The tiny microstate of San Marino, enclaved entirely within Italy, embodies a strong nationalist tradition. Despite there being relatively few academic efforts to introduce the country to a global audience, Veenendaal (2015: 71) highlights the cultural fervour of its 34,000 inhabitants, noting that ‘on the corner of almost every street, tribute is being paid to the well-documented Sammarinese history and its accompanying heroes’. This national identity aligns closely with a set of intersecting ideals: popular sovereignty, constitutional liberalism, and territorial independence (Catudal Jr. 1975). Descriptions of San Marino’s past often frame it as a narrative of democratic exceptionalism, a timeless struggle for liberty. Central to this narrative is the legendary founding of the state by Saint Marinus, a Christian stonecutter fleeing Roman persecution in 301 AD. This founding myth is frequently invoked both internally and externally, reinforcing San Marino’s identity as ‘the ancient land of freedom’ and ‘the oldest republic in the world’ (Veenendaal 2015: 70).

Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

In this piece, I will briefly examine Sammarinese nationalism through two empirical frameworks: ethnosymbolism and modernism. A central debate between these two schools of thought in nationalism studies concerns the issue of social continuity. Ethnosymbolists argue for reconciling modern developments with an emphasis on the pre-modern origin of nations, observing ethnic ties within a long-term historical context (la longue durée) (Guibernau 2004). By contrast, modernists adopt a more rigid perspective, arguing that nations and nationalisms have become sociological necessities in the modern world but had no place in the pre-modern era. This divide is apparent in the types of evidence each perspective prioritises: ethnosymbolism focuses on myths, symbols, and traditions (Smith 2001), while modernism emphasises materialist processes such as capitalism, industrialisation, and the rise of the modern bureaucratic state (Özkirimli 2010).

Who is the Sammarinese Nation?

To understand the Sammarinese nation, we must first explore its composition and character. Ethnosymbolist Anthony D. Smith (1991: 21) contends that pre-national ethnic groups, or ethnies, possess ‘a collective proper name, a myth of common ancestry, shared historical memories [and] one or more differentiating elements of a common culture’. In this context, San Marino’s ethnie can be described as a ‘coalescence ethnie’, as the nation’s demographic formation resulted from historical expansion and assimilation (Özkirimli 2010). The last territorial additions occurred in 1463 when the villages of Faetano, Fiorentino, Montegiardino, and Serravalle were integrated into the polity (Catudal Jr. 1975).

As previously noted, the most prominent manifestation of Sammarinese identity is the promotion of political liberties, expressed not only to outsiders (most famously to honorary citizen Abraham Lincoln) but also through public monuments. The most visible of these is the Statua della Libertà outside the country’s legislature, the Grand and General Council (Veenendaal 2015). The ethnosymbolist lens is useful here, as the ancient myth of Saint Marinus escaping despotic rule and establishing a pious community continues to be portrayed as the origin of the democratic character that nominally distinguishes the Sammarinese people (Sundhaussen 2003). This enduring narrative underscores the crucial role of collective memory and symbolism in maintaining San Marino’s national identity, further supporting Smith’s (1986: 16) view that ‘ethnies, once formed, tend to be exceptionally durable’.

The idea that a Sammarinese ethnie acted as a precursor to its nationalism challenges the notion that the latter is a purely recent phenomenon. However, any modernist critique of this perspective would likely focus on the extent to which social engineering has influenced the territory’s collective identity, with historians dismissing the veracity of the Marinus legend (Duursma 1996). Eric Hobsbawm’s (1983: 303) concept of ‘invented traditions’ is particularly relevant here in light of his observations about the ‘mass production of public monuments’, a common practice historically used by European states to consolidate political unity.

Nevertheless, an ethnosymbolist view can well respond to this criticism, especially with........

© E-International