et dona ferentis.

—Vergil (“Aeneid I–VI” 318, II.49)

Since Greco-Roman times at the latest, bearers of gifts have repeatedly found themselves in the curious position of having to give reasons for—or even to prove the legitimacy of—their efforts. The grounds for this—entirely cultural—peculiarity will likely lie in the fact that the human capacities for self-knowledge are far greater (so as not to say: baser) than their philosophical reputation.

Nor will it do to simply speak the customary ‘fear not’—and then proceed to unload one’s ostensible blessings upon the receiving end. Consent is requisite—even if (more often than not) it happens to be given heedlessly. Nor are such as nature has gifted with an effortless capacity for captioning their presents as benevolences necessarily also those with the best intentions.

As always, rhetoric comes in handy—and specifically inasmuch as sundry casts of substitution form its ground swell (hardly an implausible hypothesis). For not only does it replace res and actus with verba, but also habitually puts the latter in lieu of the like.

Where referred to by name at all, the particular device at issue would technically be called ‘paradiastolé’. Since such might sound too diabolical, it usually tends towards what may yield the impression of being a (quasi inevitable) mise en abyme du dispositif—whereby that questionable maneuver is relabeled to read ‘redescription’ (sive similiter).

Fortunately, such byzantine subtleties will not be necessary here. For a ‘contribution’—while indeed proffered to a prospective peruser—is not a ‘gift’ (not even in the heterosemous sense of the German homophone); and a presentation, an article, a chapter, or an essay happen to be more humane than any bestowal outright (or just a lagniappe). For it need not even be refused openly (always at one’s own peril); and might simply be ignored (which disregard frequently goes unheeded as such).

Although the latter practice would hardly seem recommendable in the present case (considering the quality of the contributions submitted herein), all readers are not only at liberty, but downright encouraged, to follow it—should that please or teach or move them more than a factual reception. For the ensuing are not gifts, let alone giveaways.

Not only do they come at a price, but their cost happens to be rather high indeed: precisely the loss of one’s otherwise inadvertent, inexplicit—or else, most prized and cherished—self-evidences (so as not to say unreasoning usus). Whence willingness will be vital (if not quite all)—notably with a view to most any form of fruition.

While also associated with a certain promptness or proficiency, readiness does tend to require a good deal of preparation in any of its predominant meanings; and this may well be where ‘provision’ comes into its own. Even when leaving aside the theological acceptations entirely (for being átopon, nor just in this place), the term and its associated concepts are polysemous enough to prompt a variety of (more or less) provident reflections.

Although it is not possible to anticipate each, let alone all contingencies conceivable (not to mention those that are not), a mere consideration of their elemental possibility—coupled with a basic acceptance of a (not only potential, but likely) occurrence of one or several—does tend to go a long way (as they say).

Ever is foresight provisional (linguistically, as well as de re). Besides, it may turn excessive. Not indeed due to an uninhibited misguidedness on the part of those (or the one) providing for something, but because one must always bring more—concepts, models, designs, means, arms, munitions, rations, (human) resources, tools, et caetera—than one will actually need. In the worst case (prima facie, anyway), none of one’s prearranged bearings, carryings, wherewithals might happen to serve the respective (or contingently altered) purpose—being inapplicable to the (envisioned) conditions, the (transmuted) setting, the (ever shifting) circumstances. Whence one is forced to improvise.

While any sort of duress and compulsion (not to mention manhandling) cannot but tend towards utter tyranny ultimately, not all forms of force or coercion are necessarily sans uplifting effects in, for, and over the long haul. Inasmuch as it acts with willful premeditation—nor would the presence or influence of Ἄτη be a mitigating factor—the causative (ostensibly human, or otherwise) deserves to be condemned unconditionally, especially in ethical respects. Yet this does not (let alone need) hold good for the virtuosity—in prudently pragmatic cases, the ‘make-shiftiness’—it results in, or conduces to. For all is fair in (or on the) defense, and notably of self—not just a natural right (perchance the only one), but also an art.

In (more or less) civilized settings, the panoply of choice in said regard still tends to be the most effective substitute for force—although its civic significance may yield the impression of having receded into latencies and inexplicitness. Provided that republican (or else, properly democratic) contexts, and their respective workings, are (still) intact, there could be no better preparation for the public sphere—and the but slightly domesticated instincts and impulses inevitably facing, encountering, and engaging with, each other therein—than thorough training in the téchne kat’ exochén.

As always, provisos will be needful. A modicum or residuum of might is requisite—even and especially in environments governed by what happens to be considered right, lawful, and in order by a certain majority, respectively those (representatively) in power. For not a few will incline to ignore the factual conditions, or deem a given, albeit idiosyncratically unpalatable stipulation inapplicable to themselves—while naturally holding true (being good enough) for others (or simply everyone else).

There cannot but be those, who judge reasonable only what pleases their whims; who limit the customary to what happens to suit them at a given point in time; who only adhere to rules in their own best (or rather, worst) interests, while habitually breaking others (without feeling that such should concern them in the least); and who generally develop a highly selective attention, based entirely on their narcissistic cravings and compulsions. Such individuals (so as not to say: proto-tyrants) are usually deaf to eloquence; or treat it with nothing but obtuse aggression, blind contempt.

Any art marks a warfare on ‘reality’. With the latter being a predominantly hostile affair to begin with, téchnai—qua matter of consequence, not nature—are fundamentally self-defensive, and thus legitimate outright. By recourse to (always) other words: while their existence requires no further justification, their respective utilization will depend on varying, contingent circumstances. Whence their functionality and expediency must be validated in each case—albeit never vindicated, effectuality being its own endorsement and ratification (rhetorically speaking).

Qua art and arsenal, oratory is (the) provision par excellence. Not only does it sustain—‘ensuave’ rather than enforce—basic cultural provisos (specifically in legal, political or civic, hence ultimately ethical respects). It also embodies foresightfulness, precisely by tendering the tools and techniques for a wide and diverse array of provisional arrangements with, and in, an environment of a largely unwelcoming variety (naturally at first, then inhumanely).

Even in circumstances almost wholly characterized by violence outright, there cannot but be spatio-temporal ‘islands’ of a more civilized interaction—or else, a relatively reasonable interplay—among the artificial (hence unnatural) animals in question (and be it the eve of battle; or the general’s stirring speech right before the ever next mêlée). Nor could any supplies be more wholesome—no munitions vaster, no apparatus better, no armor hardier, no arms mightier—than the suavely vigorous word.

Prosperous are those rich in spirited expressions; welcome those who comfort by virtue of eloquence; pleasant those adept at ethopoetizing themselves as modest and gentle; well-off such as employ their silver tongues, in order to guard the rights of those they happen to be speaking for; lucky the ruthless capable of coloring their great unkindness as ultimately in the service of the commonwealth; beatified the grand of heart skilled at plausibly redescribing their nongregarious aloofness as immaculate purity; au fait those who in peace deliberatively address the need to ready one and all for what cannot but come next in this world; beloved by the oppressed all such as do not stand apart in silence, but movingly share their dreams, vociferously defending the victimized, the battered, broken, and neglected; most fortunate are those who can shift for themselves by means and way and virtue of words.

Among myriad other things, oratory may teach the technique of disposition, which encompasses the exercising of a tasteful discrimination, as well as the instituting of applicable...