Sam Zattera

Following the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp by the Soviet Union in early January 1945, Otto Frank returned home to the Netherlands (Stichting). There he was given the writings of his late daughter, Anne, by his old business assistants who had saved them (Stichting). Anne had written of her situation during the years her family spent in hiding, and then rewritten them under the possibility that they may be formed into a novel so as to be published (Stichting). Otto completed that wish, translating her writing from Danish to German and compiling her various writings into one piece and printing it out (Stichting). This found its way to a couple of historians, who wrote an article in a newspaper about it.  In response to the article, publishers became interested, eventually taking the piece, editing it, and publishing it as a book entitled Het Achterhuis (Stichting). This collection of dairy entries has since been translated into sixty languages, and is well known around the world (Noonan).

What started as one diary and a collection of notebooks became one coherent piece, an article, a book, a play, a movie, a website, et cetera (Stichting). This trend will likely continue as new forms of media continue to develop. With each translation of language, each new format, each new individual that becomes involved, the content of the piece itself is shifted. Does this mean that the authenticity of the piece is lost? If Anne’s Diary is viewed as solely her life narrative than certainly it would. However, if her work is viewed as a collective life narrative then each change, so long as it is recognized, serves as a way of better understanding the context surrounding the time and place in which it is changed.

Knowing that the original publishers of Het Achterhuis edited portions of it because they felt that Anne was too open regrading her sexuality (Stichting) can allow us scholars to understand aspects of the culture in which it was published in, and the purpose for which it was published. In this way, knowledge of the original piece is perhaps lost at the expense of new, indirect knowledge of the greater social context.

So the question arises: should scholars be more concerned with preserving one form of knowledge by preventing (to the best of our abilities) change to that knowledge, or should we be willing to sacrifice some knowledge so as to allow for the production of something new? Can both be done? Yes, the original text written by Anne Frank remains, but if the general public only ever sees a version altered in both language and medium, does it matter? Arguably, knowledge has no point if it is not spread, and so if the only portion of Anne’s story that is spread has been translated, can that portion be considered her life narrative? Does its primary value lie in being her life narrative or that of a collective group of individuals across time? We, as scholars, must decide which is more important in the pursuit of accumulating knowledge: preservation or evolution.

References:

Stichting, Anne Frank. “The Story of Anne Frank: Anne Frank’s Diary Is Published.” Anne Frank House. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Stichting, Anne Frank. “Anne Frank’s Hostpry: The Different Versions of Anne’s Diary.” Anne Frank House. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.

Noonan, John. “On This Day: Anne Frank’s Diary Published.” On This Day: Anne Frank’s Diary Published. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2016.