Does 'To antithesis' work?

Previously I asked a question concerning a statement written by Jack London in White Fang:

To antithesis was due his naming.

The answer I received satisfied my qualms with regards to its meaning, however I still feel unsettled in regards to its grammatical validity.

My question: Is the inverted structure of London’s sentence grammatically valid.

In his answer, Peter Shor provided a helpful rephrasing of London’s statement, via un-inverting it:

His naming was due to antithesis

which although helpful in providing a sentence from which its meaning is easier to identify, I would still like further clarification in how the original statement works. To myself, intuitively the statement doesn’t appear to work, because, with respect to Peter Shor’s rephrasing, ‘To antithesis’ was transplanted to the beginning rather than just ‘antithesis’ alone. Thus to me, the inverted sentence should have been:

Antithesis, was due to his naming.

If you want more information regarding my thought process, below are the inverted permutations which I feel ‘work’:

(1) Those that I’m confident are grammatically valid:

Due to antithesis, his naming was.

Due to antithesis was his naming.

And (2) Those that I’m uncertain whether they are grammatically valid:

Antithesis, his naming was due to

Due to his naming, was antithesis