Definitions and Theories

Old Spanish uses an all-encompassing word for the type of disabilities that will be discussed in this chapter – contrecho. Contrecho can denote one who is deformed, crippled, maimed, lame, hunchbacked, paralyzed, or even the modern equivalent of estropeado/a, meaning ruined. Anyone labelled contrecho/a would have some sort of bodily ‘defect’ in that he/she might be missing a limb, have withered or twisted limbs, suffer a deformity from birth, or otherwise experience some sort of mobility issue or disfiguring condition. All these types of impairments are what Irina Metzler labels ‘visible’, that is, ones that are more noticeable than other impairments as, for example, deafness, mental impairment, or even diabetes or asthma. She claims that ‘[g]reater visibility of an impairment would […] bring with it greater cultural or social consequences for the affected individual’. Metzler also points out the variety and inconsistency of terms applied to such physical impairments in the Middle Ages. This irregularity of terminology is true for Spanish texts for although the overriding term contrecho/a is frequently used, there are a host of other words to denote specific physical limitations such as cojo/a (lame), manco/a (missing a limb, especially an arm or hand), paralítico/a (paralytic), giboso/a (hunchbacked), or variations on its modern equivalent, corcovado/a (hunchbacked or humpbacked) as well as other designations and variant spellings of the ones mentioned here. I will include in this chapter an examination of literary texts where individuals are described with vocabulary that infers that they are lame, missing one or more limbs, hunchbacked, partially or completely paralyzed, or otherwise physically deformed. In all cases these impairments are clearly noticeable to others and the individuals usually require some form of mobility assistance. Physical difference that is readily visible to all demands an explanation and the literature in which contrechos appear ‘inaugurates an explanatory opportunity that the unmarked body eludes by virtue of its physical anonymity’. Mitchell and Snyder speak of the visceral nature of response to physical deformity and claim that representations of physical imperfection in literature evoke ‘powerful sentiments within the safe space of textual interactions’.