Definition
In legal usage, *intemperate* describes a habitual pattern of excessive indulgence, most commonly in alcohol, that rises to the level of a recognizable vice or character defect with legal consequences. The term appears most frequently in two contexts:
1. **Intemperate habits (domestic relations and divorce law).** A person is considered to have intemperate habits when the habit is to drink to intoxication whenever occasion offers, and sobriety or abstinence is the exception rather than the rule. The standard is one of habitual pattern, not daily frequency — occasional lapses into sobriety do not defeat the charge.
2. **General conduct characterizations.** Courts and legal instruments have used *intemperate* more broadly to describe ungovernable, excessive, or violent conduct — intemperate language, intemperate zeal — in contexts ranging from attorney discipline to judicial fitness proceedings.
The legal term carries a heavier, more formalized weight than its ordinary meaning. It is not synonymous with "drunk on one occasion" or even "a heavy drinker." It implies an established, recurring pattern with observable consequences.
---
Common Language
**Modern common usage (Wiktionary):** Lacking moderation, temper, or control; indulging any appetite or passion to excess, especially the drinking of alcohol.
**Historical common usage (Webster's 1913):** Indulging any appetite or passion to excess; immoderate in enjoyments or exertion. Specifically, addicted to excessive or habitual use of alcoholic liquors. Also: excessive, ungovernable, inordinate, violent, immoderate — as in intemperate language or intemperate weather.
The gap matters for researchers: ordinary usage allows *intemperate* to describe a single episode of excess or strong emotion, while legal usage — particularly in divorce and habitual drunkard proceedings — requires proof of a settled habit. A single instance of drunkenness, or even several, does not satisfy the legal standard absent evidence of pattern and regularity.
---
Core Elements
In the divorce and domestic relations context, courts applying the "intemperate habits" ground required proof of:
- **Habit, not incident.** The drinking pattern must be an established custom, not isolated episodes.
- **Intoxication as the norm.** The habit must be to drink to intoxication, not merely to drink socially or moderately.
- **Sobriety as the exception.** Periods of sobriety do not defeat the charge if they are the deviation from the dominant pattern.
- **No daily requirement.** The habit need not manifest every day; the question is whether intemperance or abstinence is the governing rule of the person's conduct.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering *intemperate* in historical sources — particularly nineteenth and early twentieth century case law, divorce pleadings, probate records, and professional fitness proceedings — must read the term against its legal-technical standard, not its common meaning. Historical divorce statutes frequently listed "intemperate habits" or "habitual intemperance" as a distinct ground for divorce, separate from cruelty or desertion, and courts developed a body of case law defining exactly how habitual the habit must be.
The term's evidentiary burden varied by jurisdiction and evolved over time. Some states required proof of a fixed habit over a defined period; others focused on impact on family welfare. Researchers working with divorce records should treat "intemperate habits" as a legal term of art and cross-reference the applicable state statute and contemporary case law, not the common dictionary.
In professional discipline records — judicial fitness hearings, bar discipline proceedings, medical licensing — *intemperate* may appear in a broader behavioral sense, encompassing violent outbursts, abusive language, or disordered conduct generally. Do not assume the alcohol-specific meaning governs in those contexts.
Watch also for the related term *habitual drunkard*, which in some jurisdictions tracked a parallel but distinct legal standard — often carrying harsher consequences such as guardianship, civil commitment, or disenfranchisement — and was not always treated as synonymous with "intemperate habits."
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Anderson's and Bouvier's converge closely on the core standard: the habit of drinking to intoxication whenever occasion offers, with sobriety as the exception, establishes the charge. Both agree that daily occurrence is not required. Anderson's adds a complementary point about the phrase "sober and temperate" — it does not demand total abstinence; moderate, temperate use of alcohol is consistent with sobriety. This distinction has practical significance in reading character attestations in historical documents.
Bouvier cross-references *habitual drunkard* without resolving whether the two terms are synonymous, which reflects genuine historical ambiguity. Researchers should not assume interchangeability without jurisdiction-specific authority.
Neither source addresses the non-alcoholic uses of *intemperate* (violent language, excessive zeal) that appear in professional conduct and judicial fitness contexts. The historical dictionaries are focused on the domestic relations application, which was the dominant legal arena for the term in the nineteenth century. The broader behavioral usage must be sourced from professional discipline records and equity jurisprudence.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Statutory definitions of "intemperate habits" and "habitual intemperance" as divorce grounds varied considerably across American jurisdictions in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Some states specified minimum duration; others required proof of impact on the complaining spouse. Researchers should not assume the standard stated in one state's case law applies to another.
---