The leprosy, however, was not an absolute cause for divorce, as we note in the following passage: “A man can leave his wife only for fornication, and not alone for leprosy, and lepers may marry; and one may cancel marriage if the husband become leper, and the same may be said of the bride.” In the same manuscript another analogous fact shows the invalidation of the marital act for the reason of _mesellerie_ complicated by impotence or barrenness. “A woman who through impotence has lost that which is necessary to her, so that he cannot cohabit with her, for the reason that he is _mesiaus_, may marry another, telling the latter, however, that the first she married was worth nothing, not even an infant, as he could not cohabit; that nothing can prevent cohabitation in marriage nor the begetting of children.” Individuals attacked by _mesellerie_ were in reality outside the pale of the law. For we read in fact in the “_Coutume de Beauvoisis_, cap. 39,” that “_mesiaus_ must not be called on as witnesses, for custom accords them no place in the conversation of gentlemen.” “The second reason is that when a _mesiaus_ calls on a healthy man, or when a healthy man calls on a _mesel_, the _mesiaus_ may put in the defense that he is beyond the reach of worldly law, and cannot be held responsible in such a case.” These unfortunates besides could not inherit nor dispose of their own wealth during their lives. The following passage from the “ancient customs of Normandy” bears witness, _i. e._: “The _mesel_ can be no man’s heir from the time his disease is developed, but he may have a life interest, as though he were not a _mesel_.” The same as in many other diseases the leprosy presented itself under different forms and various degrees of gravity, as is proved from the following passage from _Le Pelerinage de l’humaine lignee_: “Homs, qui ne scet bien discerner Entre sante et maladie, Entre le grant mesellerie Entre le moienne et le meure.” This gravity of different forms of leprosy has likewise been mentioned by the Arabian school, and notably by Avicenna, who had seen numerous cases complicated with ulcerations of the genital organs; also, by the Englishman, Gilbert, who wrote in the thirteenth century regarding the existence of several species of leprosy, which could not always be easily distinguished by reason of the uncertainty of their symptoms. As to its character as a constitutional malady we have the word of the Syrian Jaliah ebn Serapion, who attributes its connection to the predominance of certain humors; finally, Valescus of Tarentum insists on the heredity of the disease.