variance with itself) and static. Thus as backwards turning does not fit with the aspect of the bow especially in that it does not facilitate concurrent variance and harmony we must accept backwards stretching as the ideal meaning. If we look again at fragment 8, which stipulates that “everything comes to be in accordance with strife,” we gain additional satisfaction with our choice; the bow itself has come to be out of the strife of a wooden rod stretching backwards due to the stress applied it by a length of rope. Once the bow is, the strife of the rope and rod continues indefinitely as long as the bow exists, but the continuance of the strife does not mandate any continued motion or action on the part of the bow. Were it to come into being out of backward turning, the turning would cease once the bow had come into being and the bow would no longer be turning, but would be turned.
Given the zeitgeist of Heraclitus, this seemingly arbitrary matter of diction inherits more significance than meets the eye. Believing as he did in a world composed of phenomena in eternal disharmony yet at unity within a sweeping and universal LOGOS, he would have taken great care to choose words that betrayed only the most accurate notion of the LOGOS. For this reason we must accept the use of PALINTONOS. It accounts, as PALINTROPOS semantically cannot, for the simultaneous disaccord and coexistent of opposite objects. According to Heraclitus, “out of all things there comes a unity” (10), and in this case the unity is the object of the bow, which has come to be out of strife. But, as has been shown, it can stretch internally, but reason clearly states it cannot turn within itself.
McKirahan, Richard D, ed. Philosophy before Socrates. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, CO. 1994.