to the very spot from which it set out. Yet when we actually saw the arrow rise and dip, we sought the reason and concluded that it must lie in one of three sources: either the bow, because of some hidden defect in it; or the arrow; or the archer. Inevitably a subtle flaw resides in one of these three.

Another group rejected this view outright, saying, “We have never seen—nor has anyone ever reported to us—an archer who loosed an arrow that travelled the whole distance in a dead-level line, exactly parallel to its point of departure, with no rise and no drop. The world has never been without archers whose shooting, bows, and arrows were beyond reproach; had it been possible, those marksmen would certainly have produced such a shot.”

Others said: The reason an arrow climbs or sinks lies in the unequal construction (1) of the bow. When the upper limb outweighs the lower, the arrow rises at the beginning of its flight; when the lower limb (2) is stronger, the arrow rises toward the end of its flight.

Still others among them refuted this, declaring, “That cannot be correct, for we have seen bows whose two limbs are perfectly balanced and soundly made, held by a master marksman, and yet the arrow still rises sharply—indeed, sometimes more than when shot by someone less skilled.”

A further group maintained: the arrow’s ascent is attributable neither to the bow, nor to the archer, nor to the arrow itself, but to an external factor—the air that carries it. When the arrow (3) is particularly stout and heavy and the bow is stiff,