43

In the second half of the xiith century, the canonist Rufin devised a legal distinction between jugglers and minstrels, as a result of which the former were not considered evildoers since they did not behave like the latter. This distinction would be brought up again by theologians around twenty years after Rufin’s death, in a different context. While the canonist made use of the distinction in order to allow honest jugglers to make accusations in ecclesiastic trials, theologians depicted this as belonging within the casuistry of sins. However, in both cases, this distinction appears to be of a legal and ethical nature. We show that the legal rehabilitation of certain jugglers formed part of a much broader endeavor to redefine evildoers in relation to the procedural transformations that accompanied it. Far from seeking to construct the conditions for social exclusion due to villainous acts, the canonists invented a repertoire of flexible norms capable of adapting themselves to each type of situation. The legal rehabilitation of jugglers cannot be understood without taking into account their moral rehabilitation within the casuistry of sins, since this also enabled those who paid them to be exonerated from a grave sin.