Definition
A person born with both male and female sexual characteristics; a hermaphrodite. The term appeared in classical and medieval legal texts to address how such individuals should be treated under legal rules that presumed a binary division between male and female — rules governing inheritance, capacity to contract, testimony, and status in family law. The operative legal question was not merely the fact of physical ambiguity but which sex "predominated," a determination that would then govern the individual's legal rights and obligations.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A hermaphrodite.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Not separately defined by Webster's 1913 as a standalone entry, but the underlying concept of hermaphroditism — a person or organism combining characteristics of both sexes — was well understood in both ordinary and scientific discourse.
The common and legal meanings are nearly identical at the surface level, but the legal term carries additional freight the common definition obscures. In law, androgynus was never merely a descriptive label; it was an entry point into a doctrinal problem: which legal sex category applies, and how is that determination made? Common usage treats the word as simply descriptive. Legal usage treated it as the beginning of an analytical question.
---
Why It Matters in Research
This term is a relic of classical Roman law transmitted through the medieval civil law tradition and absorbed into early English common law commentary. Researchers will encounter it almost exclusively in pre-modern sources — Justinian's Digest, Bracton's De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, and early English legal dictionaries and treatises drawing on those foundations. It is essentially absent from modern statutory codes and case reporters under this Latin form.
The key research trap is assuming the term signals a sophisticated legal treatment of sex ambiguity. In practice, historical sources used androgynus to acknowledge the category and then immediately dissolve it: the standard rule was that the individual would be assigned to whichever sex appeared to predominate, and that assignment would govern all downstream legal questions. The term marks the problem but does not resolve it in any nuanced way.
Researchers working in legal history, particularly in the history of sex, gender, and legal personhood, should follow the term outward to its civilian sources rather than expecting common law reporters to develop the doctrine. English common law borrowed the concept largely through Bracton, who himself drew from Roman civil law. The practical legal treatment of intersex individuals in historical Anglo-American law is therefore best traced through civilian and ecclesiastical sources rather than through common law case development.
Modern legal discussions of intersex persons and gender identity do not use this term. Researchers working on contemporary law should look to statutory and constitutional frameworks governing sex classification, discrimination law, and medical-legal standards — none of which deploy the Latin terminology.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Both Black's Law Dictionary (1st and 2nd editions) define the term identically and minimally: "An hermaphrodite." This brevity is itself informative. By the time Black's was compiled in the late nineteenth century, the term had become a historical artifact — preserved in legal dictionaries because it appeared in foundational civil and common law texts, not because it was generating active litigation or doctrinal development.
The historical sources that gave the term its legal content — primarily Roman law texts and Bracton — treated the androgynus as a classification problem to be resolved by predominance. Bracton's formulation, consistent with the civilian tradition, held that such a person should be governed by the sex that prevails in them. This "predominance" standard was the sum total of the doctrine as it passed into English legal commentary.
Neither edition of Black's offers any of this doctrinal content, limiting themselves to the synonym. Researchers relying solely on Black's will not find the analytical framework; they must go directly to the Roman and medieval sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The term has no meaningful jurisdictional variation in modern law because it is no longer operative legal vocabulary in any common law jurisdiction. Its historical application was through the civil law tradition, received into English common law via medieval commentary. Civil law jurisdictions similarly do not employ the term in contemporary practice.
---