Lo proveeré de un niño y ácido prúsico

Lo proveeré de un niño y ácido prúsico
 

Hola a todos,

One of the subchapters in the book Tinta Invisible by Javier Peña is called "Lo proveeré de un niño y ácido prúsico"

Cuando Margaret Radclyffe Hall publicó El pozo de la soledad, un crítico aseguró que preferiría darle a un joven saludable un vial de ácido prúsico antes que la novela. El veneno mata el cuerpo, dijo, pero el veneno moral mata el alma.

Aldous Huxley respondió al comentario con ingenio: Me he ofrecido a proveer a este crítico de un niño, una botella de ácido prúsico y una copia de El pozo de la soledad. Y si mantiene su promesa, de una hermosa placa de mármol para después de su ejecución. Lamento decir, añadió Huxley, que ha declinado mi oferta.

I'm a bit unsure as to what "Lo" means in "Lo proveeré." If the phrase in question means I'll provide him with... shouldn't it be "Le proveeré..."?

Thank you.

(Let me think about it)

I initially thougt the author was right, but upon researching and thinking about it I now think you're right ... yet, ...

Le daré un niño y ácido prúsico
Le suministraré un niño y ácido prúsico
Le proporcionaré un niño y ácido prúsico
Le proveeré de un niño y ácido prúsico

are basically different ways to say the same, yet the last one sounds horrible to me. I regard it as a leísmo, de cortesía or not.

I suppose it is because of the polyfacetic nature of the verb proveer, and its intransitive uses.

Yo lo proveeré de todo lo necesario

sounds like

Yo proveeré a todas sus necesidades

yet one is transitive and the other one intransitive.

Thank you, aleCcowaN!

So the intended meaning of the phrase "Lo proveeré de un niño y ácido prúsico" is I'll provide him with...?

Another idea I was thinking about was: maybe the author meant to say I'll provide you with... Could that be the case?

I think the intended meaning was "i'll provide him with... ", as I expect what I misconstrued as a leísmo de cortesía should the person be addressed.

But I expect others may confirm that le is to be used whatever the case is.

Thank you very much again, aleCcowaN!

It seems the twist is in the "de":

In "proveer algo a alguien", the idea is that something has to be prepared and/or decided to do something. And here, the direct object and the indirect object are clear.
- Debemos proveer suficientes vacunas al hospital. -> This might be a laboratory planning to produce enough vaccines for a client. In this case, the idea is that the lab is doing all the efforts necessary to have enough vaccines to be delivered.

But "proveer de algo", according to the Academia, should only be used when talking about providing something that is necessary. In this case, the person is the direct object.
- El laboratorio provee al hospital de vacunas. -> Here, we are talking about the lab giving the vaccines to the hospital, while in the first example they were getting them ready for supply.
- Mi padre nos provee de lo necesario. -> Not the same as "mi padre provee lo necesario", because here, it means that the father is attentive of their needs to make sure the children are alright.
- Antes del huracán los vecinos se proveyeron de suficiente agua y alimentos. -> The difference with "los vecinos proveyeron agua y alimentos", which would mean that they made anything they had to do ensure they would have water and food before the hurricane, not only that they stored them or delivered them.

Your example is using this idea of giving the critic all the necessary "materials" to make real his stance. So the pronoun of direct object "lo" is preferred. :)

Finally, you might find useful this article in the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas.

Thank you very much, Angelica.