Emanuele Tesauro nos trópicos: caminhos de uma tradução e crítica teórico-histórica em Organização do Conhecimento

After a series of historical-epistemological studies, focused on the Knowledge Organization (KO), which call attention to the thought of Emanuele Tesauro, a seventeenth-century theoretician, the urgency of bringing to discussion about the importance of translation, as a way of updating, his work. The present reflection tries to understand the Brazilian studies on Tesauro developed centrally in the last years, from the epistemological-historical perspective and the philosophy of the language, leading to the (necessary) interpretative experience of translation of the theoretical. The corpus of the proposal is focused on the introductory paragraph of the Categorical Index, a discourse that places Tesauro at the heart of the historical construction of the KO and, at the same time, at the forefront of the challenges of innovation in the contemporary domain. The Tesaurian Index is present in the third chapter, “Cagioni Instrumentali delle argutezze oratorie simboliche et lapidarie”, of his work Il Cannocchiale Aristotelico, published in 1670, an essential treatise for the modern understanding of metaphor as a possibility of understanding the world through language. One of the ways to enable this theoretical and epistemological deepening is the translation of his work, which can be considered a way of interpretation and updating, since it is a work of the seventeenth century. Starting from the point of view that the translation is an exercise of communication between different languages, epochs, histories, finally, cultures, that is to relate the meaning of a word with other words that do not belong to the same culture, the work was done involving four phases: definition of the scope of translation focusing on the relationship between Tesauro and KO, reaching the Categorical Index; first contact with the work with appropriation of the Introduction and the Categorical Index; translation proper, which corresponds to the creative part of the translation; evaluation of the translation in light of the KO lexicon. The Tesauro’s research practice and its work in KO seems immediately adherent, mainly by the (co) incidence of the name between subject and instrument (documentary language). The Tesauro’s metalinguistic character evokes not only a way of understanding Aristotelian rhetoric, but of establishing a writing practice, as well as, together with the presentation of the method of such a practice, filled with the interweaving of information, concepts, practices. This is, in short, Emanuele's twist: he is using logical (analytic-conceptual) Aristotle, but under a rhetorical (discursive) Aristotle's theory to indicate the dynamics of words in relation to things. With epistemological-historical lenses, focused on the constant instance of recontextualization, via the slow and necessary process of translation, Tesauro's thinking opens up, establishing itself not only as adherent, but as co-founder (among many margins of theoretical construction of the domain) of the OC. From the metaphorical plane, we can see that Emanuele Tesauro enters the heart of the most difficult and instigating dilemmas, current and historical, of the KO itself.