I am reading the Autobiography of Götz von Berlichingen, a one-handed knight who lived during the late 1400s and first half of the 1500s. I was struck by his description of losing his hand. He goes into great detail about losing his hand but says almost NOTHING about getting it replaced with an awesome prosthetic hand. I was a little disappointed in how he clammed up about his false hand so I was wondering about the views of mutilation. Was it considered shameful to be maimed or did Götz just find this unimportant? It seems like he is proud that he has been maimed in the service of his lord but seems like he refuses to talk about the actual mutilation or the coping with it. I'm going to be up front with you, I'd really like something I can read and cite... but any help at all is really appreciated. Some of you more knowledgeable folks may be able to steer me in the direction of hopefully a PDF or something I can access on the internet. Note: I am also currently reading Irina Metzler's Disability in Medieval Europe and it has so far shed little light on the area.
The immediate scholar that sprung to mind was John Gillingham and while he might not address the subject as a central feature of his work, I can't think of any scholar who has, it will appear in the margins of other works he is citing. For example, Adam Kosto's Hostages in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 2012) or Jean Dunbabin's Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe 1000-1300 (Basingstoke, 2002).
A fairly regular feature of politics and warfare in the high Middle Ages was mutilation of hostages and you might find some fruitful accounts of it there. The distinction is, of course, that one is a mark of warrior's pride, a voluntary if not desirable affliction, while the other is a punitive involuntary action. Ultimately they seem to point towards similar feelings of shame except in their acquisition.