Beppe Fenoglio’s <i>Partigiano</i> Archive: Translation, Resistenza, Testimony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beppe Fenoglio’s most famous novel, Partigiano Johnny, is not actually a novel at all, but a posthumous philological reconstruction of a series of typescripts that inspired one of the fiercest Italian literary debates of the postwar period. This debate reached a fever pitch in the 1990s as Italy was coming to terms with the impact of the Resistenza on national identity. As a partisan-writer with no connections to fascism, Fenoglio long occupied a stabilizing role in the Italian literary canon, intensifying the stakes for academics who wished to “heal” the wounds of his fragmented text and use them to produce a coherent, redemptive Resistance narrative, with Johnny- Fenoglio serving as a contemporary Dante. However, the incomplete, incompatible typescripts structurally refute the dominant postwar rhetoric that depicts the armistice as a “radical rupture” in Italian history, a “year zero” that catalyzed Italy’s rebirth. With no clear beginning or end, the texts enact a structural resistance that is echoed thematically in the partisan-protagonist’s metatextual reflections on the difficulty of narrating the Resistenza after the war has ended, which he theorizes in Dantean terms. Reading these thematic and structural resistances, this essay argues that they suggest that the “incomplete” archive is not treatable. Rather than opposing the philological debate or taking sides, I consider how this unstable text and the surrounding efforts to reconstruct it, collectively testify to the trauma of writing and remembering the Resistenza.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".