Lost in translation: when an unlettered person tells and a scholar writes. Orality in medieval visionary literature

At the beginning of the 14th century, Ramon Lull argued that spoken language (affatus) is a “sixth sense” that enables humans to express inner, spiritual experiences. In the Middle Ages, visions reported by illiterate laypeople were initially oral and only later transcribed by clerics, creating an asymmetrical relationship between orality and writing, low and high culture, and personal versus external narration. This often led to distortions or losses in the original message, though traces of the original voice remained. The process involved a "vertical" translation into Latin, which imposed cultural and linguistic filters. Several case studies illustrate these tensions: Dryhthelm’s vision (via Bede) is highly shaped by monastic norms; Alberico's child vision was heavily edited; Tnugdal’s story, written soon after the event by a fellow Irishman, retains more authenticity. Goteschalk’s vision features original folkloric elements and solstitial symbolism. Thurkill’s account, transmitted directly and orally, shows strong links to Celtic traditions like Samain. Other examples, like the second vision in Peter of Cornwall’s Liber revelationis, reveal folkloric motifs but lack narrative reliability due to indirect transmission. Over time, especially from the 12th century onward, a shift occurs: more lay voices emerge, autobiographical elements grow, and visions become less focused on the afterlife itself and more on earthly context. This narrative shift prefigures a modern emphasis on immanence rather than transcendence.