Scandinavia

The Scandinavian peninsula is made up of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Sometimes these countries are linked with the Nordic countries—traditionally including Finland and Iceland—and in the late twentieth century these countries were sometimes linked with the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as England and Scotland. This entry will examine marriage and family in Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland, using Sweden for comparisons.

Defined by the number of inhabitants, all these countries are small. Sweden is the largest, with a population of 9 million and Iceland is the smallest, with a population of approximately 250,000.

Historically, Scandinavia and Iceland were known for the Vikings, famous for their fighting and conquering habits. However, the Vikings—in the eighth through the tenth centuries—were mostly farmers and tradesmen. Since that time the population remained fairly homogeneous, with some immigration, mainly from Germany and France, between the fifteenth through the nineteenth century. However, the population has become less homogeneous with immigration, mainly refugees, from the near and far East.

Around year 1000 CE, a number of Scandinavian kingdoms converted to Christianity—but it was many years before they became fully Christian. Martin Luther was a powerful influence in the sixteenth century, and the Lutheran Church became the sole religion until freedom of religion became the norm in the mid-nineteenth century. Nevertheless, non-Christians and non-Lutherans remain small minorities in Scandinavia.

Marriage

During pre-Christian times the process of becoming husband and wife was a five-step process following the courtship period. The first step was the betrothal, when what was already known was announced: the couple was going to marry. The second step was the marriage ceremony, when the father of the bride gave the bride to the groom and the bride's parents gave a party. The third step was the trip from the bride's home to the groom's home, which was dangerous because of the risk of bandits. The fourth step was the wedding party to which all important persons—friends and relatives of the bride's parents—were invited. The final step was the bedding, when the guests at the wedding party followed the newly married couple home and watched them go to bed (Carlsson 1965). The two were now a married couple.

These pre-Christian rules remained intact for several centuries after Christianity became the official religion. The pope sent papal bulls to the bishops demanding them to keep order, get rid of pre-Christian habits, and introduce the Christian ceremonies, but the changes took a long time.

For centuries, the mortality rate was high—especially for men—and therefore the marriage rate was much lower for women than for men; far more women than men never married. That contrasts with the twentieth century: By 1960 the marriage rate was higher than ever before.

However, the marriage rate suddenly decreased in Sweden the mid-1960s (see Figure 1). The decrease in the marriage rate was much more gradual in other Scandinavian countries, and did not appear until the early 1970s.

During the 1960s, many changes followed the relatively calm (for Scandinavia) postwar period. For example, the Vietnam War became a major political issue, neo-Marxists criticized the model nuclear family as well as marriage, and new contraceptives became available and socially acceptable. In Sweden, there was no need to import labor because many housewives could enter the labor market.

Criticism against traditional family and marriage resulted in the then-radical idea of cohabiting without marrying (Trost 1980). Not until the mid-1970s was it clear that nonmarital cohabitation had arrived as a social institution. Initially, cohabitation was a deviant phenomenon, but it rapidly became so common that eventually almost no couple married without having cohabited for some time (see Figure 2). Some couples moved in together early in the courtship period, some later, but virtually no one waited until they married to live together. For some couples, nonmarital cohabitation is premarital cohabitation, whereas others have no intention to ever marry.

Another way of showing the impact upon cohabitation is to look at the number of children born to unmarried women. Before the changes, about 10 percent of all children born were born by unmarried women. In 1975, this had increased to 32 percent, 46 percent in 1985, 53 percent in 1995, and 55 percent in 2000. The other Scandinavian countries have followed the same trend, although at a slower pace (Befolkningsförändringar).

Thus, nonmarital cohabitation became a social institution alongside marriage in Scandinavian society. Viewing that society longitudinally, however, shows a slightly different picture. A young couple will start by living together for a few years—if they do not separate, they may marry. If they separate, both will find another partner with whom they will cohabit relatively soon. Thus, in this respect, the marriage and cohabitation are not parallel institutions.

What is different? Is the only difference the absence of the marriage ceremony? Superficially, it is tempting to say that nothing has changed except the rituals. However, previously there were four elements tightly connected and related to marriage: (1) the wedding ceremony and party; (2) the moving in together in a home of their own; (3) the initiation of a sex life together; and (4) a new born child, expected after about a year (Trost 1993).

There were normative connections between these four elements and couples were not supposed to violate them. The prohibition against premarital sex was what sociologists call an ideal norm and not a real behavioral norm—at least not in Denmark and Sweden. Everyone knew that almost all couples engaged in premarital sex, but it should be hidden—proper people should not share rooms in hotels, for example. Moreover, there should be no visible result of the common sexual behavior. If a woman became pregnant, she should either have an abortion (even though abortions were illegal until the 1930s) or the couple should marry as soon as possible. In Sweden in the 1950s, at least one bride out of three was pregnant at the time of her wedding (Historisk statistik 1967).

Most couples feel that if they cohabit they should get married eventually. It is important to note that these are two different statements. The first statement is a comment concerning a long-term situation and the other is about an occurrence—a wedding ceremony and party. The latter is particularly interesting because it demonstrates a remarkable change.

Before the meaning of marriage changed—namely, breaking the normative connections of the four elements mentioned above—the traditional wedding party was an occasion when the bride's parents celebrated—with friends and relatives—the occasion of their daughter leaving the parental home. Now the wedding party is primarily organized for the friends of the bride and the groom. (Typically, the couple has been invited to many wedding parties to the effect that they have to marry in order to "pay back" for all the wedding parties to which they have been invited.) Relatives come next and then, if space allows, the parents' friends are invited. Furthermore, couples marrying are often around thirty years of age and well established in their lives. Thus, the parents play a subservient role.

Thus, the marital system changed—but what happened in 1989? (See Figure 1.) One can see the marriage rate increased and then almost immediately decreased again. What cannot be seen in the diagram is that there were no changes in the marriage rate during the months January through October. However, in November the number of marriages doubled—as compared to marriages in previous years—from 2,000 to 4,000 marriages. One would expect to see another 2,000 marriages in December—but there were 64,000 marriages during that month. In January 1990, the marriage rate was back again to the historically low level.

Why this totally unexpected rush to the altar (or the civil marriage official)? During the summer of 1989 the Swedish Parliament decided to eliminate the widow's pension (ordinarily provided by the government) after January 1, 1990. However, the old rules (somewhat modified) would remain in force for those women who were married at that time, and had a child when the husband died. One of the more important modifications was that the size of the pension would be dependent not only upon income of the deceased husband but also of the new widow. Thus, few widows would receive any pension and those who did would receive a minimal one. The result was that by the end of 1989 there were almost no housewives in Sweden. Thus, one answer to the question of the marriage boom is: the law changed.

Revising the widow's pension had been discussed for decades, and the issue was not considered a particularly interesting topic. Moreover, because the decision was made in the summer, few noticed what happened. However, a journalist wrote about it, and noted that quite a few couples would marry before the end of the year. Other stories followed in the print media, radio, and television discussing the rush to find appointments in the churches. This was actually not the case when the stories appeared, but it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, another answer is that mass media changed the marriage rate.

A third way of looking at the marriage boom of 1989 to consider unmarried couples. As mentioned above, many couples believe they should eventually get married. When a cue came—stories in the popular press—they took the opportunity to marry. As so often happens in decision making, there is a need for a cue if a decision is to be made.

For example, a woman and a man had been living together for almost twenty years, and they had two teenage children. One day in the middle of December 1989 the woman came home to their town house and met a neighbor. They began talking, and the neighbor asked what they would be doing for Christmas. The woman replied that her mother would be visiting (from far away in Northern Sweden) and this would probably be the last time she could take such a long journey because she was old and not doing well. Thus, this was a special occasion and they had to do something special for the mother. One of the two mentioned something about the possibility getting married and having a party—being traditional, the mother would be happy to see her daughter married. The neighbor, who was a minister, immediately said that even if there were problems with time slots in his church he could make some arrangements. Thus, the cohabiting couple married. (Later the mother recovered, and some years later the couple divorced.)

Sociological analysis suggests that the 1989 marriage boom was related to the large pool of cohabiting couples that grew during all the years since nonmarital cohabitation became common—and the couples' idea that one should eventually get married. Thus, a boom could occur again with a strong enough cue: not only in Sweden, but in any part of the world where cohabitation is common.

Living Apart Together

All known societies are built upon some sort of marriage—and some have also constructed non-marital cohabitation as a social institution. In the 1970s, the concept of Living Apart Together (LAT) relationships appeared in some countries. This was first identified in the Netherlands. The term LAT relatie first appeared in a newspaper article in 1978 (Levin and Trost 1999) and has since become the international term in English.

An LAT relationship is a couple, same or opposite gender, who lives together but does not share the same home. The two are defined by their social standing as a couple and treated in the same manner as married or cohabiting couples. They have two separate homes and households in which other persons may live, such as children or parents. The phenomenon of LAT relationships is clearly different from commuting marriages/cohabitation—the latter have a common home, whereas the LAT couples have one each.

One can ask what the difference is between couples going steady and the LAT couples. In countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, the phenomenon of a going-steady couple is more or less outdated. The difference is that, traditionally, the going-steady couple did not share a bed at anytime (at least not openly). LAT couples are allowed to do so.

Of course, LAT couples have always existed, as have cohabiting couples: but they were deviant cases. LAT couples tended to be among the more affluent, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre (Rodman 1966; Trost 1980).

In the early twenty-first century, LAT relationships could hardly exist had not nonmarital cohabitation come in existence along with the weakening of traditional prohibitions against nonmarital sex. Because the four elements mentioned above lost their connection, cohabitation and LAT relationships (somewhat later) became possible.

Information about the frequency of LAT relationships is limited. A 1993 study in Sweden showed that approximately 2 percent of the Swedes ages eighteen to seventy-four (35,000 couples or 70,000 individuals) were living in LAT relationships. By 2001 this had increased to over 5 percent (75,000 couples/150,000 individuals). For the purposes of comparison, if the percentages were the same in the United States, there would be four to five million people living in LAT relationships.

What are the reasons for couples not to follow the old norm that one should live together under such circumstances?

First, there are couples living relatively far from each other who have jobs at their respective locales. To quit a good job in order to take a job at the other place might be impossible or too risky. Many of these couples look forward to the time when one of them retires so that they can move in together. However, when that time comes, they might not move in together for various other reasons.

Next are those couples who have children at home—from a previous relationship—and who do not want to live in a stepfamily household (Levin 1994). Concerns about the children's well-being may preempt other desires. If individuals care for both their children and the new relationship, and are reluctant to risk either, they may decide to stay apart but together. Both persons in the LAT relationship might have children at home and if they move in together the children of one of them would be forced to deal with various changes, such as the move itself, changing school, or missing friends and playmates. Couples in this situation might have elderly parents to care for and cannot, or do not wish to, move.

A third situation concerns those who have had bad experiences from previous cohabitation (e.g., a traumatic divorce or separation), and they do not wish to make the same mistake they made in a previous relationship. One woman remarked: "He found a younger and more attractive woman after we had been married for 25 years. I had become too boring and taken for granted. I don't want to run that risk again. This way with living apart we have more fun and might be able to keep the relationship alive in a positive way."

Finally, retired couples may prefer an LAT relationship. There can be various reasons for this. As mentioned above, it may have to do with the perceived risk of falling into a boring routine if they cohabit. Alternatively, one or both members of the couple may have children and/or grandchildren nearby, and they may wish to remain close to them, especially if the other member of the couple lives far away. For others there can be questions about which of one's belonging should be brought to a new home. Such decisions can be so difficult that the decision is to remain as a couple in an LAT relationship.

Divorce

In the Scandinavian countries, like the rest of the Western world, divorces were rare a century ago. Legislation prohibited divorces almost everywhere. Moreover, shorter lifespans left many women and men widows and widowers, respectively. As the mortality rate dropped, and lifespans became longer, fewer marriages were ended by death, and there was a need for more liberal divorce laws.

In 1916, Sweden became the first Scandinavian country with a liberal—for that time—divorce law (modified somewhat in 1920). The other Scandinavian countries followed with similar laws within few years. These laws allowed essentially two grounds for divorce: irretrievable breakdown, with a minimum of one year's separation, or a fault on the part of a spouse, such as adultery or alcoholism, in which case the divorce could be granted immediately. These laws remained on the books without any significant changes until the mid-1970s.

Figure 3 shows that the divorce rate in Sweden increased slowly at first and then more rapidly until about 1950, after which it remained stable for about fifteen years. This trend is the same for other Scandinavian countries, although the number of divorces is fewer, especially in Finland and Norway, less so in Denmark. The divorce rates increased again—simultaneously with appearance of non-marital cohabitation. However, research has not shown a direct connection. The sudden jump in divorces in the early 1970s is mostly due to technical changes of the legal system.

The late 1960s saw Scandinavian governments overhauling matrimonial laws, particularly divorce laws. In the early 1970s, new laws allowed for quick, no-fault divorces. However, if there is a child in the home the couple must wait six months and reflect upon the reasonability of a divorce. The same rule applies when only one of the spouses wants to divorce.

As nonmarital cohabitation became common, one might think that divorce statistics would no longer be of interest, and the simple divorce rates shown in Figure 3 support this view. However, examining marriage cohorts (Figure 4), one can see that of those who married in 1956, 25 percent were divorced after thirty-five years (the rest are either still married or one of the spouses has died). For those who married in 1991 it took only about eight years to reach to the same percentage. Thus, one can conclude that the divorce rates have continued to increase.

It would be interesting to compare divorce rates with those of cohabiting couples who have chosen to separate. Unfortunately, such comparisons are hard to make. Even if nonmarital cohabitation is a social institution like marriage, the two forms are not parallel. Nonmarital cohabitation can become marital cohabitation but marital cohabitation cannot become nonmarital cohabitation—almost no married couple divorces in order to live as nonmarital cohabitants, at least not in the Scandinavian countries. It is conceivable that in other countries there could be cases due to taxation or economic considerations.

Furthermore, many cohabiting couples may be compared with couples going steady (see Figure 2) and such couples also face the possibility of dissolution of the relationship. Thus, there is no reason to compare divorce rates with separations of non-marital cohabitation.

When cohabitation was a new and relatively unknown phenomenon many believed that divorces among marriages preceded by cohabitation would be less common than those in which the couples did not cohabit before marriage. Such an assumption does not hold for Scandinavian countries, because almost no one marries without premarital cohabitation.

See also:Germany

Bibliography

befolkningsförändringar (vital statistics). (various years). stockholm: statistiska centralbyran.

caradec, v. (1996). "les formes de la vie conjugales des 'jeunes' couples 'âgés.'" population 51: 897–928.

carlsson, l. (1965). jag giver dig min dotter (i give you my daughter). lund: rättshistoriskt bibliotek, attonde bandet.

historisk statistik. (1967). historisk statistik för sverige. (historical statistics for sweden). stockholm: statistiska centralbyran.

levin, i. (1994). stefamilien—variasjon og mangfold. oslo: tano.

levin, i., and trost, j. (1999). "living apart together." community, work and family 2:279–294.

rodman, h. (1966). "illegitimacy in the caribbean social structure: a reconsideration." american sociological review 31:673–683.

trost, j. (1980). unmarried cohabitation. västeras, sweden: international library.

trost, j. (1993). familjen i sverige. stockholm: liber.

jan trost

Scandinavia , region of N Europe. It consists of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; Finland and Iceland are usually considered part of Scandinavia. Physiographically, Denmark belongs to the North European Plain rather than to the geologically distinct Scandinavian peninsula (which is part of the ancient Baltic Shield), occupied by Norway and Sweden. Sometimes the word "Norden" is applied to the five countries because it avoids the physiographic and cultural limitations of the word Scandinavia. The Scandinavian peninsula (c.300,000 sq mi/777,000 sq km) is c.1,150 mi (1,850 km) long and from 230 to 500 mi (370–805 km) wide and is bordered by the Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic Sea, the Kattegat and Skagerrak straits, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Arctic Ocean. It is mountainous in the west (rising to 8,104 ft/2,470 m at Glittertinden, S Norway) and slopes gently in the east and the south. The region was heavily glaciated during the Ice Age; Jostedalsbreen (W Norway), the largest glacier of mainland Europe, is a remnant of the great ice sheet. The peninsula's western coast is deeply indented by fjords. Short, swift-flowing streams drain to the west, while long parallel rivers and numerous lakes are found in the east; Vänern and Vättern, both in S Sweden, are among Europe's largest lakes. Nearly a quarter of the peninsula lies N of the Arctic Circle, reaching its northernmost point in Cape Nordkyn, Norway. The climate varies from tundra and subarctic in the north, to humid continental in the central portion, and to marine west coast in the south and southwest. The region's best farmland is in S Sweden. The peninsula is rich in timber and minerals (notably iron and copper), and has a great hydroelectricity generating capacity. Its coastal waters are important fishing grounds. Large petroleum and natural-gas deposits have been found off Norway's coast in the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. Population is concentrated in the southern part of the peninsula; Stockholm and Göteborg (both in Sweden) and Oslo (Norway) are the largest cities. Except for the Lapps and Finns in the north and east, the Scandinavian peoples speak a closely related group of Germanic languages—Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Faeroese, and Swedish. The oldest Germanic literature (see Old Norse literature ) flourished in Scandinavia, especially in Iceland.

Scandinavia In physicial geography, the n European peninsular countries of Sweden and Norway. In a broader, cultural sense it also includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. The climate ranges from subarctic in the n, to humid continental in the centre, and marine in the w and sw. The terrain is mountainous in the w with swift-flowing streams. In the e the land slopes more gently and there are thousands of lakes, notably in Finland. Part of the region lies within the Arctic Circle, where tundra predominates. Denmark and s Sweden have the best farmland. A large proportion of the land is forested, there are rich mineral deposits, particularly of iron ore and copper, and fishing is still important. The largest cities are Stockholm and Gothenburg in Sweden; Oslo in Norway; Copenhagen in Denmark, and Helsinki in Finland. Area: c.1.258 million sq km (485,250sq mi).

Scan·di·na·vi·an / ˌskandəˈnāvēən/ • adj. of or relating to Scandinavia, its people, or their languages. • n. 1. a native or inhabitant of Scandinavia, or a person of Scandinavian descent. 2. the North Germanic languages (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, Faeroese) descended from Old Norse.

Scandinavia Scandia Generally accepted as comprising the peninsula of Norway and Sweden with Denmark and Iceland. Some claim that Finland and the Faroe Islands should also be included. The name is derived from the Roman Scandia whose meaning is unknown. Avia is of Germanic origin and represents ‘island’. Scandinavia has given its name to the chemical element, Scandium.

Scandinavia •astrantia • Bastia •Dei gratia, hamartia •poinsettia •in absentia, Parmentier •Izvestia •meteor, wheatear •Whittier • cottier • Ostia •consortia, courtier •protea • Yakutia • frontier • Althea •Anthea • Parthia •Pythia, stichomythia •Carinthia, Cynthia •forsythia • Scythia • clothier • salvia •Latvia • Yugoslavia • envier •Flavia, Moldavia, Moravia, Octavia, paviour (US pavior), Scandinavia, Xavier •Bolivia, Livia, Olivia, trivia •Sylvia • Guinevere • Elzevir •Monrovia, Segovia •Retrovir • effluvia • colloquia •Goodyear • yesteryear • brassiere •Abkhazia •Anastasia, aphasia, brazier, dysphasia, dysplasia, euthanasia, fantasia, Frazier, glazier, grazier, gymnasia, Malaysia •amnesia, anaesthesia (US anesthesia), analgesia, freesia, Indonesia, Silesia, synaesthesia •artemisia, Kirghizia, Tunisia •ambrosia, crozier, hosier, osier, symposia

Scandinavian •antipodean, Crimean, Judaean, Korean •Albion •Gambian, Zambian •lesbian •Arabian, Bessarabian, Fabian, gabion, Sabian, Swabian •amphibian, Libyan, Namibian •Sorbian •Danubian, Nubian •Colombian • Serbian • Nietzschean •Chadian, Trinidadian •Andean, Kandyan •guardian •Acadian, Akkadian, Arcadian, Barbadian, Canadian, circadian, Grenadian, Hadean, Orcadian, Palladian, radian, steradian •Archimedean, comedian, epicedian, median, tragedian •ascidian, Derridean, Dravidian, enchiridion, Euclidean, Floridian, Gideon, Lydian, meridian, Numidian, obsidian, Pisidian, quotidian, viridian •Amerindian, Indian •accordion, Edwardian •Cambodian, collodion, custodian, melodeon, nickelodeon, Odeon •Freudian • Bermudian • Burundian •Burgundian •Falstaffian, Halafian •Christadelphian, Delphian, Philadelphian •nymphean • ruffian • Brobdingnagian •Carolingian • Swedenborgian •logion, Muskogean •Jungian •magian, Pelagian •collegian •callipygian, Cantabrigian, Phrygian, Stygian •Merovingian • philologian • Fujian •Czechoslovakian • Pickwickian •Algonquian • Chomskian •Kentuckian •battalion, galleon, medallion, rapscallion, scallion •Anglian, ganglion •Heraklion •Dalian, Malian, Somalian •Chellean, Machiavellian, Orwellian, Sabellian, Trevelyan, triskelion •Wesleyan •alien, Australian, bacchanalian, Castalian, Deucalion, episcopalian, Hegelian, madrigalian, mammalian, Pygmalion, Salian, saturnalian, sesquipedalian, tatterdemalion, Thessalian, Westphalian •anthelion, Aristotelian, Aurelian, carnelian, chameleon, Karelian, Mendelian, Mephistophelian, Pelion, Sahelian •Abbevillian, Azilian, Brazilian, caecilian, Castilian, Chilean, Churchillian, civilian, cotillion, crocodilian, epyllion, Gillian, Lilian, Maximilian, Pamphylian, pavilion, postilion, Quintilian, reptilian, Sicilian, Tamilian, vaudevillian, vermilion, Virgilian •Aeolian, Anatolian, Eolian, Jolyon, Mongolian, napoleon, simoleon •Acheulian, Boolean, cerulean, Friulian, Julian, Julien •bullion •mullion, scullion, Tertullian •Liverpudlian •Bahamian, Bamian, Damian, Mesopotamian, Samian •anthemion, Bohemian •Endymion, prosimian, Simeon, simian •isthmian • antinomian •Permian, vermian •Oceanian •Albanian, Azanian, Iranian, Jordanian, Lithuanian, Mauritanian, Mediterranean, Panamanian, Pennsylvanian, Pomeranian, Romanian, Ruritanian, Sassanian, subterranean, Tasmanian, Transylvanian, Tripolitanian, Turanian, Ukrainian, Vulcanian •Armenian, Athenian, Fenian, Magdalenian, Mycenaean (US Mycenean), Slovenian, Tyrrhenian •Argentinian, Arminian, Augustinian, Carthaginian, Darwinian, dominion, Guinean, Justinian, Ninian, Palestinian, Sardinian, Virginian •epilimnion, hypolimnion •Bosnian •Bornean, Californian, Capricornian •Aberdonian, Amazonian, Apollonian, Babylonian, Baconian, Bostonian, Caledonian, Catalonian, Chalcedonian, Ciceronian, Devonian, draconian, Estonian, Etonian, gorgonian, Ionian, Johnsonian, Laconian, Macedonian, Miltonian, Newtonian, Oregonian, Oxonian, Patagonian, Plutonian, Tennysonian, Tobagonian, Washingtonian •Cameroonian, communion, Mancunian, Neptunian, Réunion, union •Hibernian, Saturnian •Campion, champion, Grampian, rampion, tampion •thespian • Mississippian • Olympian •Crispian •Scorpian, scorpion •cornucopian, dystopian, Ethiopian, Salopian, subtopian, Utopian •Guadeloupian •Carian, carrion, clarion, Marian •Calabrian, Cantabrian •Cambrian • Bactrian •Lancastrian, Zoroastrian •Alexandrian • Maharashtrian •equestrian, pedestrian •agrarian, antiquarian, apiarian, Aquarian, Arian, Aryan, authoritarian, barbarian, Bavarian, Bulgarian, Caesarean (US Cesarean), centenarian, communitarian, contrarian, Darien, disciplinarian, egalitarian, equalitarian, establishmentarian, fruitarian, Gibraltarian, grammarian, Hanoverian, humanitarian, Hungarian, latitudinarian, libertarian, librarian, majoritarian, millenarian, necessarian, necessitarian, nonagenarian, octogenarian, ovarian, Parian, parliamentarian, planarian, predestinarian, prelapsarian, proletarian, quadragenarian, quinquagenarian, quodlibetarian, Rastafarian, riparian, rosarian, Rotarian, sabbatarian, Sagittarian, sanitarian, Sauveterrian, sectarian, seminarian, septuagenarian, sexagenarian, topiarian, totalitarian, Trinitarian, ubiquitarian, Unitarian, utilitarian, valetudinarian, vegetarian, veterinarian, vulgarian •Adrian, Hadrian •Assyrian, Illyrian, Syrian, Tyrian •morion • Austrian •Dorian, Ecuadorean, historian, Hyperborean, Nestorian, oratorian, praetorian (US pretorian), salutatorian, Salvadorean, Singaporean, stentorian, Taurean, valedictorian, Victorian •Ugrian • Zarathustrian •Cumbrian, Northumbrian, Umbrian •Algerian, Cancerian, Chaucerian, Cimmerian, criterion, Hesperian, Hitlerian, Hyperion, Iberian, Liberian, Nigerian, Presbyterian, Shakespearean, Siberian, Spenserian, Sumerian, valerian, Wagnerian, Zairean •Arthurian, Ben-Gurion, centurion, durian, holothurian, Khachaturian, Ligurian, Missourian, Silurian, tellurian •Circassian, Parnassian •halcyon • Capsian • Hessian •Albigensian, Waldensian •Dacian • Keatsian •Cilician, Galician, Lycian, Mysian, Odyssean •Leibnizian • Piscean • Ossian •Gaussian • Joycean • Andalusian •Mercian • Appalachian • Decian •Ordovician, Priscian •Lucian •himation, Montserratian •Atlantean, Dantean, Kantian •bastion, Erastian, Sebastian •Mozartian • Brechtian • Thyestean •Fortean • Faustian • protean •Djiboutian •fustian, Procrustean •Gilbertian, Goethean, nemertean •pantheon •Hogarthian, Parthian •Lethean, Promethean •Pythian • Corinthian • Scythian •Lothian, Midlothian •Latvian • Yugoslavian •avian, Batavian, Flavian, Moldavian, Moravian, Octavian, Scandinavian, Shavian •Bolivian, Maldivian, oblivion, Vivian •Chekhovian, Harrovian, Jovian, Pavlovian •alluvion, antediluvian, diluvian, Peruvian •Servian • Malawian • Zimbabwean •Abkhazian • Dickensian •Caucasian, Malaysian, Rabelaisian •Keynesian •Belizean, Cartesian, Indonesian, Milesian, Salesian, Silesian •Elysian, Frisian, Parisian, Tunisian •Holmesian •Carthusian, Malthusian, Venusian