República Mista

This article is about the political treatise República Mista. For the full background of the author, see Tomás Fernández de Medrano.

República Mista

Title page for volume one of República Mista (1602), A Treatise on Three Precepts by Which the Romans Were Better Governed.
Author	Tomás Fernández de Medrano
Original title	República Mista: Sobre los Tres Preceptos que el Embajador de los Romanos Dio al Rey Ptolomeo Respecto al Buen Gobierno de su República.
Language	Early Modern Spanish and Latin
Series	1 of 7
Subject	Political philosophy, governance, reason of state literature, moral-philosophical discourse, Catholic political theology, Spanish Baroque political literature
Genre	Mirrors for princes, political treatise
Publisher	Juan Flamenco
Publication date	5 March 1602
Publication place	Royal press, Madrid, Spain
Media type	Print
Pages	158

República Mista (English: Mixed Republic) is a seven-part politics-related treatise from the Spanish Golden Age, authored by the Basque-Castilian nobleman, philosopher and statesman Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Valdeosera, of which only the first part was ever printed. Originally published in Madrid in 1602 pursuant to a royal decree from King Philip III of Spain, dated 25 September 1601, the work was written in early modern Spanish and Latin, and explores a doctrinal framework of governance rooted in a mixed political model that combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy. Structured as the first volume in a planned series of seven, the treatise examines three foundational precepts of governance, religion, obedience, and justice, rooted in ancient Roman philosophy and their application to contemporary governance. Within the mirrors for princes genre, Medrano emphasizes the moral and spiritual responsibilities of rulers, grounding his counsel in classical philosophy and historical precedent. República Mista is known for its detailed exploration of governance precepts.

The first volume of República Mista centers on the constitutive political roles of religion, obedience, and justice. Without naming him, it aligns with the anti-Machiavellian tradition by rejecting Machiavelli’s thesis that religion serves merely a strategic function; for Medrano, it is instead foundational to political order.

Although only the first part was printed, República Mista significantly influenced early 17th-century conceptions of royal authority in Spain, notably shaping Fray Juan de Salazar's 1617 treatise, which adopted Medrano's doctrine to define the Spanish monarchy as guided by virtue and reason, yet bound by divine and natural law.

Overview and structure

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's political philosophy, as outlined in the first treatise of República Mista, titled A Treatise on Three Precepts by Which the Romans Were Better Governed, emphasizes the integration of monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy into a single system of governance grounded in religious devotion. He argues that each form of rule embodies particular virtues as well as inherent vices, but when combined within a "mixed republic," their strengths serve to limit one another's weaknesses. This hybrid model, he maintains, offers the most effective system for securing justice, stability, and the common good.

His República Mista was conceived as a seven-part series, with each volume addressing three key precepts drawn from the seven most flourishing republics in history. Only the first volume was published, devoted to the Roman precepts of religion, obedience, and justice, rooted in ancient philosophy and applied to governance within the Spanish Empire. The work is structured as a dialogue between King Ptolemy and ambassadors of the classical republics, each presenting three principles of their polity. In its prologue, Medrano sets out this political doctrine in a style reminiscent of earlier Spanish literature influenced by Moorish traditions, combining narrative with philosophical reflection.

Tomás, who permitted his son Juan to bring the work to publication, explicitly stated his original intent at the outset of the treatise:

I present only the first of seven treatises I have written, each addressing three points. This one focuses on the primary precepts of religion, obedience, and justice, to see how it is received. If it is well-received, the others will follow, collectively titled Mixed Republic. Since these matters concern everyone, I dedicate this to all, so that each may take what best suits their purpose.

In the first and only printed volume, Tomás Fernández de Medrano illustrates three Roman precepts through scriptural references, historical examples, and contemporary models of leadership. From classical antiquity, he draws on thinkers such as Cicero, Tacitus, Plato, and Aristotle, whose reflections on governance, virtue, and justice underpin much of his analysis.

Exemplary rulers including Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, and Alexander the Great are invoked as models of wise and ethical leadership, while figures like Codrus and Aristides are cited for their self-sacrifice and devotion to justice. Medrano also praises leaders of his own era, such as Pope Sixtus V, Pope Pius V, and Pope Gregory XIII, for their clemency, piety, and commitment to social order. He incorporates mythological references as well, using Deucalion to symbolize political renewal, Atlas to represent endurance and structure, and Bacchus as an emblem of communal joy and harmony.

Codifying a Universal Doctrine

See also: § Legacy and continuity, and § Doctrine of Medrano (Doctrine of Medrar)

Although composed in the early seventeenth century, the República Mista codified principles and precepts already present in earlier traditions across various civilizations. Drawing upon classical and biblical sources, political philosophy, theology, jurisprudence, and law, Tomás Fernández de Medrano formalized ideas that had long been expressed in Spanish administrative practice and in the historical vocation of the Medrano family. The treatise presented these inherited precepts as a coherent doctrine of lawful advancement (medrar), grounded in virtue, service, delegated authority, and natural and divine law. This system, later known as the Doctrine of Medrano, unified an etymological and legally codified grammar of medrar, derived from the Medrano surname as "advancement, prosperity, and improvement," and influenced dynastic, legal, educational, and cultural structures across the Spanish world.

Authorship

Miguel Herrero García, in his introduction to Fray Juan de Salazar's book, declares:

Don Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, of the house of the Lords of Valdeosera, is credited as the author of this book, published in Madrid in 1602 under the title República Mista. However, despite what the cover states, we conclude that the book was written by his father, Tomás Fernández de Medrano.

The Spanish bibliographer Nicolás Antonio, knight of Santiago, unequivocally attributes the authorship of the Mixed Republic to Tomás Fernández de Medrano. This father-son collaboration is echoed in the Orazion Consotoria dedicated to Lord Carlo Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, with Tomás as the author and his son Juan responsible for its publication. Similarly, the funeral oration honoring the virtues of King Philip II is also credited to Tomás Fernández de Medrano.

According to the royal printing license issued by Philip III of Spain, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval discovered "a book titled A Treatise on Three Precepts by Which the Romans Were Better Governed" among the papers of his father, Tomás Fernández de Medrano.

Miguel Herrero García asserts that the royal printing license "leaves no room for doubt" regarding Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s authorship. He argues that this was not simply a harmless literary device of the time, citing several points: Medrano was alive when the license was granted, the book contains multiple first-person accounts of events in Italy, it simultaneously functions as a preserver of the oration by Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, under whom Medrano served as advisor and secretary of state and war (1591—1598).

Author

In his preface, Tomás Fernández de Medrano used a chivalric and theatrical metaphor to explain why he initially wrote República Mista anonymously:

Let no one inquire about the identity of this adventurer, who has dared to step into the public arena with a masked face, fearing the risk of gaining no honor. For that reason, I ask earnestly not to be commanded to reveal myself, for I come from the confines of a prison where I find myself, and I am running this course with these three lances. And if, due to their strength, I cannot break them, I humbly ask the judges to observe where the blows land. I promise they will all strike above the belt, and with such skill that no one will be harmed, offended, or dismounted from their horse. My intentions are truly good.

Born in Entrena, La Rioja, Tomás Fernández de Medrano of the influential House of Medrano held numerous civic, noble, and ecclesiastical titles. He served as Mayor, Chief Magistrate, Divisero, and Lord of Valdeosera, as well as a Knight of the Order of Saint John and Patron of the Convent of San Juan de Acre in Salinas de Añana. Medrano advised the monarchs of Spain and held high office abroad, including Secretary of State and War to Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, and to Princess Catalina Micaela of Spain, daughter of Philip II.

From 1579 to 1581, he served as secretary to Prince Giovanni Andrea Doria, and later spent eight years in Rome under Enrique de Guzmán, 2nd Count of Olivares. He was appointed Secretary of the Holy Chapters and Assemblies of Castile, maintaining a continued role in both religious and political governance.

Summary by Philip III of Spain

According to the royal decree of King Philip III of Spain in 1601:

Tomás Fernández de Medrano writes first, concerning the importance of kings and princes being religious in order to be more obedient to their subjects; the second, regarding the obedience owed to them by their subjects and the reverence with which they should speak of them and their ministers, councils, and magistrates; and the third, on the Ambassador's role among the Romans, where he discusses why it is important to reward the good and punish the bad.

Historical context

Statue of Philip III of Spain, Plaza Mayor de Madrid

Philip III of Spain (1598–1621), ruler of the Spanish Empire at the height of its power, nevertheless faced challenges in governance. In the first volume of the República Mista, titled On the Three Precepts that the Ambassador of the Romans Gave to King Ptolemy Regarding the Good Governance of His Republic, Medrano frames his treatise as a guide grounded in Roman political virtue. He writes, "to discuss the three precepts and the specific laws of governance by which the Roman Republic were best governed," a subtle invitation for Philip to measure his reign against these classical ideals. Religion, obedience, and justice, the three Roman precepts at the center of the work, serve as both a tribute to the Catholic monarchy and a call for reform.

Reception and influence

Around 1607, a letter in the name of Tomás Fernández de Medrano indicates the book he wrote on the Republic was pleasing to His Majesty Philip III of Spain:

Secretary Tomás Fernández de Medrano says that... His Majesty and his ministers are well aware of the services he has rendered, by sea and land, in peace and war... His Majesty was pleased by the book he wrote on the Republic (dedicated to the Duke of Lerma), in which he discussed, among other things, how important it is for kings and princes to be religious in order to be better obeyed by their subjects.

Medrano's República Mista significantly influenced Philip III’s approach to kingship. His República Mista reinforced Madrid-Rome ties, and associated a religious foundation with the Spanish monarchy's "greatness" and prestige.

Medrano's Contemporary Defense of Philip III of Spain

Envraving of King Philip III of Spain, whom Tomás Fernández de Medrano presents in República Mista as a model of kingship, praising his humility.

While many modern historians regard Philip III of Spain as a weak and disengaged monarch, Medrano presents a humble description in República Mista (1602).

Is there a greater example of justice and sanctity than the one shown by our Lord King Philip III in Valladolid? When constructing a passage for his own comfort and convenience, he graciously sent a request to a poor baker, asking him, with utmost respect, if he would allow the passage to go through a small room in his house. The baker, responding with loyalty and wisdom beyond his station, answered that the King's will should be done, as his life and livelihood were at the King's disposal. In return, the King rewarded this common man with generous gifts befitting a humble subject who had served his King like a true noble.

Anecdotes, such as the king requesting permission from a baker to pass through his home, illustrate Medrano's view of Philip III grounded in fairness and magnanimity.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano teaches that discretion and restraint are necessary virtues for subjects who live under a just Catholic king. He writes:

Interdum "Sometimes it is convenient not to know certain things."

He then cites Seneca:

Qui plus scire velle quam satis sit; intemperantiae genus est "Wanting to know more than is necessary is a form of excess."

Such restraint strengthens loyalty to the king, to his councils, and to his magistrates. It helps preserve a measure of peace in this life and reminds humanity that this world is not their lasting home. Therefore, the loyalty and silence of subjects toward their king and rightful lord, and toward his councils and magistrates, are crucial virtues within the populace and powerful means of attaining some peace in this life. He teaches that this peace reminds us "that we live and journey toward an eternal life, not this fleeting, mortal, and transitory one."

All great monarchies eventually fall. Nothing beneath heaven is immortal. Tomás therefore asks:

qui potest dicere immortalitatem sub coelo "Who can claim immortality under heaven?"

Subjects are instructed to pray that God preserve their holy, valiant, magnanimous, generous, just, wise, and compassionate king.

Tomás then describes Philip III's virtues. The king is holy because he has no disordered inclinations and entrusts difficult matters to wise and religious counselors placed beside him by divine providence. He is valiant because he understands that power collapses unless it is accompanied by real strength. For this reason he assembled a great fleet and army that humbled his greatest enemies without requiring bloodshed or his personal presence on the battlefield.

He is magnanimous because he could have annihilated certain princes for his advantage yet chose to show them mercy. Tomás cites Saint Isidore:

Plerunque princeps iustus etiam malorum errores dissimulare novit, non quod iniquitati eorum consentiat; sed quod aptum tempus correctionis expectet "A just prince often knows how to overlook even the errors of the wicked, not because he approves of their iniquity but because he waits for the appropriate time to correct them."

Medrano affirms that Philip III is just because he knows the gravity of governing well and has personally visited his realm, listening to and correcting the needs of his subjects.

Tomás then repeats the ancient warning that an emperor who encloses himself at home and sees only what others report will judge poorly. He quotes Diocletian:

Bonus, cautus, optimus venditur Imperator "The good, the prudent, and the excellent emperor is a rare treasure."

The king is prudent because although naturally inclined to hunting and war, he has set these aside for noble and sacred reasons, serving God, preserving his health, and benefiting his people. A ruler's moderation, he writes, reforms customs.

Envraving of Sallust.

He is compassionate because, at the urging of Pope Clement VIII, whom he deeply venerates, he acted against the harsh maxim of Sallust:

Nemo alteri imperium volens concedit; et quamvis bonus, atque clemens sit, qui plus potest, tamen quia malo esse licet formidatur "No one willingly yields power to another; and even though he may be good and gentle, one who holds power is feared because he has the capacity to be otherwise."

Though kings generally believe that yielding is as shameful as defeat, Philip III yielded when justice and charity required it, choosing to safeguard the peace the monarchy enjoys. Tomás cites Saint Gregory:

Reges quando boni sunt, muneris est Dei; quando vero iniqui, sceleris est populi "Good kings are the gift of God, and wicked ones are the punishment of the people."

He concludes with a reflection on human nature. Those inclined to speak freely and condemn injustice often displease the powerful. Tomás recalls Tacitus:

Semper alicui potentium invisus, non culpa, sed ut flagitiorum impatiens "One who is always disliked by the powerful is not guilty of wrongdoing but rather intolerant of wrongdoing."

For this reason he advises that those who seek peace and security will often prefer to live far from courts and the pressures of public life, where they may enjoy a more tranquil existence.

In his República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano presents Philip III as the model of a virtuous Catholic monarch, demonstrating that holy kingship is upheld not through force alone but through justice, prudence, mercy, and piety.

Medrano's Doctrine of Royal Sovereignty and its Impact

In 1617, Medrano's codified doctrine in the República Mista was fully embraced by Fray Juan de Salazar in his attempt to define the Spanish monarchy. In the República Mista, Medrano further advised King Philip III that royal withdrawal from public view could be perceived "as a form of religion," comparing the king's distance from his subjects to the veneration reserved for the Eucharist. In response to this vision, Philip III took the idea of royal inaccessibility even further than his father, restricting public access and delegating the management of audiences to the Duke of Lerma, reinforcing the king's sacred distance with the second type of authority. He balances sacred distance by arguing that what is rarely seen is more deeply revered, and that this deliberate isolation preserved the king's idealized image by concealing potential flaws, thereby legitimizing the presence of a valido to act as his public and political representative.

Medrano's Classical Model of Sacred Royal Reserve

Numa Pompilius at the Louvre, by Jean Guillaume Moitte. Medrano cites Numa to define the proper form of sacred kingship.

After affirming that reverence for God restrains the violent impulses of power and that princes must protect the sanctity of the Church above all, Medrano shifted to the classical figure who embodied these precepts most fully. Tomás Fernández de Medrano turned to the classical figure of Numa Pompilius to define the proper form of sacred kingship. Following the violent era of Romulus, Numa governed by moderation, peace, and religious example. Medrano used this contrast to show that a kingdom shaped by war and ambition can only be stabilized by a ruler whose virtues restrain the impulses of the people. Numa, in Medrano's account, performed the duties of government and then withdrew to contemplation of divine matters, cultivating a kingdom whose religious discipline made even foreign nations regard Rome as inviolable.

At the center of Medrano's political theology was the principle that the king exists so that his subjects may prosper (medrar). He expressed this using the foundational maxim of the doctrine:

Rex eligitur non ut sese moliter curet, sed ut per ipsum, qui elegerunt, bene beateque agant. A king is chosen not to care for himself but so that, through him, those who chose him may live well and prosper.

For Medrano, royal majesty depends on measured distance. The sovereign must avoid excessive familiarity and be known primarily through counselors whose own conduct inspires confidence. Drawing on the example of Tiberius, he wrote:

Continuus aspectus venerationem minorum hominum ipsa societate facit. Continual familiarity diminishes the reverence held for men by simple association.

From these teachings Medrano concluded that a king's dignity grows from his rare public presence and from the elevation of a trusted minister who serves as the visible executor of royal will. Philip III's restricted audiences, his disciplined reserve, and his reliance on the Duke of Lerma were therefore not signs of indolence or weakness. They were enactments of a sacral form of government in which distance magnified majesty and delegated authority allowed the people to live well and prosper, fulfilling the doctrinal standard Medrano had inherited and codified.

The Eight Royal Regalia and the Two Forms of Authority and Justice

In the early 17th century, a strong royalist ethos emerged, asserting that the king was legibus solutus (not bound by laws) in civil matters, though still subject to divine and natural law. Phrases like scientia certa, motu proprio, and non obstante facilitated the development of royal sovereignty, which was nevertheless distinguished from tyranny. This interpretation of royal power was so widely accepted that República Mista (1602) by Tomás Fernández de Medrano codified and reaffirmed the king's authority in civil affairs and taught that resistance to a legitimate ruler was contrary to divine and natural law, citing scriptural foundations from 1 Samuel 8 to Jeremiah 27.

Tomás teaches that free rulers possess the authority to make and enforce laws upon all, both generally and individually. This authority contains the symbols and acts of supreme sovereignty that jurists call the Regalia. He states that the Regalia may be distilled into eight primary points, so that their lawful exercise may be better understood and obeyed:

• Eight Primary Points of Regalia: To create and repeal laws. To declare war or establish peace. To act as the highest court of appeal. To appoint and remove high officials. To levy and collect taxes and public contributions. To grant pardons and dispensations. To set or alter the value and currency of money. To require oaths of loyalty and obedience from all subjects.

If rulers exercise these powers, either directly or through ministers to whom authority is delegated, subjects must not scorn or violate the authority of their superiors. Established by God through many decrees and testimonies, this authority must be respected and held as a source of majesty, even if at times it is administered by individuals who are unworthy and make it odious. Subjects must obey laws and ordinances without scheming or undertaking anything that undermines the dignity and authority of princes, ministers, and magistrates.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano asserted there are two types of authority:

• (1) One supreme and absolute, answerable only to God
• (2) Subordinate and bound by law, exercised by magistrates for a limited time under royal commission (e.g. a valido).

Tomás taught that any discussion of royal authority must begin with the classical distinction between the two forms of justice. He explained that philosophers divide justice into distributive and commutative, and that the first is most relevant for kingship.

• (1) Distributive justice concerns the rightful granting of honor, dignity, office, punishment, and reward according to each person’s condition.
• (2) Commutative justice concerns the fair observance of promises, contracts, and reciprocal duty.

He cited the universal maxim:

Quod tibi non vis, alteri ne feceris "Do not do unto others what you would not wish done unto you."

Medrano emphasized that all justice is ordered toward the preservation of human society. It is the guardian of the laws, the defender of the good, the enemy of the wicked, and indispensable to all estates. Even pirates and highway robbers, he noted with Cicero, cannot exist without some form of internal justice among themselves. This demonstrates that justice is not only a virtue but a structural condition of any society, lawful or unlawful.

To characterize its supreme importance, Medrano invoked the Pythagorean Paul, who taught that justice is the mother from whose breast all other virtues are nourished. Without justice, he explained, no one could be temperate, moderate, courageous, or wise. In this sense, justice is not merely one virtue among many, but the foundation upon which the moral order rests and through which every other virtue becomes possible.

Tomás added that the perfection of justice requires an even higher standard. Drawing from Plato, he taught that true justice cannot distinguish among men on the basis of friendship, kinship, wealth, or dignity. It demands that rulers set aside personal pleasures and private benefits in order to embrace the common good, even at their own cost.

He explained that good governance requires the prohibition of anything doubtful, because uncertainty itself signals danger.

Equity is by nature so clear and resplendent that where doubt exists, injustice is near.

By this, Medrano affirmed that just rulers must banish ambiguity from public affairs. Justice provides the vigilant preservation of clarity, equity (aequitas) and the public good.

Medrano's Contemporary Defense of the Valido of Spain

República Mista was dedicated to the 1st Duke of Lerma, the first great valido and initiator of the phenomenon.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's vision of kingship, rooted in sacred distance, obedience, and divine legitimacy, naturally called for a trusted intermediary to manage public affairs. In this context, the figure of the valido emerged not as a rival to the monarch, but as a functional extension of his will: a visible minister acting on behalf of an invisible king.

With the accession of Philip III in 1598, political literature increasingly turned its attention to the role of the valido. In República Mista (1602), Tomás Fernández de Medrano defined and defended the value and legitimacy of the valido through historical examples. Drawing on lesser-known figures such as Callisthenes, adviser to Alexander the Great, and Panaetius of Rhodes, companion to Scipio Aemilianus, Medrano argued that trusted confidants could serve not as threats to royal authority but as prudent and loyal counselors who strengthened effective governance.

He observes the value of such counsel:

We see that there has not been a great and prudent prince who did not have a servant as a faithful friend, someone (to discreetly moderate his passions, help him carry the burden, and speak the truth) with more authority than all others. Callisthenes served this role for Alexander, Panaetius for Scipio, and many other secretaries whose experience and prudence have brought much glory to the governance of many princes. These princes, if they are wise and experienced, shape their ministers to fit their needs. And conversely, expert ministers make prudent and glorious the princes who are not, if those princes are teachable. Happy, then, in my view, is the one who says this, and happy the republic when such a servant, friend, or valido proves to be of such a nature that the deeds of his heart and courage correspond in greatness to the one whom kings and princes ought to have. For where there is nobility of blood, and noble habits and customs, there can be nothing that does not reflect it. And so, what shall we say when to all this is added such zeal, goodness, and piety as we now see, witness, and experience?

Amid growing criticism of the valido (royal favourite) during the early reign of Philip III, Tomás Fernández de Medrano offered a contrasting perspective in República Mista (1602). While many contemporary thinkers viewed the concentration of royal trust in a single individual as a threat to authority, Medrano, writing under the patronage of the Duke of Lerma, defended the political utility of the valido.

He presented the figure of the valido not as a rival to the king, but as a necessary extension of royal governance, someone entrusted with distinct responsibilities that contributed to a more unified and effective administration. While defining delegated authority, Medrano simultaneously denounces favoritism and the corruption of courtly life. He strongly criticizes nepotism, flattery, and the promotion of the unworthy, urging sovereigns to honor merit and uphold justice as a foundational precept of their authority.

This vision of a prudent valido did not end with Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Valdeosera. His great-nephew, Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, Lord of Valdeosera and Sojuela; a nobleman, a presbyter, and chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, Valido of Philip IV, carried the doctrine forward in a later panegyric-treatise titled Heroic and Flying Fame. He invoked figures such as Aristotle, Euclid, Apelles, and Lysippus to frame Haro's statesmanship as surpassing the achievements of antiquity. Where Tomás drew on classical examples to justify the role of the valido, Diego used them to exalt Haro as its most refined expression. His work immortalizes Luis de Haro, nephew and successor of the Count-Duke of Olivares, as an exemplary valido whose conduct embodied wisdom, restraint, and virtue, notably during his negotiations at the treaty of the Pyrenees.

Dedication to the Duke of Lerma

Juan Fernández de Medrano's dedication to the Duke of Lerma as seen in the Republica Mista (1602)

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's son presented a spirited defense of the system of the valido that emerged with the rise of Philip III. The República Mista is openly dedicated to Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, 1st Duke of Lerma, the first great valido, as its patron, dated 22 August 1601.

Medrano's son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, addresses the Duke as follows:

The ship governed by two captains is endangered even without a storm. An empire that depends on more than one cannot endure, as experience teaches. If a second sun were joined to the fourth heaven, where our own sun shines, the earth would burn. Though this kingdom and monarchy may seem like the image of many bodies, it is but one, governed and animated by a single soul, when the members (as now) are united in preserving the whole, which is the public good. The King our lord made Your Excellency (God made it so) the captain of this ship, the soul of this body, and the sun that illumines us, knowing (as the Wise know) that in you resided the equal light required for such a role. From birth, you were as great in substance and form as you are now in action; all that was needed was a shadow to allow you, as His secondary cause, to exercise and extend the rays of your virtue across the globe. It seemed (and the world agreed) that Your Excellency’s heart and spirit, like Augustus’, could hold such greatness. His Majesty daily recognizes the truth of his choice through the effects it brings. There is no one of good faith who does not wish this blessing to endure and to show gratitude to Your Excellency. I, as your most obliged servant, child of grateful servants, offer these three bouquets of Religion, Obedience, and Justice, colored with the civility that has ever cloaked Your Excellency. Though these are found in the garden of my father, open to all, there is no flower I would not cultivate especially for your service, as the universal father of the republic to whom all is owed. I humbly ask you to place them (so they do not wither) in the vessels of your grace, continuing the mercy Your Excellency has always shown us. In this, by your virtue and merits, we hope for what may be expected of so great a prince. To repay such a debt, I can only echo Ausonius: Nec tua fortuna desiderat remuneradi vicem, nec nostra suggerit restituendi facultatem ("Your fortune does not seek a reward in return, nor does ours offer the means to repay it").

Juan's dedication uses metaphor and political allegory to elevate the Duke of Lerma as the divinely chosen steward of the monarchy.

Critical analysis

República Mista has received sustained scholarly interest, from its favorable reception under Philip III to modern analysis, with Miguel Herrero García expanding on the king's summary through a detailed examination of the work's structure and classical foundations:

The author presents all political doctrine within a fictional narrative reminiscent of the old Spanish literature with Arabic influences. In this invention, the King Ptolemy of Egypt is depicted conversing at length with seven ambassadors from the most flourishing states of the time: Rome, Carthage, Sicily, Rhodes, Athens, Sparta, and Sicyon. Each ambassador outlines the three main principles of their country’s political system. The author concludes that if the twenty-one political principles practiced by the Romans, Carthaginians, Sicilians, Rhodians, Athenians, Spartans, and Sicyonians were mixed or combined, the result would be a mixed republic, or rather, a combined political system that would yield optimal results. The book in our possession only discusses the three principles of Roman politics, as presented by the fictional Roman ambassador: 'We have great respect and veneration for temples and the homeland. We obediently follow the mandates of our governors and magistrates. We reward the good and punish the wicked severely.'

According to Miguel Herrero García, República Mista centers its 158 pages on three key precepts: the preservation of religion, the maintenance of authority through obedience, and the proper administration of justice, focusing entirely on religious and legal-political matters. Preceding these chapters is a 16-page preface in which the author defines politics and traces the development of society from the family to the municipality, and from municipalities to provinces and kingdoms. This introduction also explores forms of government and their supporting institutions, discussing the three good regimes: monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy, and their corrupt counterparts: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

Medrano accepts the classical view that no single form of government can stand alone without degenerating into its nearest vice unless it is moderated by others. To remain stable and just, republics must incorporate the virtues of multiple regimes. This doctrine, as García observes, was later fully embraced in Fray Juan de Salazar’s own attempt to define the Spanish monarchy.

María López-Asiain's political analysis

In a more recent critical study, María López-Asiain offers a political analysis of República Mista, situating it firmly within the political traditions of early 17th-century Spain. According to María López-Asiain, República Mista (1602) by Tomás Fernández de Medrano did not challenge the legitimacy of monarchical sovereignty, which he assumed as a given. His interest lay in the practical workings of monarchical government, which he believed required the obedience of subjects, respect for religion, and strong royal authority. This authority, he argued, could legitimately include reliance on a trusted favorite, "a friend as a faithful servant", to whom certain powers might be delegated. Medrano described two types of public power: one absolute yet restricted by divine and natural law, and the other legitimate but limited, granted temporarily through commission.

Despite its title, the treatise did not advocate for a constitutional or limited monarchy. Instead, Medrano defended divine kingship and delegated authority, presenting the role of the favorite not as a threat but as a functional extension of the sovereign's will. His model of a 'mixed monarchy' was ultimately one of undivided sovereignty with executive functions delegated to a powerful minister, specifically, the Duke of Lerma. While Medrano acknowledged that such a figure should act within the bounds of the law and under the prince's authority, in practice, he was describing a delegated authority that validos like Lerma exercised in early 17th-century Spain.

Prologue

Ptolemy I as Pharaoh of Egypt

In the prologue, titled Princes, Subjects, Ministers, Medrano references ambassadors from various ancient republics to introduce precepts essential for maintaining a strong and enduring republic. Medrano sought to unify twenty-one precepts to showcase the diverse yet essential precepts underlying effective statecraft. Medrano describes:

When Ptolemy, King of Egypt, was discussing matters with the most distinguished ambassadors of the most flourishing republics of that era, he requested from each of them three essential precepts or laws by which their nations were governed.

• The Roman ambassador said: "We Romans hold great respect and reverence for our temples and our homeland. We deeply obey the mandates of our governors and magistrates. We reward the good and punish the wicked with severity."
• The Carthaginian ambassador states, "In our republic, the nobles never cease to fight, the officials and commoners never stop working, and the philosophers continually teach."
• The Sicilian ambassador asserts, "Among us, justice is strictly upheld. Business is conducted with truthfulness. All are esteemed as equals."
• The Rhodian ambassador remarks, "In Rhodes, the elderly are honorable, the young men are modest, and the women are reserved and speak sparingly."
• The Athenian ambassador declares, "We do not allow the rich to be partial, the poor to be idle, or those who govern to be ignorant."
• The Lacedaemonian (Spartan) ambassador proclaims, "In Sparta, envy does not reign because there is equality; greed does not exist because goods are shared in common; and idleness is absent because everyone works."
• The Sicyonian ambassador explains, "We do not permit anyone to travel abroad, so that they do not bring back new and disruptive ideas upon their return; nor do we allow physicians who could harm the healthy, nor lawyers and orators who would take up the defense of disputes and lawsuits."

Medrano concludes that if these customs were upheld in a state, it would maintain its greatness for a long time. He encourages a deep study and thoughtful application of these precepts, integrating lessons from both sacred texts and historical accounts to guide governance and societal harmony.

Preface

República Mista begins with a foundational 16-page preface, establishing Medrano's vision of governance through history, philosophy, and divine law. Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, historian to Philip III, recognized its importance, advising the king that it was essential to understanding the work. The preface explores the foundations of politics and society, including the progression from family to municipality, province, and kingdom. Medrano defines politics as "the soul of the city," equating its role to prudence within the human body, as it "directs all decisions, preserves all benefits, and wards off all harms." This opening lays a conceptual framework for understanding the intricate balance of governance within a mixed republic. Focusing on the three essential pillars of religion, obedience, and justice, Medrano writes:

Divine justice and human governance are so closely intertwined that one cannot exist among men without the other.

Building on this conceptual framework, Medrano introduces three virtuous forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy, contrasting them with their corrupt counterparts: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy in its degraded form. He explains that each virtuous form serves the public good, while the corrupt forms devolve into self-serving rule. By presenting these three opposites, Medrano reveals the need for a mixed republic that blends monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy, creating a governance structure capable of resisting the vices of each individual system.

Drawing on historical and philosophical examples, Medrano demonstrates how this balance fosters societal harmony and stability while avoiding the pitfalls of purely singular forms of government. He argues that each system degenerates when it loses its foundational virtues and becomes consumed by selfishness or disarray. In chapter three of República Mista, on justice, he writes:

For if Kings, Councils, and Magistrates on earth are the image of God, they should also strive to imitate Him in goodness, perfection, and justice, as our superiors imitate Him to the extent of their abilities, in order to induce true piety and virtue to those under their charge with their example (which is the most powerful thing). For just as the heart in the body of animals always remains the last to corrupt, because the last remnants of life remain in it, it seems appropriate that, having some illness entered to corrupt the people, the Prince and Magistrates remain pure and unharmed until the end.

Monarchy

República Mista (1602) was published during the reign of Philip III of Spain, monarch of Spain.

Medrano views monarchy as the most natural and cohesive form of governance. A single ruler, he argues, provides unity and decisiveness, ensuring that decisions are made in the interest of the entire state. He draws on philosophical reasoning, quoting Aristotle's assertion that "a multitude of rulers is not good," and emphasizes that a virtuous monarch must prioritize the public good over personal gain. However, Medrano warns of monarchy’s potential to devolve into tyranny if power becomes unchecked or if rulers lack moral integrity. Medrano identifies monarchy as the closest reflection of divine governance, citing the singularity of God as the ideal for unity and authority:

As there is one God, creator and ruler of all, so should there be one prince, governing with wisdom and justice... the governance of one represents the order of nature, by which all things are reduced to a primary ruling principle, just as all celestial orbs and moving things are ordered by the prime mover. Hence, we observe in the universe a single God, creator and governor of all (Rex Deus quifpiam humanus est); in the bees, one queen; in the flock, one shepherd. And for the sake of peace and the preservation of all things, what is more appropriate than to concentrate power in a single ruler?

A monarch, he argues, must emulate divine virtues, prioritizing the common good over personal desires. Medrano warns, however, that monarchy can devolve into tyranny if the ruler strays from these virtues, emphasizing the need for piety and humility to align earthly authority with divine will. Regarding tyranny, he states, "A tyrant governs not for the people, but for his own desires, treating the state as his possession rather than a sacred trust." Tyranny arises when a monarch abandons justice and piety, becoming an oppressor rather than a protector.

Aristocracy

Aristocracy, the governance by the virtuous, is extolled by Medrano for its focus on wisdom, experience, and the common good. He presents historical examples like the governance of Sparta, which achieved remarkable longevity and stability through a carefully structured aristocratic system. Medrano acknowledges that aristocracy is most effective when it selects leaders based on merit rather than privilege, but he cautions against its corruption into oligarchy, where power serves a narrow, self-serving minority. In aristocracy, Medrano sees the potential for collective wisdom and virtue to govern effectively. He compares the selection of aristocratic leaders to the idea of God entrusting His divine work to angels, revealing the importance of moral integrity and expertise:

Just as God surrounds Himself with those who serve Him faithfully, so too must an aristocracy be composed of virtuous and capable individuals.

Medrano acknowledges that aristocracy risks corruption into oligarchy if power is used for selfish ends rather than the public good. Such a system exploits the many for the benefit of the few, undermining the harmony of the state. He necessitates a divine moral framework to guide these leaders. Oligarchy, Medrano contends, is the result of aristocracy corrupted by greed and self-interest, stating that:

Oligarchy is nothing more than a conspiracy of the wealthy against the public, using power to advance their fortunes at the expense of justice.

Timocracy

Timocracy, which Medrano defines as governance by individuals of moderate wealth and merit, occupies a middle ground between monarchy and aristocracy. Drawing on Aristotle's insights, Medrano notes that this form of governance ensures that neither extreme wealth nor poverty dominates, fostering a more equitable society. However, he notes that timocracy is vulnerable to instability when personal interests outweigh collective responsibility. Medrano regards timocracy as a governance system rooted in moderation and equity, drawing parallels to God’s justice in rewarding virtue and punishing vice. He writes:

Cities are well-governed when power rests in the hands of those with sufficient means to be invested in the public good without succumbing to greed... God’s governance is neither arbitrary nor excessive, but measured and fair—qualities that must define a timocracy.

This form of government relies on individuals with sufficient means and merit to serve the public interest without succumbing to greed. Medrano warns, however, that without divine principles to temper human ambition, timocracy can degenerate into chaos or selfish governance. Timocracy's opposite, Democracy, which he calls "a depraved form of republic," while acknowledging its appeal to liberty, is described as unstable and prone to excess. Medrano writes:

When the multitude rules unchecked, their passions replace reason, and the state suffers from the clamor of conflicting desire.

Medrano warns that unchecked democracy, though appealing in its promise of liberty, can easily descend into mob rule (ochlocracy), where fleeting passions overpower reason and governance becomes erratic.

Mixed Republic

Latin illustration in República Mista: "To hold a straight course in this stormy sea, and not to be swept away by the winds of pleasure in the height of fortune, is a great thing."

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's vision culminates in the concept of a mixed republic, where the strengths of monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy are interwoven to create a balanced and enduring system. For Medrano, only a divinely guided mixed republic can sustain lasting stability, equity, and justice, anchoring human governance in the civil, natural and divine laws of God:

From these three forms, philosophers composed a mixed Republic, saying that any form of Republic established on its own and in simple terms soon degenerates into the nearest vice if not moderated by the others; and that, to sustain Republics in proper governance, they must incorporate the virtues and characteristics of the other forms, for none of them fears excessive growth that might lead it to incline towards its closest vice and consequently fall into ruin. For this reason, many ancient and modern thinkers have held the view that the Republics of the Lacedaemonians, Carthaginians, Romans, and other renowned Republics were composed and justly blended from Royal, Aristocratic, and Popular powers. To avoid any confusion or ambiguity, we can say that if authority lies in a single Prince, the Magistracy is a Monarchy, as in Spain, France, Portugal, and (in earlier times) England, Scotland, Sweden, and Poland. If all the people have a share in power, then the State is popular, like in Switzerland, the Grisons, and some free cities of Germany. If only the smallest portion of the people hold power (as in Venice, where it’s held by the nobles, and in Genoa, by the twenty-eight families), it is called a Signoria, and the State is Aristocratic, as it was with the Romans, the Athenians, and many other republics that flourished most when they incorporated elements of both popular and aristocratic governance. Although time’s injuries and the malice of people may strain the form of any of these governments against its own nature, its essence does not change even if it acquires a different quality.

He praises historical examples like the Roman Republic, which successfully blended these elements to achieve remarkable governance. "Republics that integrate the virtues of multiple systems of government," Medrano argues, "achieve a balance that guards against the excesses of any single form." For Medrano, power must always be tempered with virtue. He advocates for a governance structure that unites the authority of monarchy, the wisdom of aristocracy, and the equity of timocracy, ensuring that justice, stability, and prosperity endure.

At the core of his doctrinal framework lies a divine principle: just as God's singularity is absolute, so too must governance uphold unity, justice, and moral accountability. Medrano asserts, true leadership requires a reflection of divine virtues. Authority must not be wielded arbitrarily but must align with God's justice, shaping a government that is not only permissible but enduring. He writes:

As one ancient writer said, a prince should serve the same God, observe the same law, and fear the same death as his subjects. For in the end, all things of this world pass away, consumed by the flow of time, and when they reach their peak, their greatness and state come to an end. The Creator has set this law, so that men do not become arrogant, believing their kingdoms to be eternal, and thus realize that they are made of matter subject to celestial and incorruptible causes.

Chapter one: Religion

Chapter one of República Mista (1602), on religion, by Tomás Fernández de Medrano

The first chapter of República Mista, which begins on page 17, establishes religion as the cornerstone of governance and societal harmony:

To begin at the true beginning, with the origin and end of all things, God, I will illustrate the importance for Princes to recognize this Supreme Majesty. In obedience and reverence, they must recognize that they, too, are His creatures, subject to His laws and divine will, just like everyone else. For the example of faith that they set becomes a law and a model for their subjects, fostering a society rooted in love and charity. This is the surest path to preserving, expanding, and fortifying the realms and borders of their kingdoms and empires.

In the religion chapter of Republica Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano argues that religion is the essential foundation of all civil governance. He draws from natural philosophy to show that everything, from celestial bodies to human societies, follows a divine order, stating: "This entire lower world obeys the higher, governed by it as a secondary cause." Medrano insists that even the most isolated or undeveloped societies possess "some specific order, arrangement, and agreement... and some awareness of the divine," noting that no people exist without customs, laws, or spiritual practices. He sees this universal inclination toward religion as evidence of its necessity in human affairs. Citing Plutarch, he writes: "A city might sooner do without the sun... than without some establishment of law or belief that God exists and upholds creation." He connects divine justice and human governance as inseparable, arguing that "one cannot exist among men without the other."

For Medrano, religion precedes and enables laws, obedience, justice, and the cohesion of republics. He praises ancient lawmakers Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Solon, and others for instilling reverence for the divine, noting that fear and hope in the gods secured social order and civic duty. He quotes Aristotle in asserting that religion is natural to mankind and vital to leadership: "It is necessary that the prince... be esteemed as religious... for subjects more easily endure hardship when they believe rulers have the gods on their side." Medrano surveys religious practices across cultures, from Egyptian sacrifices to Phoenician sky worship, to show that "all are moved by religion," quoting Cicero: "They believe that they must diligently worship and uphold the ancestral gods." He also recounts Roman reverence for the divine, quoting Cicero and Virgil to highlight how "piety preserved the republic." In contrast, Medrano laments that when the Athenians, under the influence of skeptics like Protagoras and Diagoras, "began to show contempt for God and His ministers," their republic declined. The rise and fall of states correlate directly with the respect shown to religion and its institutions, warning: "No fault is greater than that of one who does not know God."

Religious Legitimacy and the Moral Foundations of Rule

The Catholic Monarchs of Spain began to enjoy "special protection" by the Holy Apostolic See after receiving the title of "Catholic King and Queen," officially bestowed on Ferdinand and Isabella by Pope Alexander VI in 1494, in recognition of their defense of the Catholic faith within their realms.

In Republica Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano emphasizes that the prosperity and stability of monarchies are deeply tied to fidelity to their faith and their reverence for religious authority. He credits the expansion of the Spanish monarchy to the devoutness of its rulers, writing that since they "began to enjoy the special protection of the Holy Apostolic See," they have prospered by "persecuting the enemies of our holy faith." He recounts the story of King Alfonso the Chaste, whose devotion led to divine miracles, such as the appearance of angels crafting a jeweled cross, which affirmed Spain’s sanctified imperial mission. In contrast, Medrano attributes the decline of France and England to their betrayal of religious fidelity: "By scorning the Apostolic See, the supreme pontiffs, and the Catholic faith," the English monarchy brought ruin not only to itself but also to Scotland and other allied nations.

He describes the sacredness of religious spaces, citing Theodosius and Valentinian’s decree that "those who forcibly remove anyone seeking refuge in the church should be punished with death," affirming that "one should be safer under the protection of religion than under arms."

Throughout, Medrano insists that true political order rests on respect for divine law, warning against rulers who disguise ambition with false sanctity. "Nothing is more deceptively attractive than false religion," he quotes Livy, "where the divine power of the gods is pretended to cover wickedness." He condemns the use of religion to justify factionalism and civil war, invoking the chaos caused by false prophets and reformers across Europe.

Medrano praises historical examples like Numa Pompilius, who instilled fear of God into a warlike people, showing that "if such a religious prince had not succeeded Romulus, the Roman people would have become uncontrollable and violent." A prince, he argues, must be "truthful and perceived as truthful," since "no power gained by crime is enduring."

He acknowledges that rulers may need to practice discretion in politics, but always within bounds: "Nothing must be done against faith, charity, humanity, or religion." According to Medrano, the prince's word, once given, should be as unbreakable as divine law:

His word should be as true, certain, constant, and reliable as the word of God.

Medrano warns that "God despises those who are false and deceitful," and sees the rise of corrupt rulers as divine punishment: "The Holy Spirit will make a hypocrite ruler as punishment for the sins of the people." Ultimately, he argues, religion is not merely personal but foundational to legitimate rule, and any governance that opposes it is destined to fail.

Oration of the Duke of Savoy

Charles Emmanuel I, 11th Duke of Savoy

In his Republica Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Secretary of State and War to Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, recounts a powerful oration delivered by the Duke to the people of Thonon and surrounding territories, urging their return to the Catholic faith. The Duke appeals to religious tradition and loyalty, asking:

If the lord has the authority to command his vassals… how much more so in matters that serve [God], glorify Him, and are for your own good?

The 11th Duke of Savoy reminds them of their six-hundred-year history under Catholic rule and laments their departure into heresy, "living as heretics, though they claim the name of Christians." Appealing to history, doctrine, and royal duty, he urged his subjects to reject false religions and remain loyal to the Church of Rome, warning that religious division undermines both faith and sovereignty. He invoked ancestral loyalty, the sanctity of the sacraments, and the divine role of Catholic monarchs to defend orthodoxy and civil peace:

There is one true religion, just as there is only one true God; all else is ruin.

With this declaration, the Duke of Savoy aligned his rule with divine order, asserting that those who abandon the Catholic faith ally themselves with disorder, sedition, and spiritual death. His words sparked widespread repentance, restoring allegiance among towns, nobles, and clerics across the region. The oration denounces sectarianism and warns of the civil disorder it causes, citing examples such as Münster, La Rochelle, and Geneva, which became "fortresses of the devil within Christendom." The Duke emphasizes that a prince who does not preserve the Catholic faith cannot expect to retain true sovereignty: "If the Catholic religion is not protected… it will be all too easy for another to take its place."

He invokes historical and biblical authorities to reinforce that rulers must serve and uphold divine law to maintain peace and legitimacy. Medrano, personally witnessing the Duke's address, affirms its transformative power: "This had such an impact on the minds of everyone that all begged for mercy." He praises the Duke's personal piety, military rituals, and protection of religious institutions, presenting him as an ideal Catholic ruler who embodies Cicero's maxim: "In every republic, the first care is for divine matters." In República Mista, the Duke's oration stands as a practical illustration of Medrano's codified doctrine, affirming that true sovereignty requires harmony between political authority and religious devotion, with rulers acting not only as temporal governors but as defenders and nurturers of the Catholic faith.

Religious Order and the Threat of Sectarian Sedition

In República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano presents the defense of Catholic religion not only as a spiritual necessity, but as a cornerstone of republican stability. Among the most serious threats to the health of a republic, he argues, are not only external wars but internal seditions that disguise themselves in the form of religious zeal. When princes fail to uphold the true faith with vigilance and reverence, they leave space for sectarian movements to arise. These movements frequently shelter individuals who are fugitives from justice, political opportunists, or enemies of lawful order.

Citing Aristotle's Politics, Medrano writes:

"Fear breeds seditions, for as many commit crimes to avoid punishment as do so to strike first before others strike them." (Et metus seditiones movent, tam enim qui fecerunt iniurias metuentes poenam, quam ii qui infens expectant, praevenire volentes, priusquam ea inferatur.)

According to Medrano, many such factions form under a pretense of persecution. They use religious justification to mask personal ambition or resentment. These groups often organize around a single charismatic leader, frequently one of humble or illegitimate origin. United in defiance of lawful authority, they seize towns or fortresses and proclaim rival republics built upon rebellion.

He identifies the Anabaptist seizure of Münster as a prime example, describing the great effort undertaken by Emperor Charles V and the ecclesiastical princes to suppress what he regarded as a heretical regime. He adds the examples of La Rochelle and Montauban in France, which fell under the control of the Huguenots, and Geneva under the Calvinists. He considers all of these cities to be fortresses of error, where rebellion and disorder persisted against rightful monarchy.

Medrano warns that wherever the Catholic religion is not upheld with strength and reverence, destructive doctrines will take root. A prince who neglects the true faith cannot expect to retain real authority, as sectarian factions will eventually challenge his sovereignty and limit his power.

A prince can be certain that if the Catholic religion is not protected and cherished as it should be in his dominion, it will be all too easy for another to take its place. And once another religion has taken hold, he cannot freely call himself lord of that province, for he will remain dependent on it all his life.

From such disorder follows licentiousness, impiety, and division. These forces gradually undermine the body politic. For Medrano, no republic can endure without religion, and no military power can remain strong if the soul of the nation is weak. Religion and law must remain united if political order is to be sustained:

If an empire lacks a strong religion, it is impossible for it to be powerful in arms. Without these two things, it must fall. But if they remain united, as they do in this Monarchy, then it will live and stand for a thousand ages.

This duty of preserving religious and political unity belongs above all to the sovereign.

"Who does this duty belong to more than the prince? It is fitting that what is best be honored by the best, and that what rules be served by the ruler." (Ad quem autem ea potius quam ad Principem pertinet? Decet enim quod optimum est, ab optimo coli, quod imperat, ab imperante.)

Medrano concludes by affirming the enduring legitimacy of the Catholic faith. He contrasts its divine origin and spiritual fruitfulness with the false religions of apostates and pagans, which endure only through ignorance or rebellion:

If the false religions of apostates and pagans could sustain themselves for so long, and still persist in some places as good religions in the eyes of the ignorant and the blind, what hope can we not place in our true religion? It pleases and delights our God, from whom it originates, and to whom we owe our being, preservation, and the abundance of goods He so generously provides to both the good and the bad.

Piety, superstition, and the power of belief

In Republica Mista, dedicated to the 1st Duke of Lerma, Tomás Fernández de Medrano, contrasts genuine religious devotion with the dangers of superstition and false belief. He praises figures like Francisco de Sandoval, Duke of Lerma, who, despite his immense power, invested in sacred architecture and remained mindful of mortality.

Medrano also highlights the zeal of Charles Emmanuel I of Savoy, who instructed his secretary to prioritize any matter that served both God and the king. These leaders, Medrano suggests, exemplify the ideal union of power and piety. When advised to act militarily against foreign alliances, Savoy replied that Spain's strength lay in having "a very Catholic king, a true friend of God," whose faith alone could secure divine protection.

He presents historical examples, from the Hebrews who defied Emperor Caligula, to Christian martyrs, and even pagan figures like Calanus the Indian philosopher, to show the enduring strength of belief. Even misguided religions, he argues, have inspired profound sacrifice: "Nothing rules the masses more effectively than superstition," he quotes Quintus Curtius, warning that uneducated people are particularly vulnerable to false wonders and omens.

For Medrano, true religion must be distinguished from superstition and astrology, which he condemns as deceitful distractions. Superstition, he says, is "empty appearance and false imagination," and leads people away from divine truth. He denounces judicial astrologers for misleading the public, undermining reason and faith alike. Citing authorities like Pico della Mirandola, Aquinas, and Varro, he warns that only through proper reverence and obedience to divine law can virtue, faith, and courage be sustained.

Patria

Coat of arms of Medrano, La Rioja, a municipality named after the Medrano family, with the latin text: "Hail Mary, Full of Grace. To die for Faith, King, and Patria is glorious.

The concept of Patria (love and duty to one's Fatherland) is not an abstract idea by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in his República Mista, rather it was lived by Spain and his ancestors. The town of Medrano, La Rioja, bears not only the name but the arms of the noble House of Medrano, from which it descends. The heraldic motto: "To die for Faith, King, and Patria is glorious," reflects the enduring legacy of the family's doctrine, embedded in the municipality's civic identity since its first recorded donation in 1044.

In the Religion chapter of República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano presents Patria (love and service to one's homeland) as a sacred duty, rooted in natural affection, divine law, and moral conscience.

Drawing on ancient and biblical examples, he argues that:

Every person is obligated to serve and aid the public good... for within its welfare lie the life, honor, and prosperity of each individual.

Medrano recounts the story of Nehemiah, who was moved to tears upon hearing of Jerusalem’s desolation and was granted royal support to rebuild his city. He cites Cicero, who said: "All affections are encompassed in our homeland, for which any noble person would seek death if it would be beneficial."

Examples such as Cato the Younger, who resisted unjust laws and rejected political alliances that compromised the Republic, show that true loyalty lies in justice and conscience: "Our conscience and the immortal gods are given to us, and they cannot be separated from us."

The chapter continues with patriotic acts across history: El Cid, despite exile, served Castile with valor; Juan Mendez of Évora opposed unjust taxation and was later vindicated by the king; and Lycurgus bound Sparta to his laws even after death. Medrano also recalls Codrus, who gave his life to ensure Athens' survival, asserting that "to die for virtue is no death at all."

He praises Spain's Catholic monarchs for defending the faith, founding churches, and extending the Gospel to distant lands. In particular, he honors Philip III for upholding the Inquisition as a "mighty shield and sacred institution." Medrano concludes that the strength of a kingdom depends on its moral and spiritual foundations, quoting Seneca: "Where there is no regard for law, holiness, piety, and faith, the kingdom is unstable."

Ultimately, he argues that good governance aligns with religious principles, embodying truth and virtue to earn the people’s trust and God’s favor, as only He bestows and withdraws power: "The Lord changes the times and seasons; He raises and deposes kings," quoting Daniel 4.

Chapter two: Obedience

Introduction to the Second Chapter

Before the second chapter of República Mista, Medrano begins with an introduction on obedience, and a meditation on the necessity of obedience for both spiritual life and civil harmony. Medrano opens by quoting Seneca: "Our minds, like noble and generous horses, are better governed with a light rein." He asserts that if even the ancient Persians taught their children to "love, obey, and revere their princes and magistrates," then Christians should not neglect what even pagans held as sacred.

He argues that the strength of the Roman Republic rested on this precept, and that Christians, called to serve and revere God, must likewise obey their earthly rulers. Obedience to Kings, Councils, and Magistrates, he writes, flows naturally from the teachings of the fourth commandment and should be instilled from the earliest age. Medrano's doctrine is deeply rooted in Spanish-Arabic tradition and serves both as a reminder to the wise and a guide to the unknowing. He closes the introduction with a pointed reflection:

To give counsel to a fool is an act of charity; to give it to the wise, one of honor; but to offer it in times of depravity, an act of wisdom.

Obedience to Princes and Magistrates

Chapter two of República Mista, on obedience, by Tomas Fernandez de Medrano (1602)

The second chapter of República Mista, which begins on page 69, elaborates on the importance of obedience to princes and magistrates as a safeguard against disorder and rebellion. Medrano states:

If knowing how to govern well is the most effective preventative against corruption, then knowing how to obey well which is crucial among the people, is of even greater importance. Where obedience is lacking, order is lost, and disorder takes its place. The most important and advantageous quality that has been preserved in these kingdoms is the high regard we have always held for councils, magistrates, ministers, judges, and public officials, recognizing them as men placed there by the hand of God. For this reason, we honor and respect them as representatives of divine rule over all creatures. Just as the Almighty in His glory has created an order among beings (setting some to serve and others to govern) and placed certain stars in the heavens to shine more brightly than others, as a symbol of His divinity, with the Sun itself illuminating, warming, and nurturing all things on earth for humanity’s use, so too He wished that the supreme councils and magistrates in cities, provinces, and kingdoms would shine by virtue of their excellence.

Quoting Erasmus, Medrano affirms: "To command and to obey are two things that keep sedition away from citizens and ensure concord." He compares a well-ordered kingdom to a body where the ruler is the head and the law its soul, insisting that "where obedience is lacking, order is lost, and disorder takes its place."

Medrano recounts that Sparta’s success was not due to the wisdom of its rulers, but because "the citizens knew how to obey." He argues that Spanish unity and prosperity result from a careful balance of powers, ensuring that neither nobility nor commoners dominate, sustained by reverence for public officials as "men placed there by the hand of God."

He stresses that kings must be honored as God's representatives, with respect extended also to their ministers and councils. "This authority," he writes, "is the true source of their greatness... achieved not through intelligence, but through honoring the king and the realm."

Drawing heavily on sacred Scripture, Medrano cites Romans 13, Titus 3, and 1 Peter 2, reinforcing that "there is no power but from God," and that resisting rulers is resisting divine order. Subjects must obey not out of fear alone, but "for conscience' sake." As Tacitus writes, "There can be no peace without arms, no arms without pay, and no pay without taxes." He adds, "Render tribute to whom tribute is due... honor to whom honor."

Medrano also reflects on the burdens of rulership, writing: "While we sleep, they remain vigilant... they carry the weight of countless souls under their dominion." He quotes Seleucus: "If one truly knew the weight of a scepter, they would not have the courage to pick it up."

He warns against slandering magistrates, stating that "no one should judge the actions of Councillors... but the Prince himself," and praises emperors like Augustus and Vespasian for the honors they showed to senators. Vespasian declared: "I can respond to the injuries they commit, but [subjects] are not allowed to speak ill of them." He asserts that obedience, respect, and prayer for rulers are not only civic duties but sacred obligations that sustain both peace and divine order.

Ministers, Obedience, and Counsel

Latin Illustration in República Mista (1602) by Tomás Fernández de Medrano: "Among you there are princes who constantly make use of the counsel available to them; would that it were always with loyalty and righteousness." — Justus Lipsius.

Medrano expands the concept of obedience to include reverence for the ministers and servants of kings, particularly those close to court. He affirms the high dignity historically granted to officers such as the Reyes de Armas (Kings of Arms), describing their role as "a profession akin to the heroic," with privileges dating back to Bacchus, Alexander the Great, Augustus, and Charlemagne. These included safe passage, exemption from common duties, the authority to judge dishonor, and the honor of wearing royal insignia. Such prerogatives, he argues, show that even humble servants of the king "are invested with mysteries," and should be respected accordingly. Medrano writes:

In my view, both the counselor and the realm will be fortunate when such a servant and confidant possesses qualities worthy of the royal station they serve, especially when their innate nobility and virtues align with the dignity required for such a role. Where noble lineage and habit join with noble actions, there can be no doubt of their merit. And when this is accompanied by piety, goodness, and holiness—as we see, experience, and witness in our time—such virtue indeed stands as a model worthy of our admiration and emulation, does it not?

Medrano cautions private individuals against interfering in public governance, stating that reform must come through proper authority. "No public display should be made," he writes, advising that concerns be directed to lawful superiors. Those who carry out the will of the prince, he says, "are his hands," and as such, are owed honor and obedience.

Quoting Plautus, "What a king does should be considered honorable; it is the duty of subjects to obey," he defends rulers against misjudgment by the ignorant, stating that "what is done piously by the good is often judged as cruelty by the wicked." Empire, he writes, brings envy and misunderstanding, and "the reward... is to be maligned." Yet true rulers focus on justice and the common good, trusting that over time, their deeds will be recognized.

He contrasts the harsh Locrian law, where lawmakers faced execution for failed proposals, with Mecenas's advice to Augustus: "Praise and honor those who offer sound counsel... but neither disgrace nor accuse those who err." Moderation and prudence, Medrano insists, are essential in courtly matters.

He praises those counselors who temper princes' passions and offer discreet, virtuous guidance. "No wise and great prince has ever lacked a trusted confidant," he writes, naming Calisthenes, Panaetius, and others who brought wisdom and glory to their rulers. When such figures possess noble lineage, wisdom, and piety, they serve as "a model worthy of admiration and emulation." This understanding of obedience and royal council served as a justification for the valido in Habsburg Spain.

Types of Authority and the Dangers of Flattery

In República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano distinguishes between two types of authority: one supreme and absolute answerable only to God, and the other subordinate and bound by law, exercised by magistrates for a limited time under royal commission. The supreme prince, he writes, "acknowledges none greater than himself (after God)," and magistrates derive their authority from him and remain subject to his laws.

Medrano affirms that individuals must obey these powers in all matters not contrary to divine or natural law, even when commands seem unjust: "They should not judge their judges." The supreme magistrate is likened to "a father to the kingdom," tasked with maintaining peace, justice, and the common good.

He warns, however, of the widespread aversion to tyrants and the ease with which rulers who lack visible virtue may fall into contempt. Yet Scripture teaches obedience even to corrupt rulers, as they act as "instruments of [God’s] wrath, punishing the people’s wickedness." He quotes, "When God is angered, the people receive such a ruler as they deserve for their sins."

Citing Tacitus and Augustine, Medrano illustrates how power can corrupt even the seemingly virtuous. Tiberius, Nero, and Galba are presented as cautionary examples, men who ruled poorly despite early promise. "Things feigned cannot last long," Augustine warns.

Flattery, more than open enemies, is seen as the chief corrupter of rulers. Those "who make it a habit to praise all things in their rulers, be they virtuous or vicious," erode truth and judgment. Tiberius lamented: "Oh, men prepared for servitude!" Medrano recounts how Caesar, influenced by a flatterer, "came to a miserable end."

He writes: "Flattery has overthrown more than the enemy," criticizing courtiers who, instead of offering honest counsel, enable a prince’s whims to serve their own gain.

Obedience to rulers, just or unjust

In República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano contends that obedience and reverence are due to all rulers, whether just or unjust. "Let the good not be scandalized to see the wicked exalted," he writes, asserting that the rise and fall of kings is governed by divine providence. Drawing on Daniel 4, he declares: "The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men… and sets over them the lowliest of men," emphasizing that even seemingly unworthy rulers are chosen by God for a purpose.

Medrano cites the example of Nebuchadnezzar, whom God rewarded with Egypt despite his tyranny, and King Amasis of Egypt, who overcame public contempt for his humble origins through strength and wisdom. From 1 Samuel 8 to Jeremiah 27, Medrano presents biblical arguments for unconditional obedience: "I have handed over all these lands to my servant Nebuchadnezzar... all nations will serve him." He urges subjects to trust that God raises kings not only to reward the good but also to punish the wicked.

He praises the historical patience of Christians under pagan and heretical rulers such as Nero, Julian the Apostate, and Diocletian, highlighting their peaceable endurance. Even David refused to harm King Saul, affirming: "Who can lay a hand upon the Lord's anointed and be guiltless?" Medrano cites both religious and legal prohibitions against cursing rulers, warning that murmuring against authority invites divine judgment.

The duty of a good subject, he insists, is to remain "humble, gracious, obedient, and devout," without aspiring beyond their station. Those who suffer under harsh rule should interpret it as a correction from God: "I will give you a king in my anger" (Hosea), and endure it with prayer and patience, trusting that "He who wounds also heals."

Medrano explains that rulers hold Regalia, symbols of sovereign authority which entitle them to create and enforce laws over all subjects. These Regalia are expressed through eight primary points, which, when properly observed in practice, ensure public obedience and preserve the order and stability of the realm.

The Eight Royal Prerogatives and Limits of Public Judgment

In República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano outlines eight primary prerogatives, or Regalia, that define sovereign power:

• To create and repeal laws
• To declare war or establish peace
• To act as the highest court of appeal
• To appoint and remove high officials
• To levy and collect taxes and public contributions
• To grant pardons and dispensations
• To set or alter currency and its value
• To require unconditional oaths of loyalty

He argues that rulers may exercise these powers directly or through delegated ministers and must not be disrespected, even when their administration is imperfect. Their authority, Medrano states, is divinely instituted and must be regarded as sacred:

Established by God through countless decrees and testimonies, this authority ought to be respected and held as a source of majesty.

Subjects, he asserts, should not scheme against their superiors or question their actions. Public calamities, such as famine, plague, or war, should not be attributed to rulers without clear evidence. "One is not to be condemned if their thoughts are not laid bare," he quotes, warning against judging secret intentions or mistaking natural events for political failure.

Royal Virtue and the Nature of Public Speech

Medrano reaffirms that discretion, obedience, and reverence are owed not only in action but in speech and silence. Drawing on the example of Otho, he writes: "Tam nescire quædam milites, quam facere oportet"–"It is as necessary for soldiers to be ignorant of certain things as it is for them to carry out their duties." Just as commanders do not divulge all plans to their soldiers, who face constant danger, private citizens, even less so, should seek to uncover the secret intentions of princes.

Echoing Seneca's wisdom, "Qui plus scire velle quam satis sit; intemperantiæ genus est" ("To wish to know more than is sufficient is a kind of excess"), Medrano argues that excessive curiosity disrupts peace and loyalty. Silence and obedience are therefore "powerful means of attaining peace," reminding subjects that this world is not their final home, therefore:

The loyalty and silence of subjects toward their king and rightful lord, and toward his councils and magistrates, are crucial virtues within the populace and powerful means of attaining some peace in this life. This peace reminds us that it is not our permanent home nor our final destination and is best suited to remind us that we live and journey toward an eternal life, not this fleeting, mortal, and transitory one.

In República Mista, Medrano contemplates the mortality of even the greatest monarchies, emphasizing the need for prayer and moral vigilance. Within this reflection, he elevates Philip III of Spain as a living embodiment of Christian kingship, whose reign aligns with divine order and the spiritual duties of sovereign rule.

Medrano presents Philip as a king whose holiness is evident in his adherence to divine law and his appointment of virtuous and devout magistrates. His valor, though not expressed through personal combat, is manifest in his strategic leadership, having assembled a powerful fleet and army that defended the realm without bloodshed. His magnanimity is marked by clemency toward those he might have punished, fulfilling the counsel of Saint Isidore, who taught that just rulers must know when to defer judgment in favor of mercy.

Justice, too, defines his reign, as Philip personally traversed his dominions to hear and resolve the grievances of his subjects. His prudence is demonstrated by a voluntary retreat from the distractions of the hunt and the pursuit of military glory, choosing instead a path of stable and attentive governance. Finally, Medrano praises the king's compassion, particularly in his refusal to wage war against the French despite political opportunity, an act inspired by the counsel of Pope Clement VIII and rooted in the conviction that power must never corrupt the gentle spirit.

Through this portrait, Medrano casts Philip III not merely as a political figure, but as an exemplar of sacred monarchy, whose virtues affirm the doctrinal and moral principles articulated throughout the first volume of the República Mista.

Virtuous rulers and obedient subjects

Tacitus' wisdom, "Semper alicui potentium invisus, non culpa, sed ut flagitiorum impatiens" ("He who is hated by the powerful is not guilty, but impatient of their crimes"), guides Medrano’s counsel: those who cannot tolerate injustice may find themselves resented at court and should avoid its intrigues for a more peaceful life. "It is very dangerous to skin a lion."

He lauds princes who, like Alexander the Great, refused to punish those who insulted them, choosing to live virtuously and correct falsehood with example. "Posterity, and a glorious remembrance of oneself, well deserved," Tacitus wrote, Medrano holds this as the supreme goal of princely rule.

He cites Emperor Theodosius, who refused to punish those who insulted the government, urging compassion even toward malice, and commanding that no judge act unless ordered by the emperor himself. As Lipsius warned, "Not all rulers are Alexanders." Yet the best defense against criticism is to give the people no reason to murmur. "The one who disregards fame clearly values virtue lightly."

He quotes Solomon: "Nomen impiorum putrescet"–"The name of the wicked will rot." Writers may not harm rulers in life, but they tarnish them in memory. Medrano concludes with Tacitus:

False honor helps, and false infamy terrifies. Believe us to be just as our reputation is.

Ultimately, Medrano intertwines theological and philosophical precepts to argue that obedience is divinely ordained, because the law itself flows from the unity of God. As there is but one God, there must also be one precept of justice, one seat of authority, and one sovereign order. Multiplicity breeds disorder; only singularity sustains truth.

Chapter three: Justice

Chapter three of República Mista, on Justice, by Tomás Fernández de Medrano (1602)

The third chapter of República Mista, which begins on page 111, titled On the Third Point of the Roman Ambassador, explores the fundamental role of justice in sustaining a republic. Medrano opens with Erasmus' maxim, "Respublica, duabus rebus continetur praemio, poena"–"A republic is held together by two things: reward and punishment." Medrano begins his third chapter as follow:

I shall treat here of that element, rule, commandment, law, and particular custom, that enabled the Romans to govern their republic effectively for so long. I align myself with justice, for it seems to me that justice is the force at the heart of this accomplishment.

J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice. She often appears as a pair with Prudentia.

Medrano praises justice as the queen of virtues, referencing Cicero:

Justice is the mistress and queen of virtues, the foundation of enduring honor and fame, without which nothing can be praiseworthy.

Justice, Medrano argues, is both divine and societal: the "bond of human society" and the principle that distinguishes good from evil. Without it, confusion and vice prevail: "To reward evil in place of good, to oppress the good without punishing the wicked, this is to confuse vice with virtue." Justice, he writes, reveals "the distinction between the good and the bad," serving as both divine law and the "bond of human society."

Drawing on classical authorities, he defines justice as inseparable from wisdom. Plato teaches that no state can endure without justice and divine counsel. Aristotle calls it a "general virtue," containing all others, and Solomon asks God for wisdom alone, recognizing that "there can be no justice without prudence." Medrano calls prudence "a firm pillar, strong foundation, and sure guide of all a prince’s enterprises."

Justice requires temperance, courage, and charity. A just ruler must resist ambition and passion, and defend the oppressed even at personal cost. "Justice instills strength and courage," allowing the ruler to approach "the divine nature." Medrano insists that faith depends on justice, warning that without it, power is reduced to mere force. He condemns those political theorists who advocate: "Neglect all that is right and good so long as it may grow their power."

Medrano draws on Cicero again to define justice as "the constant and perpetual will to give each their due." It is the duty of princes, magistrates, and counselors to uphold this principle impartially. Diogenes called justice the source of "peace and perpetual happiness," while Hesiod described it as a "chaste, venerable virgin," and Pindar as "the queen of the world." Pythagoras, more enigmatically, wrote: "The balance never tips."

For Medrano, justice must transcend kinship, wealth, or personal benefit. Citing Plato, he writes:

Justice requires that we set aside personal pleasures and private benefits to embrace the public good, even to our detriment.

He writes that wherever doubt enters judgment, injustice is near, for true equity, by nature, is "clear and resplendent."

Forms of Justice

Bust of Cicero at the Palazzo Nuovo. Medrano echoes Cicero, noting that even criminals rely on justice, underscoring it as the foundation of all societies and moral order.

Medrano follows classical philosophers in dividing justice into two principal forms:

• Distributive justice: Distributive justice consists in "granting each their due, honor, dignity, or punishment," particularly relevant to governance.
• Commutative justice: Commutative justice, by contrast, regulates fair dealings between individuals, grounded in the maxim: "Do not do unto others what you would not wish done unto you" (Quod tibi non vis, alteri ne feceris).

Medrano differentiates between distributive and commutative justice, the former concerning the allocation of honor or punishment, and the latter governing fairness in contracts and exchanges. Justice is portrayed as the "mother of virtues," nourishing temperance, moderation, courage, and wisdom. He calls attention to scriptural commands for justice, such as Jeremiah’s exhortation: "Render justice and righteousness; deliver the oppressed from the hand of the oppressor." Without justice, neither household nor republic can endure. "If in it there are no rewards for right deeds nor punishments for wrongs," he warns, "then divine order itself is absent."

Benefits of justice

Justice, he asserts, exists to preserve human society. It is "guardian of the laws, defender of the good, mortal enemy of the wicked," and so essential to civilization that even criminals must rely on it in part. Medrano quotes Cicero: "Even pirates and highway robbers could not exist without some part of it."

Drawing on Pythagorean thought, Medrano states that justice should be "regarded as the mother from whose breast all other virtues are nourished," as no one could be temperate, moderate, courageous, or wise without it.

He presents justice as a reflection of divine providence: "governing the world and ruling over all things." Its influence extends to every domain, he writes:

In cities, justice is equity and peace; in households, it is the harmony between husband and wife; between masters and servants, it is goodwill; in the body, it is health and the perfection of each part.

For Medrano, justice is not only foundational to republics, but to all relationships, virtues, and divine order.

Justice and the Republic

Prudentia (c. 1514). She often appears as a pair with Lady Justice.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano explores justice as the sustaining force of a republic, the principle that binds society together through reward and punishment.

Drawing from classical authorities, Plato, Aristotle, Isidore, Solomon, Medrano presents justice as inseparable from wisdom and prudence, without which no kingdom or republic can be stable. "There can be no justice without prudence," he echoes, underscoring that wise governance begins with self-governance.

He emphasizes temperance and courage as supports to justice, stating it helps moderate passions such as ambition, anger, and avarice. Medrano ties justice to faith itself, warning that if not upheld, "faith would lose its legitimacy," and power would become a prize for the most unscrupulous. He denounces power-centric political theories: "They should neglect all that is right and good so long as it may grow their power."

Quoting Cicero again, he defines justice as: "Iustitia est constans, perpetua voluntas ius suum unicuique tribuens"–"Justice is the constant and perpetual will to give each their due." True princes, he writes, are those who do good to all under their care and harm no one.

Reverence for justice

The ancients' reverence for justice is showcased in stories of Egyptian judges depicted blindfolded and handless, symbols of impartiality, and of Trajan, who told a governor, "Use this sword for me if I rule justly, and against me if I do not." Medrano rebukes skepticism toward Spanish heritage and traditions, such as the legacy of Apostle James or the deeds of El Cid, as impious and divisive.

Justice, he writes, must be free of personal bias, and magistrates must resist favoritism or vengeance. Examples from antiquity, Aristides the Just, Pope Sixtus V, and Emperor Hadrian represent rulers who prioritized truth over grudge, and mercy over retribution.

He praises princes who rise above resentment, noting, "To refrain from doing good when able is to surrender one’s virtue." Anger, he says, destroys sound judgment: "Where there is anger, nothing is done rightly."

Historical exemplars, Scipio Africanus, Philip of Macedonia, Vespasian, and Alexander Severus are cited for their dedication to fair judgment, humility, and even humor in justice. Medrano celebrates how these figures used their authority to defend integrity, rather than inflate it.

He references a lesson from Sparta: "The republic thrived under laws and magistrates who upheld them." True greatness, Medrano asserts, lies not in titles but in virtue, and justice remains the defining mark of legitimate rule.

Justice, nobility, and the ruin of Republics through corruption

Medrano expounds upon the inseparable relationship between justice, noble virtue, and the preservation of republics. Law, he argues, is the very "rule of justice," and justice its purpose. Without it, states decay: "The law is the soul of the republic, the blood that gives it life, and the rule that sustains the state." A republic nears ruin when "those condemned by law are pardoned, and judgments are reversed."

Medrano provides historical examples, from the downfall of Philip of Macedonia and the exile of Demetrius, to the deposition of the Swedish king Henry, as evidence that denial of justice breeds discord, abandonment, and collapse. In contrast, acts of humility and fairness, such as King Philip III requesting permission from a baker to pass through his home, exemplify the sanctity of justice and divine kingship.

He warns that appointing unworthy individuals, particularly through the sale of offices, invites divine wrath and civil decline. "The fault lies with rulers who… place corrupt judges over the faithful," he writes, echoing the Sorbonne's admonition to King Francis II, denouncing the sale of ecclesiastical and secular offices as a betrayal of virtue and a root of religious schism.

Quoting both Titelman and a celebrated philosopher, Medrano laments that in his day, nobility is prized above merit:

Even the ignorant and the depraved [are considered] suitable for every office, whether civil or ecclesiastical… a misfortune within the Holy Church… that no amount of tears could rightly mourn.

Medrano defends true nobility as rooted in virtue, not lineage alone. To honor the corrupt sons of noble fathers is, he argues, to shame the ancestors themselves. He invokes the words of Mattathias: "Be zealous for the law and give your lives for the testament of your fathers," reminding nobles of their duty to emulate their forebears. Nobility, then, is not a privilege but a responsibility:

If there is anything good in nobility, it is that it places a certain necessity upon nobles to imitate their predecessors.

For Medrano, it is essential that princes honor virtue in both nobility and commoners, appointing those with merit, not wealth or flattery. To do otherwise, he warns, is to provoke the wrath of the loyal and suffer "great losses in matters of importance." He praises contemporary Spain as a model, where "distinguished and grave personages… occupy the offices" and uphold the republic through virtue and example.

Quoting the Partidas, he writes: "To know how to use nobility is a clear union of virtues… kings should greatly honor [knights and nobles], as those with whom they are to accomplish their work."

Rejecting favoritism and courtly corruption, Medrano offers examples of just rulers such as Trajan, Augustus, Pope Sixtus V, and Philip III, who all practiced restraint, impartiality, and forgiveness. He condemns nepotism, flattery, and the elevation of the unworthy, urging princes to recognize merit and safeguard justice as the foundation of their rule. "The reputation of the lord," he reminds, "grows from the nobility of those who serve him."

On the nobility of merit and the just distribution of honors

Tomás Fernández de Medrano turns his attention to the relationship between nobility, virtue, and justice. He argues that noble birth alone does not warrant honor; rather:

He who acts contrary to his lineage... ought not to be honored and favored by the Prince simply because he was born of good lineage, but instead punished for having dishonored it.

Those who live without virtue stain their ancestral name and should be overlooked in favor of humble but valiant individuals who strive to emulate noble ideals through personal merit.

Medrano invokes the examples of Hannibal, who declared that any soldier who proved himself would be counted as Carthaginian, and the Duke of Savoy, who often rewarded poor soldiers over aristocrats. As Medrano notes, "He who serves should be rewarded, and he who has served the most should be rewarded the most." The value of personal deeds, he insists, outweighs inherited glories: "Just as one's present sins may be compounded by those of the past... so too can one's deeds accumulate honor or disgrace."

While acknowledging that princes may, in some cases, elevate individuals without visible merit, Medrano stresses that such appointments should be guided by divine providence:

What we perceive as favoritism... may actually be the means by which God's will is achieved.

He urges rulers to be mindful of the traditions, integrity, and capabilities of noble houses, citing Pope Gregory XIII's secret efforts to sustain Rome’s ancient families and Augustus Caesar’s financial support for the heir of Hortensius as examples of preserving honor through benevolence.

Medrano also warns against awarding honors as political favors or selling public offices. Such practices led to the downfall of states like Sparta and contributed to France's instability under Henry III. Instead, he advocates for a "symmetry" within the republic, a just distribution of responsibilities and honors according to proportion and merit. Quoting Ecclesiastes, he issues a grave warning: "A kingdom is transferred from one people to another due to injustice, injuries, offenses, and deceitful dealings."

Clemency, justice, and the moral example of princes

Polybius in the company of Scipio Aemilianus before the ruins of Carthage (engraving from the late 18th century).

In the closing passages of República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano reflects on the delicate balance between clemency and justice in governance. While he affirms that "gentleness and clemency are virtues worthy of a noble and magnanimous spirit," he cautions that these virtues must not be exercised to the detriment of the republic. "That state of the republic is most desirable and stable," he quotes Polybius, "in which, privately, all live uprightly and harmlessly, and publicly, justice and clemency prevail."

For Medrano, rulers must inspire both love and fear, "love among the people, fear among enemies" and govern with dignity tempered by accessibility. He draws on Isocrates, who advised severity in investigations and mercy in sentencing, and emphasizes the importance of example: "We need more example than command."

The ruler’s conduct, he asserts, shapes the soul of the republic. Kings and magistrates should imitate God’s goodness, for:

Kings easily either uplift or undermine the lives of their subjects by their example; therefore, it does not befit a prince to commit sins, lest he create a model of sin.

Public virtue, Medrano insists, is more instructive than law alone: "Devotion to the prince and the desire to emulate him are more powerful than any punishment prescribed by law."

He stresses that rulers should be models of temperance and morality, resisting the urge to impose reforms through decrees alone. "If the king desires what is honorable, everyone will desire the same," he writes, noting that Constantine converted many through example, just as Henry VIII led England into schism through his conduct.

Medrano warns that the vices of rulers are more harmful than those of private citizens, as they "infuse them into the state, and they harm more by example than by their actual sins." He praises rulers who restrain their excesses, citing Diogenes, Augustus, and Pope Sixtus V as models of self-restraint and moral discipline.

Conclusion

Medrano offers a reflection on the endurance of empire, asserting that if rulers consistently matched the virtue and vigilance of their founders, particularly in "the expansion and preservation of the Catholic faith", and if subjects maintained their "obedience and reverence," the monarchy would continue to thrive. He credits Spain's strength in the 17th century to the effective administration of justice and flourishing military discipline, ex cuius sinu omnes triumphi manarunt ("from whose bosom all triumphs have flowed").

He adds that "there is no doubt" the monarchy may be preserved and strengthened "to the end of time," provided it does not stray from these founding precepts. Medrano concludes with a meditation on historical decline. Empires, no matter how well-ordered, will decay without fidelity to founding precepts:

The discipline of our ancestors sustains the republic, which, if it dissolves... we will also lose the empire.

Justice, labor, and virtue must be rewarded; deceit, sloth, and corruption must be punished. He quotes Cicero: "True justice and honest labor are adorned with honors... while the vices and deceits of men are punished with losses, shame, chains, scourges, exile, and death."

Medrano completes his first treatise with a quote on justice:

The truth of justice indeed requires that the wicked receive evil, and the good receive good.

Publication

In 1601, Tomás authorized his son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, to initiate the process of presenting the first volume of the República Mista to the Royal Council and Philip III of Spain for official publication in Madrid. República Mista was printed on the royal press and published in Madrid by Juan Flamenco in 1602 by royal decree.

Approval by the Chief Chronicler of Castile

Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas approved República Mista on 30 August 1601.

In Valladolid on 30 August 1601, República Mista was approved by Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, the historian, writer and Chief Chronicler of Castile and the Americas during the reigns of Philip II and Philip III:

By order of Your Excellency, I have reviewed the book titled On the Three Precepts that the Ambassador of the Romans Gave to King Ptolemy Regarding the Good Governance of His Republic, brought to light by Don Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval of the Lords of Valdeosera. It seems to me that the subject matter is very useful and beneficial, full of good teachings, examples, and history. Your Excellency, if served by it, may grant the requested license for its printing.

Royal printing license

Medrano’s son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, presented his father’s treatise to His Majesty and the Royal Council of Castile alongside the original manuscript for verification and pricing. Recognizing its significance, King Philip III of Spain issued a royal decree authorizing its publication. In Valladolid, on 25 September 1601, the king and royal council granted him the license and faculty to print his father's treatise, throughout all the Kingdoms of Castile:

Since it was brought to our attention by you, Don Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, that among the papers of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, your father... you discovered a book titled A Treatise on Three Precepts by Which the Romans Were Better Governed... You requested permission to print it... This, having been considered by our Council, has led us to issue this royal decree... granting you the license to print this Treatise throughout all these Kingdoms of Castile for six years... under penalty of forfeiture and a fine of fifty thousand maravedis for infringement. Provided that, before printing, you shall submit the book to our Council to ensure it conforms to the original... and that the price is determined. The printer shall not print the first folio nor distribute copies until the book is corrected and approved. Once completed, this royal decree shall be included. We command our Council and all justices to observe and execute this decree.

Approval for sale by the Secretary of the Chamber of His Majesty

In Valladolid, the treatise received permission for sale on 5 March 1602, granted by Juan Gallo de Andrada, Secretary of the Chamber of His Majesty:

I, Juan Gallo de Andrada, Secretary of the Chamber of His Majesty and member of His Council, certify that... The First Part of the Mixed Republic... was priced at three maravedis per sheet... with twenty-one sheets, the total price was set at sixty-three maravedis... to be sold in paper... this pricing be placed at the beginning of the book and... cannot be sold without it... Valladolid, on the fifth of March, 1602.

Legacy and continuity

The Duchy of Savoy, where Tomás Fernández de Medrano served as Secretary of State and War to Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy.

Long before his República Mista (1602), Tomás Fernández de Medrano lived at the royal court and advised Philip II of Spain, directly influencing the Spanish monarchy and its allied courts, demonstrating that the universal doctrines in República Mista were already operating in statecraft and diplomacy before they were ever codified. On 1 August 1591, Medrano was appointed as counselor and Secretary of State and War in the Duchy of Savoy under Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, and his consort Princess Catalina Micaela of Spain, daughter of Philip II.

Infanta Catalina Micaela, Duchess of Savoy, was born of his marriage to Isabella of Valois, the third of his four wives. A notable confirmation of Medrano's royal service is preserved in letters from Philip II to his daughter Catalina Micaela, edited by Fernando Bouza.

In 1592, King Philip II personally acknowledged Tomás Fernández de Medrano's diplomatic service in a letter to his daughter, Infanta Catalina Micaela, Duchess of Savoy. The king not only praised Medrano's mission, but also affirmed the high level of trust placed in him as royal envoy and counselor. Writing on 31 January 1592, Philip II states:

I was very pleased with the news of your health and that of my grandchildren, which you conveyed in your letters from the end of last month and the fifth and sixth of this one. And you are quite right in saying that the Duke takes too many risks too often. Although I have already advised him many times, I will now do so again through Medrano, whom I have sent there, and whose decision to visit you I have highly approved.

Infanta Catalina Micaela, Duchess of Savoy, had previously expressed concern about her husband's actions. Her correspondence, combined with Medrano's discretion, demonstrates the reliance of the Spanish Crown on trusted intermediaries to anticipate royal command and safeguard dynastic stability codified in the Repùblica Mista.

Medrano was sent on numerous occasions to deal with matters of state between the royal courts of Madrid and Savoy. On 12 February 1592, Philip II informed the Duke of Savoy that he had received Tomás Fernández de Medrano, where he "treated important matters for His Royal Service." Satisfied with Medrano's service, Philip II of Spain ordered a payment of 1,000 ducats to cover his travel expenses upon his return. The appointment of Medrano as secretary of state and war was a strategic deployment by the Spanish Crown and the duke to ensure loyalty and exercise imperial oversight at a critical dynastic frontier in Savoy.

He later became Counselor and Secretary of State and War for the Princes of Savoy, grandchildren of Philip II of Spain. On 6 April 1606, Prince Emmanuel Philibert, son of Charles Emmanuel, Duke of Savoy, and Infanta Catalina Micaela of Spain, wrote to Philip III's valido, Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, 1st Duke of Lerma, requesting royal honors for Medrano:

With more patience than ourselves does Tomás Fernández de Medrano, our secretary, endure not finding himself with a title from the King my lord. For so many years we have known his many qualities and merits… my brother the prince and I beg Your Excellency with all the earnestness we can; and we assure you that the Duke, my lord and my father, will esteem it infinitely to see him highly honored, both for what we all owe and desire for Doña Isabel de Sandoval, his wife, and for him.

Legacy within the Great Houses of Spain

Coat of arms of the 1st Duke of Lerma, who is quoted by Medrano: "To refrain from doing good when able is to surrender one's virtue."

Through Isabel de Sandoval, Medrano's wife, the family secured marital ties with the House of Sandoval, aligning themselves with the valido of Spain, Francisco de Sandoval, 1st Duke of Lerma, and reinforcing their alliances across the other Great Houses of Spain. Tomás and Isabel were the parents of Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (b. 1595), their firstborn son and heir, who entered religious life as a friar and monk at San Prudencio de Monte Laturce, and Ana María Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval (b. 1608), who served as lady-in-waiting to Queen Isabel de Borbón, consort of King Philip IV of Spain.

The doctrines set down in the República Mista were carried forward by members of the House of Medrano, including Tomás's great-nephew, Diego Fernández de Medrano, chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV, in his Mirror of Princes, where he offered Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias, princely counsel and a doctrinal mirror of legitimacy itself. Through Diego's paternal inheritance, he also bore the title Señor de la Torre y Casa de la Vega en Rioja, directly linking the Medrano family to the historic union between the House of Mendoza and the House of Lasso de la Vega.

This dynastic alliance, established through the marriage of Leonor Lasso de la Vega and Admiral Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, produced Íñigo López de Mendoza, 1st Marquess of Santillana, whose descendants included the Dukes of the Infantado and multiple Constables of Castile. By the seventeenth century, Diego's inheritance of this noble estate affirmed the Medrano family's enduring integration into the highest ranks of Castilian aristocracy, and reinforced the doctrinal authority with which Diego served as chaplain to the valido Luis Méndez de Haro under Philip IV of Spain.

According to Luis Núñez Burillo y Ginel de Medrano, a branch of the de Medrano y Mendoza de Borbón family lineage, which included the Counts of Coruña, Dukes of Bourbon (Peers of France), Marquesses of Santillana, and Dukes of Infantado, was renowned for its academic and intellectual achievements.

Mayorazgo of Vélaz de Medrano in Viana (1437)

Following Juan Martínez de Medrano’s Navarrese regency and legal reforms as a ricohombre (1328–1330), the family's influence continued through his descendants, most notably his great-grandson Juan Vélaz de Medrano, Lord of Igúzquiza, ricohombre and knight of Navarre. Active in the early fifteenth century, he consolidated the Medrano legacy as military commander and royal officer, serving as alcaide of the castles of Monjardín and Viana before his appointment as royal chamberlain to King Charles III of Navarre in 1414 and later to King John II of Aragon and Navarre in 1432. As royal chamberlain and Baron of Igúzquiza, Learza, and other estates, Juan Vélaz de Medrano embodied the Doctrine of Medrano, reflecting the etymology of medrar through loyalty, service, and prudence in royal duty. As a trusted crown official, he undertook a royal pilgrimage in 1433 to the Cathedral-Basilica of Our Lady of the Pillar alongside Queen Blanche I of Navarre.

His foundation of the mayorazgo of Vélaz de Medrano in 1437, the oldest known hereditary entail in Viana, secured his lineage's lasting role in Navarrese nobility and extended the doctrinal pattern of medrar from regency into household service, diplomacy, and dynastic continuity. His grandson Juan Vélaz de Medrano y Goni, Lord of Igúzquiza, ricohombre of Navarre, married Elvira de Echauz y Beaumont, daughter of Carlos de Echauz, XV Viscount de Baigner and Juana Margaret de Beaumont. Juana Margaret de Beaumont was the daughter of Carlos de Beaumont, the granddaughter of Prince Louis of Navarre, Duke of Durazzo, and the great-granddaughter of King Philip III of Navarre and Queen Joan II of Navarre from the House of Capet.

Continuity in the Provinces of Guadalajara and Soria

1568 Coat of arms of Garcí Bravo de Medrano y Mendoza, alcaide of Atienza, maternal great-great-great grandson of Alonso Pérez de Guzmán

Medrano's relative, Diego López de Medrano, the High Steward and guardian of King John II of Castile, made his will on 12 November 1434. Under the Trastámara dynasty, the House of Medrano obtained protection from the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, exemplifying medrar during the Renaissance.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano was also the relative of Diego López de Medrano y Vergara, a member of His Majesty's Council. His arms, featuring a castle, goshawk, and hollow cross fleury, are preserved in stone at the Castle of San Gregorio, further affirming his rank and presence among the highest nobility of Castile. He is the father of Luisa de Medrano, the first female professor in Europe, and Catalina de Medrano, lady-in-waiting to Isabella I of Castile, among many others.

Diego's wife Magdalena Bravo de Lagunas was the great-great-granddaughter of Alonso Pérez de Guzmán (1256–1309), progenitor of the Dukes of Medina Sidonia. Diego López de Medrano y Vergara is also the progenitor of the Counts of Torrubia, who were united through marriage with the Dukes of Villahermosa, Marquesses of Villamayor, Marquesses of Salamanca, Dukes of Sotomayor, and Dukes of Alba.

In 1568, Diego Lopéz de Medrano y Vergara's grandson Garcí Bravo de Medrano y Mendoza preserved one of the most emblematic heraldic representations of the Medrano lineage in Guadalajara, the recognizable hollow cross fleury motif with their progenitors goshawk and the Ave Maria Gratia Plena Dominus Tecum family motto.

The coat of arms of Garci Bravo de Medrano y Mendoza, son of Garcí Bravo de Medrano, alcaide of the castle of Atienza, displays the noble arms of the Medrano family entwined with those of the Bravo, Lagunas, and Mendoza houses. Diego's grandson Garcí Bravo de Medrano y Mendoza was linked to the 1st Count of Priego and the 2nd Count of Luna, making him a descendant of King Alfonso IX of León and Queen Berengaria of Castile through his maternal lineage.

The same cross motif found on the stone-carved coat of arms of Garci Bravo de Medrano y Mendoza also appears on the arms of Tomás Fernández de Medrano. This visual continuity connects the doctrinal authority of Tomás with the noble lineage of Medrano in Soria. It affirms a shared identity of service, nobility, and endurance across generations of the Medrano family. The branch in Soria was likewise integrated into the 12 lineages of Soria, including marital ties with the House of Barnuevo, binding the Medranos not only to Spain's most powerful noble dynasties but also to the hereditary guardians of Castilian lineage.

The Medrano family affirmed their loyalty to John II's daughter Queen Isabella I of Castile, when Diego López de Medrano y Vergara was killed in her service during the Siege of Málaga (1487) beside his father in-law. Diego López de Medrano y Vergara's daughter, Catalina de Medrano y Bravo de Lagunas, served as lady-in-waiting to Queen Isabella I of Castile, and took part in the custody and care of Queen Joanna of Castile, mother of Charles V, at the Royal Palace of Tordesillas. By 1516, Charles had ascended to the throne as King of Spain.

The House of Medrano under Charles I, King of Spain, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

The bronze effigies of Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, and Empress Isabella of Portugal, at the Basilica in El Escorial.

Generational service continued into the reign of Charles I, King of Spain, who became Holy Roman Emperor as Charles V in 1519. Tomás Fernández de Medrano's kin, Diego López de Medrano y Vinuesa, lord of San Gregorio, served as mayordomo mayor (High Steward) to Empress Isabella of Portugal, wife of Charles V and mother of Philip II, and His namesake son Diego López de Medrano became caballerizo mayor to Philip II, while his second son, Francisco de Medrano, served as royal treasurer to Carlos, Prince of Asturias. Francisco de Medrano, in his role as treasurer to the Prince of Asturias, exemplified the family’s continuity in royal service. This position was later paralleled by Diego Fernández de Medrano’s dedication of his political treatise to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias, reflecting the family's combined functions in diplomacy, household administration, and political counsel to successive heirs of the crown.

Carta Ejecutoria issued by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (Charles I, King of Spain)

Greater Coat of Arms of Charles I of Spain, Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor (1530-1556)

On 1 September 1552, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, issued a Carta Ejecutoria [es] formally reaffirming the noble status of the Medrano family, including Bernardino de Medrano, Pedro López de Medrano, and Francisco de Medrano, royal treasurer to Carlos, Prince of Asturias. The Medranos commissioned richly illuminated and finely bound personal copies, customizing them to reflect both their piety and loyalty to Charles V, as well as their own noble status. Compiled in Valladolid and Arenas, Spain, the 1552 Carta Ejecutoria, richly adorned with golden floral illumination beneath the inscription "A Don Carlos," bears the imperial coat of arms of the Holy Roman Emperor and addresses Charles V by his full sovereign titles.

The manuscript presents extensive genealogical testimony affirming the Medrano family's noble lineage, and concludes with formal signatures and seals certifying the legitimacy of their nobility under both Spanish and imperial law. It also preserves copies of earlier grants and confirmations issued in the names of Countess Juana Pimentel, King Henry III, Álvaro de Luna, and other notable figures.

The earlier grants and confirmations, along with the recognition of the Holy Roman Emperor as King of Spain, reaffirmed the Medrano family as well-known nobility of pure lineage, with all the privileges, franchises, and liberties that the other nobility of these realms enjoy and customarily use.

For example, on page 6 of the Carta Ejecutoria, the document reproduces a case in which opposing parties sought to levy taxes unlawfully upon a member of the Medrano family. However, since the noble claim of the said Medrano was "public and notorious," the king ordered that "our writ of execution (Carta Ejecutoria) be granted in his favor against the said opposing parties."

The affirmation of "public and notorious" nobility on page 6 of the Carta Ejecutoria aligns with accounts preserved in the National Central Library of Rome. In 1612, Francisco Mosquera de Barnuevo, from Soria, writing in Seville, recorded in his La Numantina that:

The Medrano family, whose nobility is so notorious that there is no house in Spain that surpasses it... are natives of Navarre.

According to the Heraldrys Institute of Rome, many principles are attributed to the Medranos by authors and historians:

For its antiquity, its splendor, for their military prowess and virtue and for every other value of chivalry that prospered with this family, in great numbers, magnificent and generous.

Such qualities were not merely attributed in writing but constantly embodied in members of the House of Medrano operating in the royal and imperial household, including Juan de Medrano, Reyes de Armas of Castile and England under Charles V. Through Juan, the Medranos were not just recognized as noble; they were the ones invested with imperial authority to recognize others.

Juan de Medrano, King of Arms of Castile and England

Arms of Mary I of England impaled with those of her husband Philip II of Spain, authorized by Juan de Medrano, Reyes de Armas of Castile and England in 1556.

During the reign of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Juan de Medrano served as Rey de Armas of Castile and England (Castilla y Inglaterra Rey de Armas), exercising supreme heraldic authority over both kingdoms and turning heraldry into a formal expression of the Doctrine of Medrano (medrar) in the sixteenth century. His office affirmed the Medrano family’s role as guardians of dynastic legitimacy under Charles V and Philip II, who became king consort of England through his marriage to Queen Mary I (1554–1558).

Tomás Fernández de Medrano, in República Mista (1602), defined the Rey de Armas as a juridical and symbolic officer of sovereign dignity. He traced the office to sacred and classical origins, presenting it as essential to monarchy. He recounted that Bacchus, after conquering India, created the Reyes de Armas as a noble order exempt from war:

I free you from the toils of war and want you to be known as seasoned soldiers and heroes. Your duty will be to serve the republic by punishing wrongdoers, praising the good, and otherwise performing your duties exempt from other burdens. In the places you travel, the kings will provide you with whatever you need, whether food or clothing. You will be honored by all and by princes with their gifts. Your words will carry weight, and you will flee from lies. You will judge traitors and declare infamous those who speak ill of women. You shall have the freedom to go where you wish, with safe passage and residence. And if anyone injures you or yours, by word or deed, that person shall be punished with death and loss of property.

Medrano noted that Alexander the Great confirmed these privileges, granting the heralds gold, purple, and royal insignia. Augustus codified their immunity under Roman law, and Charlemagne reaffirmed their status, declaring that harm against them would be treated as treason. He cited Lucas de Peña, Nobiliario Vero, Feron of France, Eneas Silvius, Thucydides, Herodotus, Megasthenes, and Xenophon as authorities attesting to their universal dignity. He concluded:

Even the humblest of those who serve near kings and occupy their courts are invested with mysteries. For these and many other reasons, we ought to venerate and respect them.

This doctrinal vision positioned the Rey de Armas as a mediator of royal power and lineage within the sovereign body. It explains Juan de Medrano's prominence as Rey de Armas of Castile and England, whose work embodied the precepts later codified in República Mista.

On 23 January 1555, during a chapter of the Order of the Golden Fleece at Antwerp before Emperor Charles V, Juan (Jehan) de Medrano officiated among five heralds at the creation of Rolant Longin as a knight of the order. The ceremony was authenticated by Anthone de Boulaincourt, Toison d’Or King of Arms, Estienne de Morez (Hainault), Claude Marion (Burgundy), together with Juan de Medrano and Pierre des Vernois, both titled Kings of Arms of the King of Castile and England.

The grant of arms bearing Medrano's signature placed the family at the center of Habsburg chivalric legitimacy, as the Golden Fleece was Europe's highest order of knighthood. The illuminated manuscript recording the ceremony, written in French secretary hand and later cited by Elias Ashmole in The Order of the Garter (1672), preserved the Medrano family’s authority within imperial heraldry. Through this office, Juan de Medrano acted not as observer but as officiant of dynastic legitimacy, uniting Spanish, Burgundian, and imperial law.

The seventeenth-century armorial Armas y Linajes de España, held by the Lázaro Galdiano Foundation in Madrid (MS 405), further attests to the family's heraldic status. The manuscript organizes royal and noble lineages beginning with Jerusalem, Cyprus, the Holy Roman Empire, and the crowns of France, Castile, Aragon, and Navarre, followed by over 120 Spanish families. Folio 195, titled "of the Medranos," includes a later insertion of the Medrano arms written in a distinct hand, likely added during family patronage. The folio is followed by commentary on heraldic colors, reinforcing the manuscript's pedagogical purpose. Dr. Antonio Salmeron confirms the Medrano addition as deliberate and significant.

Placed beside the arms of Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, the Medrano entry aligns with their authority in imperial law and doctrine, as reflected in Juan de Medrano's role as Rey de Armas and in the República Mista (1602). Their enduring prestige was manifested in office, writing, and language itself, with the verb medrar, meaning to advance, improve, or prosper virtuously, forming the ontological basis of both the etymology of the surname and doctrine. Through these careers, Spain had already internalized the precepts that the República Mista would articulate as a coherent doctrine of governance.

Doctrine of Medrano (Doctrine of Medrar)

Title page of the República Mista (1602) written by Tomás Fernández de Medrano, lord of Valdeosera, brought to publication by his son Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval on the royal press in Madrid with approval from the Council of Castile.

The Doctrine of Medrano, also known as the Doctrine of Medrar, defines the ancient moral and political system codified in the República Mista (1602) and related treatises, through which lawful advancement, achieved by virtue, service, and twenty-one primary precepts, including religion, obedience, and justice, forms the foundation of legitimate power in Spain and its dominions. Rooted in vocation, universal traditions, and grounded in classical philosophy, christian humanism and practical royal administration, it unites theology, jurisprudence, political and military science, education, the arts, architecture, civics, etymology, ethics, and related disciplines into a single doctrine of order and prosperity: medrar–to advance by virtue, service, merit, and lawful delegated authority. This doctrine was embodied through treatises, monarchs, royal academies, society, religious and military orders, crown officials, the councils of state, and institutional reforms across Spain and its dominions.

The Doctrine of Medrano was not invented by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in abstraction. It had already been lived by Spain, and their ancestors, and validated through the careers of his kin for centuries, confirmed by executive letters (carta ejecutoria) since the Middle Ages as a vocation. According to a 2025 publication from Cambridge University, the principle that service to the Crown constituted a generational duty, rather than an individual accomplishment, was embedded in early modern royal administration. This principle was often expressed in handwritten testimonies of merit and services (informaciones de méritos y servicios) submitted by officials to the Crown, including Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, 1st Marquess of Tabuérniga in 1676.

Their exercise of power across diverse regions of the empire gave these men deep, firsthand insight into the state of the monarchy and the distinct conditions of its territories, from Europe to the Americas. Through their direct involvement in distant provinces and colonial administrations, they maintained a personal and practical understanding of how imperial authority functioned across the Spanish world. Serving in the Universities, Colegios, Royal Councils of Castile, the Indies, the Military Orders, and the king's Chamber, the House of Medrano enacted and transmitted a codified doctrine of experience, service and governance, implemented as state law in practice.

Philosophical and Theological Foundations

Drawing upon both classical and sacred precedent, Tomás Fernández de Medrano wrote that:

The first precepts that the Persians taught their children (as histories recount) were to love, obey, and revere their princes and magistrates.

Medrano taught that "God found this duty so appropriate that it is taken up throughout Sacred Scripture and by so many prophets," adding that "if even pagans uphold such principles as right and worthy, it would be fitting for us, as Catholics and Christians, not to ignore them."

He further observed that the precept of obedience was fundamental to the prosperity (medrar) and good governance of a political state, and that its proper observance should serve as an example to other nations:

If the Romans esteemed this precept as fundamental to the prosperity and good governance of their republic, and with it endured so long, then it is only proper that we should embrace and honor it in such a way that we might serve as an example to other nations, as we have in other matters.

By citing the Persians and Romans, Medrano established that the path of ascent was grounded in religion, moral cultivation, obedience, reverence for legitimate authority, justice, and the unbroken transmission of these precepts through both royal instruction and lived example.

Since we are called to serve, love, and revere our eternal God, who created all from nothing, and to attain His Majesty’s grace, favor, and assistance in all the needs and trials of our souls, we learn from the Symbol of the Faith, the Lord’s Prayer, and the commandments of His holy law. Therefore, as these teachings concern the fourth commandment, it is our duty to instill from the earliest age in our hearts the laws by which we are to hold in awe, respect, obey, and serve Kings, Councils, and Magistrates for the common good.

The doctrine that Tomas Fernández de Medrano codified, he insisted, was already faithfully upheld in Spain and served both those raised in its practice and those still learning its path:

In Spain, this is preserved and observed with great dedication; thus, the doctrine will serve as theoretical instruction for those who have already learned it through practice and as guidance for those unaware of it.

He concludes the opening of the second chapter on obedience with a latin maxim by a doctor: "To give counsel to a fool is an act of charity; to give it to the wise, one of honor; but to offer it in times of depravity, an act of wisdom."

Tomás presents the República Mista as a codification of an enduring doctrine already lived by Spanish society and their ancestors, in which sacred duty, royal legitimacy, and national identity were strengthened through instruction, religion, moral formation, and generational service. Medrano codified the doctrine as a lived inheritance: a body of laws and duties internalized from childhood, binding the soul to God and the subject to the realm.

Doctrines of Greater Gravity: Diego Fernández de Medrano and the House of Austria

Title page of Mirror of Princes by Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, lord of Valdeosera, dedicated to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias (1657–1661).

The República Mista, brought to light by his son with the royal approval of the Council of Castile, found its reflection in his great-nephew, Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, lord of Valdeosera and Sojuela, when he dedicated his doctrinal treatise Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul (1657–1661) to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias.

Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros declared the Doctrine of Medrano to be the standard by which princely instruction was measured, a "mirror" entrusted to Spain, and inherited by the House of Austria:

When doctrines of greater gravity were needed to instruct a prince, it was always the Spanish who were most blessed with such enlightenment. They are the reflection of the House of Austria.

Rather than presenting a mere exhortation to princely virtue, Diego's epistle and treatise reaffirmed and extended the established doctrine already followed in Spain, and codified by his great-uncle Tomás in the República Mista (1602). Within the Spanish Empire, a ruler's legitimacy derived not solely from bloodline but from instruction formed through the Doctrine of Medrano.

Coat of arms of the House of Habsburg, known as the House of Austria in Spain.

Diego presents a treatise, a dedication, and an epistle, revealing a refined Medrano doctrine so central to generational Habsburg rule that it became "the reflection of the House of Austria":

The Philips, beginning with the first who brought to Hispania a noble Caesar and a symbolic fortress that gave to Castile and León a second Philip, whose legacy of goodness and fame was confirmed in a second. And now, Heaven bestows upon Your Highness, for the joy of Spain and as a reward for your parents' charity, a Prince whose admirable qualities already promise that he shall succeed with his own virtues. In him, authority shall shine, and under his just name and single person, the glory of princes across the world shall be adorned.

Addressed to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias and fragile heir to Philip IV, the treatise reveals how the teachings of the House of Medrano were inscribed at the core of royal succession, uniting princely education, dynastic continuity, and political theology in the person of a single crown prince.

Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul (1657–1661)

A map of the earth known as 'Geography of Medrano' dedicated to Charles II of Spain by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, director of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels. The Latin around the neck of the lion reads: "I am the peak of the Austrian name and the twin lions, the armor of the world..."

Diego's Mirror of Princes treatise must be understood within the epistemological framework of its time. A 2025 study from Cambridge University states that early modern Spanish thought held appearances to be unreliable and that true knowledge required discerning essence. Catholic doctrine was treated as the only reliable foundation for interpreting reality. As a result, knowledge was viewed as a moral enterprise, in which truth could only be reached by distinguishing between the good and the wicked. These philosophical doctrines shaped a wide range of disciplines, including literature and political theory, and showed openness to the precepts of experimental science prior to Bacon or Locke.

In the epistle to his Mirror of Princes, Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros addresses not only kings and counselors but all who would rise. He advises the prince to see himself through the uncompromising clarity of reason:

A mirror is not for flattery, as the courtly often use it. The mirror is faithful: to faults it gives proportioned truth. Truth is the mirror of princes, and princes should be mirrors of virtue. If anyone finds it too sharp, let him not accuse the mirror, but acknowledge the faults that it reflects.

Diego draws a sharp line between deceit and reason. He affirms that a mirror is not for flattery but for truth, presenting instead a mirror of reason, "not to praise particular individuals, nor out of vanity, but to describe, as a painter might," offering both a sketch and a report of his intent:

A broken mirror is the mirror of deceit, and that is no mirror at all, just a lie. Though there are mirrors which reflect what the deceivers wish to see, the mirror that shows a prince or a nobleman how to govern rightly is the mirror of reason. Let it be a mirror to all kings, princes, and great men, to guide them in virtue and expose them to their failings, so that all may learn: as many as are adorned by their virtues, and as many as are darkened by their vices. Let them see their image, and rise.

The mirror analogy, linking Diego's Mirror of Princes with Philip II’s moral governance and Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s philosophical instruction, rests on a shared vision of authority as both divine and rational.

In closing his epistle, Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros tells the crown prince that the mirror he presents is meant to reflect:

"...not only what is clear, but all that is within.”

Diego distinguished between doctrine and man: faults reflected personal vice (medro), not the office itself, while faithful adherence to the “mirror of reason” embodied the virtue of medrar. In this doctrine, legitimate ascent was both moral and hierarchical, grounded in the noble path of cultivation, rational order, adherence to natural and divine law, and the preservation of the historical continuity of Imperial and Spanish governance. His great-uncle Tomás and Prince Philibert of Savoy showed that reflections of the House of Austria could extend beyond paternal lineage, transforming maternal descendants into legitimate heirs through service, law, and religion.

Dynastic Legitimacy and Doctrinal Governance

Coat of arms of the Dukes of Savoy, whom Tomás Fernández de Medrano served as Counselor and Secretary of State and War.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano served as Counselor and Secretary of State and War to the Princes of Savoy. The case of Prince Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy, often styled "of Austria," illustrates how dynastic legitimacy could be constructed through doctrinal mediation and courtly practice. Born to Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy, and Infanta Catalina Micaela of Spain, Philibert united Savoyard and Habsburg bloodlines. His appointments as Grand Prior of Castile in the Order of Saint John, Admiral of the Mediterranean Fleet, and Viceroy of Sicily placed him within the Spanish monarchy’s military and religious command.

The Spanish court treated him with the honors of a Habsburg prince. Upon his death in 1624, Philip IV ordered his burial in the royal pantheon of El Escorial with the rites of an infante. As Geevers notes, dynastic identity was not biological but constructed through genealogies, testaments, appointments, and burial. Philibert’s maternal ancestry and official treatment effectively made him part of the House of Austria. This episode shows the Medrano doctrine’s wider scope as a grammar of dynastic construction, capable of transforming maternal heirs into legitimate princes of the Habsburg line. Tomás Fernández de Medrano, as Philibert's secretary and manager of the Grand Priorate of Castile, safeguarded this legitimacy. A 1603 letter records Philibert’s instructions leaving "my secretary and knight of my habit" in Madrid to oversee "all the matters of the Religion [of St. John] that are of my office and his."

Through his service, Tomás Fernández de Medrano linked Savoyard inheritance to Spanish institutions and gave administrative reality to dynastic theology. The recognition of Philibert as "of Austria" exemplifies what Diego Fernández de Medrano later described in his Mirror of Princes: the doctrine as "the reflection of the House of Austria," defining the standard of lawful princely authority.

Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo claiming California for the Spanish Empire in 1542, mural by Dan Sayre Groesbeck, Santa Barbara County Courthouse.

A parallel appears in the Americas with Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo de Medrano, son of the conquistador Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo. His descendants in Guatemala and Peru used the Medrano surname in official records, establishing it as a hereditary marker.

Cabrillo de Medrano's grandson, Esteban de Medrano y Solórzano, identified himself as Cabrillo's legitimate heir and served as regidor and royal chancellor of the Real Audiencia of Santiago de Guatemala in 1670. As Philibert was incorporated "of Austria" through dynastic mediation, Cabrillo’s heirs became "of Medrano" through hereditary legitimacy and colonial office.

The República Mista, Mirror of Princes, and other treatises by the Medranos represented a codified doctrine of experience and lawful rule that unified the courts and institutions of the Spanish world. In both Europe and the Americas, the Medrano name, etymologically derived from medrar, operated as a doctrinal instrument binding genealogy, governance, and legitimacy into dynastic identity. It codified hereditary instruction and provided a grammar of lawful rule applicable across the Spanish Empire.

Etymology of Medrano: Hereditary Vocation and the Grammar of Medrar

Coat of arms of the Medrano family in Viana (Calle San Miguel), with a gules field and argent cross fleury. The name "Medrano" appears below the ancestral head, while the border features the family's Ave Maria motto.

The surname Medrano derives from the Spanish verb medrar, meaning "to improve," "to advance," or "to prosper." The House originates with Andrés Vélaz de Medrano, a Moorish prince of the Caliphate of Córdoba whose conversion to Christianity in 979 and entry into Navarre earned the trust of King Sancho II of Pamplona. He established the Palace of Vélaz de Medrano in the hereditary lordship of Igúzquiza, from which the surname Medrano emerges.

His descendant Juan Vélaz de Medrano became royal chamberlain to Kings Charles III of Navarre and John II of Aragon. A ricohombre of Navarre, he held the lordships of Igúzquiza, Arguiñano, Arzoz, Artazu, Zabal, and Orendáin, and served as alcaide of Monjardín and Viana. In 1437 he created the mayorazgo of Vélaz de Medrano, the oldest documented in Viana, demonstrating hereditary improvement as a defining family principle.

Statue of Antonio de Nebrija in Madrid. His 1492 dictionary defined medrar as proficio, "to improve."

In his 1492 Latin-Spanish dictionary, Antonio de Nebrija defined medrar as:

Proficio: "to make progress."

Pedro Felipe Monlau viewed it as related to mejorar, from the Latin melior ("better"), while Joan Corominas traced the early form medranza, meaning "hereditary improvement," to a 1076 context tied to noble succession. Ramón Menéndez Pidal identified Medrano as a surname historically linked to noble service and legitimate ascent.

From the 11th century onward, Medranos appear as ricoshombres, lords, knights, merinos, alcaides, clergy, and judges of the cortes in early Navarre. In 1044, Blas Íñiguez de Medrano donated land in Viero to Santa María la Real de Nájera, confirming the family's connection to the Íñiguez dynasty and early Navarrese royalty. The appearance of medranza alongside these records confirms that hereditary improvement was both practiced and named as a principle of noble legitimacy.

This etymology shows that hereditary improvement formed the linguistic and genealogical basis for medrar as a doctrine transmitted across dynasties and institutions. The Medrano surname therefore operated as a grammar of lawful ascent. Through these foundations, medrar became not only a verb but a vocation, and Medrano not merely a surname but a hereditary grammar of political and moral advancement codified in the doctrine.

Medrar: The Operative Verb of Court Society

Ángel Campos-Perales notes that medrar functioned as the operative verb of court society, especially under the validos, where it expressed advancement through visibility, proximity, and service. The triad "to medrar, to live, to die" summarized the rhythm of courtly life and reputation.

More than ambition (medro), medrar signified ordered ascent grounded in divine law, virtue, obedience, legitimacy, and delegated royal authority. The Medrano lineage embodied this principle through continuous service as counselors, high stewards, treasurers, tutors, jurists, governors, and magistrates. By the seventeenth century they had codified the doctrine formally, extending it into military, academic, and princely instruction. The grammar of medrar became part of the legal and institutional structure governing the Spanish world.

Luisa de Medrano, the Instituto Lucía de Medrano, and the Grammar of Medrar

Main article: Luisa de Medrano

Portrait of Luisa de Medrano (Atienza 9 August 1484 – 1527). Her turban reads "The soul made divine by God" in Latin.

Luisa de Medrano (1484–1527), a Basque-Castilian poet, philosopher, and scholar, is an early example of medrar in practice. Educated in the court of Queen Isabella I and later appointed professor at the University of Salamanca, she is regarded as the first female professor in Europe. Her rise reflected deliberate intellectual formation from childhood, a core Medrano principle later codified in República Mista.

Praised by Lucio Marineo Siculo for surpassing male contemporaries, she held the Chair of Poetry and Grammar in 1508, lecturing in Latin and succeeding Antonio de Nebrija, the very grammarian who defined medrar.

Her legacy was later dramatized in the 2018 theatrical work Historia de una doncella elocuentísima, staged at the Instituto Lucía de Medrano. The play emphasized Luisa as a figure of intellectual virtue and doctrinal continuity under the Trastámara dynasty.

Phelipe Medrano and the Grammar of Medrar

Main article: Phelipe Medrano

In Phelipe Medrano's Quadrados mágicos (1744), the doctrine reached a synthesis of mathematics, theology, and hereditary governance. Joseph Cañizares dedicated a sonnet to the work, writing:

If it began to medrar, it is because of MEDRANO.

Others, including Ignacio de Loyola y Oyanguren and the Marquess of La Olmeda, praised Phelipe's contribution to truth and Christian arithmetic.

Olmeda emphasized hereditary improvement, celebrating Phelipe's father Pedro Medrano as a Caliodorus of the world and royal secretary whose intellectual legacy shaped his son's work. Pedro's career in the Secretary of State for Italy under Charles II exemplified the administrative foundation on which Phelipe built his doctrinal synthesis.

Olmeda concluded that Phelipe's knowledge was so effective:

That, once acquired, your knowledge becomes inherited.

This affirmed that medrar, as codified in República Mista, was the doctrinal continuation of a long-standing hereditary and institutional tradition applied across councils, universities, colegios, churches, magistracies, and royal service.

From Doctrine to Law: Imperial Codification of Medrar

In his dedication to Mirror of Princes, Diego Fernández de Medrano reminded Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias:

Sir, academies have always been the courts of princes, adorned, instructed, and refined in the liberal science of governance. It was for such a purpose that they were established, and with even greater care, those that succeeded took shape. Throughout Europe, political restoration has always been initiated, or at least illuminated, by men of great judgment, who provided to noble assemblies the first precepts of nature, placing above political laws the laws of the Catholic faith. My own conviction has always been firm: that true authority must be grounded in Christian truth and defended with the pen, the sword, and the soul, through divine demonstrations.

Royal legitimacy became the reflection of a well-formed soul and a well-governed realm, ensuring that the image in the mirror was flawless in both moral virtue and political order. According to Diego, princes are adorned with rightful titles, instructed through doctrine and exemplarity, and refined through judgment and virtue to become bearers of the liberal science of governance, the highest knowledge entrusted to guide peoples in truth, peace, and order.

Diego advanced a living doctrine enacted by royal command. Within the same doctrinal horizon that saw the publication of República Mista in 1602 and the Ordenações Filipinas in 1603, the Spanish Crown formalized the Medrano grammar of governance within military and legal structures.

The etymological root of Medrano, medrar, developed into a lasting system of progress, in which legitimacy was both inherited and earned with doctrine. It became a unified system of noble advancement and authority across political, legal, educational, military, mathematical, philosophical, and literary spheres.

The House of Medrano codified the Doctrine of Medrano in multiple forms:

• Proclaimed through humanist philosophy and poetic exemplarity in La Silva Curiosa (1583) by Julián Íñiguez de Medrano, courtier, Navarrese knight, and early literary architect of the doctrine.
• Codified by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in his República Mista (1602), a political treatise dedicated to Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, 1st Duke of Lerma, 1st valido (royal favorite) of Spain.
• Ratified through the laws, statutes and jurisdiction of the Order of Santiago (1601–1605) by the jurist García de Medrano y Castejón, knight of Santiago, and a Councilor of the Council of Castile, the Council of Justice, and the Council of the Orders.
• Illuminated through the arts and Baroque literature cultivated in the renowned Medrano Academy of Madrid (1616 to 1622), founded by Dr. Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, official censor of comedias in the Inquisition, chaplain, treasurer for Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, III Duke of Feria, and author of Favores de las Musas (1631) and the juridico-theological treatise Caridad y Misericordia (1652), core expressions of the Doctrine of Medrano.
• Perpetuated through princely instruction and doctrinal reaffirmation by Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, great-nephew of Tomás, who composed Mirror of Princes for Prince Philip Prospero between 1657 and 1661. He dedicated a political panegyric to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV, and reaffirmed the core teachings of República Mista through his diplomatic role at the Treaty of the Pyrenees, uniting courtly, military, and spiritual authority.
• Institutionalized in the educational royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso (1666), the Colegio de San Eugenio and numerous other colegios led and united by Dr. García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, Minister of Justice, Councilor of Castile, knight of the Order of Santiago, and enacted in his regency of Seville and the Kingdom of Navarre.
• Militarily and educationally propagated through the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels (1675), founded and directed by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, Royal Master of Mathematics in the States of Flanders, General Prefect to the King, under the patronage of the Governor Captain General of the Spanish Netherlands, Francisco Antonio de Agurto Salcedo Medrano, 1st Marquess of Gastañaga.
• Extended into the Americas and elevated to theological synthesis by Juan de Espinosa Medrano (El Lunarejo), Indigenous nobleman and chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, Valido of Philip IV. He codified the doctrine through scholastic ascent in his Apologético (1662) and Philosophia Thomistica (1688), expressing the Doctrine of Medrano as a defense of divine kingship, Catholic humanism, and imperial legitimacy rooted in classical reason.
• Architecturally and educationally codified the doctrine through the works and royal institutions designed by Giovanni Antonio Medrano (1703–1760), architect, engineer, and tutor to the future King Charles III and King Ferdinand VI. Through royal pedagogy, mathematical instruction, and the design of royal palaces, churches, and civic structures in Naples, he translated the doctrinal principles of order, proportion, virtue, and royal sovereignty into physical and institutional form.
• Encoded in sacralized mathematics, most notably in Quadrados Mágicos (1744) by Phelipe Medrano, dedicated to Queen Elisabeth Farnese.
• Translated into civic doctrine and public institutions by Diego de Medrano y Treviño, Minister of the Interior of Spain and founder of the Royal Basque Economic Societies (1834) and the Savings Banks of Spain (1835). In his Considerations on the Economic, Moral, and Political State of the Province of Ciudad Real (1843), he affirmed that education, moral economy, and lawful liberty must align with virtue, prudence, and divine order. Through savings banks, technical schools, and civic infrastructure, Diego transformed medrar into the foundation of just and enlightened governance in constitutional Spain.

The generational codifications by the House of Medrano established the Doctrine of Medrano in the Spanish Empire. Codifications developed through the family's enduring proximity to monarchs and validos, sustained by their contributions across generations.

Its expression took shape through diplomacy, military orders, princely households such as the chief equerry of Prince Philip, territorial and military authorities including Jaime Vélaz de Medrano y Echauz, defender of the Kingdom of Navarre, and through the regents of Navarre including Juan Martínez de Medrano and Pedro Antonio de Medrano; and through ecclesiastical and juridical magistracies and the tribunals of the real audiencias, including inquisitorial and legal judges like Juan Antonio Molina de Medrano and Alonso Molina de Medrano. It was enacted in the governance roles of Juan de Medrano y Mesía and Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zapata in Mexico, and was advanced by rectors, magistrates, and ministers including García de Medrano, 1st Count of Torrubia, and Baltasar Álvarez de Medrano, extending across Europe and the Americas.

Philip II of Spain and the Doctrine of Medrano: Mirror of Kingship

The Baptism of Philip II in Valladolid, Castile. Historical ceiling preserved in Palacio de Pimentel (Valladolid)

Diego López de Medrano, Lord of San Gregorio, Alcaide of Aranjuez, a resident and regidor of Soria, who, as caballerizo mayor of the prince, accompanied the young Philip II throughout his ceremonial journey to Brussels in 1548 and 1549, overseeing his public elevation as heir to the Spanish Empire. The 1548–1549 journey was designed to present Philip to the courts, cities, and powers of Europe as the heir to Charles V's vast empire. He was the namesake son of Diego López de Medrano y Vinuesa, High Steward to Isabella of Portugal and the brother of García de Medrano y Vinuesa. As chief equerry, Diego López de Medrano served as both the operational director and principal guardian of the young prince's public image and legitimacy during one of the most important political tours of the 16th century.

Diego López de Medrano, Alcaide of Aranjuez, Chief Equerry of the Prince, and Lord of San Gregorio, was of notable historical importance. Aranjuez, originally under Muslim control, was secured by the Crown in the late 12th century and donated in 1171 by King Alfonso VIII of Castile to the Order of Santiago.

In 1272, Aranjuez became the seat of the Mesa Maestral, the governing body of the Order of Santiago, which elevated its status as a center of military and religious authority. When the Catholic Monarchs assumed control of the military orders in 1493, and Emperor Charles V was confirmed as Grand Master of Santiago in 1523, Aranjuez came under direct royal administration. By royal decree and the apostolic authority of Philip III of Spain in 1605, Diego's first cousin, García de Medrano y Castejón, born in El Burgo de Osma (1550), reformed the Order of Santiago, codifying medrar into the Order's legal statutes and governing laws.

Merit and Royal Favor: Philip II of Spain and the Iberian Union

1584 map of the Azores Islands, where Diego de Medrano achieved the first Atlantic crossing by galleys, leading twelve of his own innovative design to the Azores for the Battle of Terceira

The House of Medrano in Soria and its province are knights of great antiquity and nobility. Captain Diego de Medrano, born in Hinojosa del Campo, in the province of Soria, was the brother of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, author of República Mista. Captain Diego de Medrano was a knight of the Order of Santiago, with a habit, and became a General of the Spanish, Naples, and Portuguese galleys, participating in major campaigns, including the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and the Spanish Armada in 1588.

In 1583 Captain Diego de Medrano achieved the first Atlantic crossing by galleys, leading twelve of his own innovative design to the Azores for the Battle of Terceira, a feat Cabrera de Córdoba described as:

A thing to admire and celebrate in the hearts of the Spanish.

By securing the beachhead, landing the tercios, and holding the coastal approaches, Captain Diego de Medrano assured Spain's victory and paved the way for Portugal's final incorporation under Philip II, known as the Iberian Union.

Jorge Manrique commended his leadership to the king, urging that:

He deserves to be shown great favor… so that others may be encouraged to take on what everyone judged to be so difficult.

The king was expected to reward actions that benefited the broader public. Nobility was understood as a familial enterprise, and membership in certain lineages, such as the Medranos, was itself regarded as a form of public service, especially when paired with concrete actions and lived examples that advanced the common good.

Merit and Reward: Captain Diego de Medrano's letter to Philip II of Spain (1588)

Route of the Spanish Armada (1588). Captain Diego de Medrano became interim admiral on the way back to Spain.

Diego de Medrano demonstrated the Doctrine of Medrano through prudence, merit, loyalty, and earned royal trust that his brother Tomás would later describe in República Mista. In 1588, Philip II personally appointed Captain Diego de Medrano as Squadron General of Portuguese galleys in the 1588 Spanish Armada, later becoming interim admiral. Diego was informed by the Marqués de Santa Cruz, Álvaro de Bazán, that Philip II appointed him to take charge of the galleys on this expedition to England.

After twenty-five years of loyal service, Captain Diego de Medrano wrote to Philip II on 7 February 1588 from Lisbon:

Your Majesty wishes for me to take charge of the galleys on this expedition. I humbly kiss Your Majesty's feet for the favor granted to me in this matter... I beseech Your Majesty to grant me a favor in accordance with the quality of my person and honor, and may God preserve Your Majesty with increased life and greater realms and lordships, as Christendom needs and this vassal desires. Diego de Medrano.

Captain Diego de Medrano demonstrated humility in his letter and attributes his continued success to his unbroken loyalty to king, faith, and country (patria), tying it to the needs of Christendom. In this way, Diego stood as the embodiment of the Doctrine of Medrano and a model for Spanish society in facing challenges that seemed insurmountable. In the early modern period, there was no strict division between public and private life. Officials could present activities that would now be considered personal, such as commercial enterprises or writing a book, as valid services to the Crown. Diego's very petition to Philip II, invoking royal favor, service, and religion, anticipates the doctrine his brother Tomás Fernández de Medrano would later codify in the República Mista. Tomás emphasized that when rulers and nobles demonstrate sincere faith, their actions establish a standard that shapes the behavior of their people, cultivating a culture grounded in compassion and mutual care.

Philip's European and North African dominions in 1581

In his letter to the king, Captain Diego de Medrano described twenty-five years of leadership and service in the royal galleys, "including the relief of Cyprus as captain of the Fortuna," at Lepanto where he fought "to the satisfaction of Don Juan of Austria," in the expedition to Navarino commanding twelve galleys, in Tunis, Gibraltar, and along the Andalusian coast, before concluding with the decisive campaign at Terceira. Entrusted by the Marqués de Santa Cruz, Álvaro de Bazán, "with many bands of galleys for Sicily, Naples, and Spain," he proved himself indispensable in guarding the straits, constructing the Port of Gibraltar, carrying troops, and enforcing the king's commands. The Doctrine of Medrano, embodied in Captain Diego de Medrano's service and rewarded through royal favor, would soon be enshrined at the highest level of governance. In 1595, Philip II codified these very principles of merit, justice, and rightful reward in the Ordenações Filipinas. This occurred twelve years after Captain Diego helped secure the Azores, reaffirming Spain as the largest empire on earth in the 16th and 17th centuries.

By inheriting the Empire of Portugal after the Iberian Union in 1580 and consolidating his rule after Diego's success in 1583, Philip II of Spain became "Don Philippe, by the grace of God, King of Portugal and of the Algarves, on this side and beyond the sea, in Africa Lord of Guinea, and of the Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India."

Merit and Justice: Preamble of the Ordenações Filipinas (1595-1603)

Title page of the Ordenações Filipinas (1603).

Following the unification of the Portuguese Empire into the Spanish Crown, Philip II issued a proclamation in Portugal on 5 June 1595, as part of the preamble to the Ordenações Filipinas, that powerfully echoed the doctrine later codified by Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Secretary of State and War to the Dukes of Savoy and close adviser of Philip II and Philip III of Spain. The Ordenações Filipinas were printed in 1603 and formally enacted under Philip III, just one year after the publication of the República Mista, making the preamble and the treatise alike a legal and chronological precursor to his decree. The preamble of the Ordenações Filipinas stands as a legal articulation of República Mista precepts, issued seven years before their formal codification in Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s República Mista. Philip II's preamble affirms that kings must reward merit over birth and uphold justice as the highest royal virtue.

On 5 June 1595, King Philip II of Spain declared in the Ordenações Filipinas:

And just as Justice is a virtue not for oneself but for others, since it benefits only those to whom it is given, by giving them what is theirs and enabling them to live well, the good through rewards, and the wicked through fear of punishment, from which peace and tranquility result in the Republic (for the punishment of the wicked is the preservation of the good), so must the good King act, since he was given by God not for himself nor for his own gain, but to govern his People well and benefit his subjects as if they were his own children.

By 1595, King Philip II of Spain had already aligned with the precepts outlined in Medrano's doctrine, as Medrano himself served at court as his adviser, articulating a doctrine in which legitimate kings upheld virtue, obedience, and justice, governing not for their own gain, but for the good of their people, treating their subjects as their own family, and upholding the laws and customs of the realm with equity.

The king, who embodied the polity, was expected to reward not only past services to his ancestors but also those actions that benefited the broader public, even if they did not directly serve him. In 1595, King Philip II of Spain declared in the Ordenações Filipinas:

As in a true mirror, [kings] must always examine and perfect themselves; for just as Justice consists in equality, and in giving to each his due with a just balance, so too must the good King be one and equal to all in repaying and rewarding each according to his merits.

Declaring justice to be "the principal virtue, and above all others the most excellent," Philip II confirmed in the Ordenações Filipinas that kings must act not for their own gain, but for the good of their people, rewarding each according to merit and "sustaining the Republic through a balance of arms and laws."

Tomás echoes this precept in República Mista by citing Tacitus: "Neque quies gentium sine armis, neque arma sine stipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis"–"There is no peace among nations without arms, no arms without pay, and no pay without taxes." In Philip II's vision of kingship, justice, merit, and divine service are inseparable, revealing a 16th century royal codification of the Doctrine of Medrano.

Prior to the formal codification of this imperial doctrine in the Republica Mista (1602), the Medranos contributed to the development of imperial philosophy, structures of kingship, and systems of royal delegation that defined early modern Spanish rule. The House of Medrano played a continuous role in shaping royal policy, legal institutions, and administrative governance since the Middle Ages.

Philip II's 1595 royal decree not only affirmed the precepts Tomás had outlined but also set the stage for the República Mista's reception at court, dedicated to the 1st Duke of Lerma, valido of Philip III, where its alignment with the king's words gave it added authority when presented for official publication. The Ordenações Filipinas, along with the República Mista offer insight into the philosophical and political system operating in the Spanish Empire.

Royal Image and Theological Kingship under Philip II: Tomás Fernández de Medrano and the Doctrine of Medrano

Coat of arms of Philip II of Spain (1580–1598) after the Iberian Union.

Illustrating the precepts of the doctrine, Tomás in the República Mista describes Philip II's reign as one marked by humility, religious reverence, and moral leadership:

King Philip II left countless examples of his devotion to religion and the reverence with which he regarded all its ministers. The pontiffs of his time bore great witness to this truth, and the immortal monuments of his magnificence and piety, left throughout Spain, Christendom, and the entire world, testify to it even to its remotest corners. Each year, with his forces and armadas for this purpose, he traversed the path of the sun, bringing the same blessing to all regions.

Tomás further affirms that a ruler is not merely a political figure but a moral and spiritual archetype:

The supreme magistrate, corresponding to his title, is a father to the kingdom or province he governs, a shepherd to the people, a preserver of peace, a protector of justice, and a guardian of innocence. To attempt to overthrow his rule, then, would seem unreasonable.

This understanding of royal office draws directly from the Doctrine of Medrano, which holds that just kings are recognized by virtue rather than by bloodline. Obedience is owed even to rulers who fall short of moral excellence, not because of their personal merit but because all authority ultimately derives from divine ordinance. Tomás writes that the people naturally harbor contempt for tyrants and revere just princes, but when they fail to see in their ruler the image of God, they are easily led astray.

Scripture, he explains, teaches that:

Whether they act as they should or not, rulers wield power derived solely from the divine Majesty: the good are mirrors and examples of God's goodness, while the wicked are instruments of His wrath, punishing the people's wickedness.

He reinforces this by citing Isidore of Seville:

"Irascente Deo, talem rectorem populi suscipiunt, qualem pro peccato merentur" — When God is angered, the people receive such a ruler as they deserve for their sins. (Isidore, De Sententiis)

Tomás offers preventative counsel, affirming that "if such people would fix their eyes on the word of God, it would lead them far from such a course," for it teaches obedience not only to princes who govern justly but even to those who think only of their own desires, since whatever power they hold is derived from His Divine Majesty.

In this formulation, the Doctrine of Medrano presents a theological realism: rulers are appointed according to divine justice, whether as blessings or as punishments. Good kings mirror God's goodness; wicked ones reflect the people's corruption. This moral causality reinforces Tomás's warning that disobedience to legitimate authority is a spiritual error unless it defends divine order itself.

He cites Emperor Tiberius, whose long reign, despite its promise, descended into disgrace:

"Post tantam rerum experientiam, diu dominationis convulsus, commutatus, postremo in scelera simul ac dedecora prorupuit" — After so much experience of things, disturbed by the long exercise of rule, he fell at last into crimes and disgrace. (Tacitus)

For Medrano, rulers serve as instruments of divine instruction, either as models of virtue or as scourges of judgment. The Doctrine of Medrano affirms that the true test of a republic lies not only in the actions of its kings but in the moral and spiritual state of its people.

Statue of Philip II at the Sabatini Gardens in Madrid (Felipe de Castro, 1753). The image echoes Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s reflections on mortality and divine order in royal governance.

In chapter one of the República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano begins "at the true beginning, with the origin and end of all things, God," and shows the importance for princes "to recognize this Supreme Majesty." The example of faith set by rulers becomes a law and model for their subjects, fostering a society rooted in love and charity. Medrano affirmed this as the surest path to preserving and fortifying their kingdoms and empires.

Tomás writes:

All monarchies, no matter how great, are mortal. In obedience and reverence, they must recognize that they, too, are His creatures, subject to His laws and divine will, just like everyone else.

Philip II expressed the same awareness in Madrid on 29 November 1578:

I don't know if they think I'm made of iron or stone. The truth is, they need to see that I am mortal, like everyone else.

For Philip II and his adviser Tomás, the doctrine binding kings to divine law in life was ritually affirmed in death. This parallel demonstrates how the Doctrine of Medrano shaped the monarchy's lived expression, where the recognition of mortality became a cornerstone of spiritual humility and royal governance.

Philip II of Spain banqueting with family and courtiers, by Alonso Sánchez Coello

Philip II's grasp of this doctrine, later codified in the República Mista, developed from an early age through his close proximity to courtiers of the Medrano family: Tomás Fernández de Medrano, his trusted adviser who lived with him at court; Diego López de Medrano y Vinuesa, High Steward to his mother, Empress Isabella of Portugal (1530–1539); and the steward's son, also named Diego López de Medrano, who served as Philip II's chief equerry.

Their service within the royal household established the etymological and living doctrine of medrar before its formal codification. Grounded in their roles in war, education, religion, and governance, Tomás and his República Mista show how the Crown was already legislating within the moral and institutional framework exemplified by the House of Medrano.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's Funeral Oration at the obsequies of Philip II (1598)

Pantheon of the Kings at El Escorial, final resting place of Philip II, symbolizing Habsburg sacral kingship and dynastic continuity.

Philip II died at El Escorial on 13 September 1598. At his funeral, with members of the House of Medrano present, their role as doctrinal stewards was confirmed when Tomás Fernández de Medrano delivered the official funeral oration titled "The Funeral Oration at the obsequies of Philip II," extolling the monarch's virtues in a singular act of trust that affirmed the family's place as a voice of imperial memory and conscience within the highest circles of Spanish statecraft. The Florentine funeral obsequies reinforced this role through large canvases depicting formative episodes from Philip's youth, including "Philip's Departure for Flanders from Barcelona" and "Philip Welcomed by the Doge of Genoa" in 1548. The meeting with the Doge was remembered in Tuscany as the occasion when the young Prince Francesco de' Medici greeted Philip on his first Italian visit, and the subject itself reappeared in the funeral decor for Francesco I. Scholars have suggested that this canvas, like others, may have been reused for Philip II's own esequie.

By staging these scenes alongside the rites, the obsequies bookended Philip's reign. They recalled his early journey to Italy, undertaken with Diego López de Medrano, chief equerry (caballerizo mayor) to Philip II, and concluded with Tomás Fernández de Medrano's final oration. Together these elements situated the service of the Medrano family within the visual and ceremonial heart of dynastic memory and imperial continuity.

A Valido bound by law: The Doctrine of Medrano and the Delegation of Authority

As the court matured into a centralized structure of delegated rule under the Spanish Habsburgs, the House of Medrano found one of its most visible and potent expressions of medrar and the Doctrine of Medrano in the rise of the valido. By the late sixteenth century, the Medrano family, and its etymological root medrar had become embedded in the royal court as a code of ascent, signifying proximity to power attained through service, virtue, and delegated authority.

As Francisco Javier Fortún Pérez de Ciriza notes, such arrangements reflected circuits of delegated power, patronage, and exemption that foreshadowed the later Habsburg model of the valido (royal favourite). In early modern Spain, status and influence increasingly depended on proximity to the sovereign, court patronage, and administrative office rather than territorial rule.

As Ángel Campos-Perales observes, medrar became the operative verb of court society, shaping both careers and life cycles through visibility, favor, and proximity. Within this structure, the valimiento system was given legitimacy and delegated authority under the new Order of Santiago laws established by García de Medrano y Castejón, radiating from the king through the valido to his protégés and clients. This multi-generational system and its foundational codifications not only advanced noble ascent but also influenced the political, legal, educational, military, and literary institutions of the Spanish Empire.

Notable Knights of Santiago upheld his reforms, including García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano y Hurtado de Mendoza, Pedro Vélaz de Medrano, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, Pedro Antonio de Medrano y Albelda, and many other Medranos from the Order. One of the clearest embodiments of royal delegation under Philip II, and later the valido under Philip III, was Alonso Molina de Medrano (1550–1616), jurist, royal advisor, and Knight of Santiago. Alonso was the Commander of Benazusa and Villafranca in the Supreme Councils and Senates of the Indies and Castile, and Patron of the Main Chapel of San Francisco in Vélez-Málaga.

A protégé of Francisco de Sandoval, Duke of Lerma and the first valido, Alonso advanced from professor at the University of Seville and Inquisitor in Zaragoza and Córdoba to Councilor of the Indies (1592), first Chamberlain of the Chamber of the Indies (1600), Councilor of Castile (1608–1616), and member of the Board of Finance for the Indies and Portugal. Acting under Lerma's delegated authority and as a Knight of Santiago, he administered mechanisms of governance that combined inquisitorial jurisdiction, colonial administration, and royal finance. His ascent illustrates how García de Medrano's statute reforms and the valido system transformed personal service into institutionalized trust, legitimizing virtuous advancement (medrar) through divine hierarchy and the precepts of religion, obedience, and justice.

Medrar and the Valido: A Doctrinal Foundation of Delegated Authority

Alexander (left) and Hephaestion (right). Getty Villa, J. Paul Getty Museum. Juan de Espinosa Medrano, addressing Luis Méndez de Haro, the valido of Spain, writes: "Alexander would not have been truly 'the Great' if, amid the opulence of his empires, he lacked the tender trust of his Hephaestion."

Across three generations of the Medrano family, the figure of the valido (royal favorite) was consistently elevated as an essential instrument of royal governance, embodying a principled and doctrinally grounded role within the Spanish monarchy.

In República Mista (1602), Tomás Fernández de Medrano defended the valido as a prudent and loyal counselor who served not as a rival to sovereign authority but as its natural extension. Drawing on figures such as Callisthenes, adviser to Alexander the Great, and Panaetius of Rhodes, companion to Scipio Aemilianus, Medrano emphasized that the wisest princes consistently entrusted their rule to servants capable of tempering passions, carrying burdens, and speaking truth with authority. For Medrano, the presence of a faithful and virtuous minister was a sign of both political wisdom and public good.

His son, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, developed this doctrine further in a dedication to the Duke of Lerma, the first valido of Spain. Using the metaphors of the monarchy as a single body and the sun as the animating force, he asserted that a kingdom cannot endure if divided between multiple centers of power. The valido, as captain of the ship and executor of royal light, embodied the unity and vitality of the polity. He described the valido as the "universal father of the republic," to whom Religion, Obedience, and Justice were offered in tribute, cultivated "in the garden" of his father.

In the mid-seventeenth century, Diego Fernández de Medrano advanced this doctrinal line by comparing the valido to exemplary figures across philosophy, mathematics, painting, sculpture, and political counsel. Aristotle, Euclid, Apelles, Lysippus, and Maecenas were invoked to show that they were surpassed by Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Spain under Philip IV, in the precision, elegance, and virtue required to advise and govern on behalf of the monarch.

Through these comparisons, members of the House of Medrano articulated a complete system in which the valido emerges as a figure shaped by both reason and providence, possessing the moral and intellectual refinement to guide sovereign power. This vision was echoed and extended by Juan de Espinosa Medrano, who addressed his 1662 dedication to Luis Méndez de Haro from Cuzco, Peru. By portraying the valido as a sacred figure beyond the reach of envy, he reinforced the idea that such ministers served as ordained instruments of royal virtue and doctrinal harmony.

The República Mista of 1602, together with the statutes of the Order of Santiago drafted by García de Medrano y Castejón between 1601 and 1603 and published in 1605, defined the role of the valido at the start of the seventeenth century. These works linked kingship and valimiento to a wider order of divine law, service, and delegated royal authority within the Spanish Habsburg monarchy, then the largest empire of the age.

The Medrano Doctrine and the Reform of Santiago: Clavijo, Law, and Royal Delegation

Cross of the Order of Santiago, a royal military order from Spain founded in the 12th century.

In 1601, under the direction of his father Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Lord and Divisero of Valdeosera, Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval dedicated to King Philip III the Sumario de la Memorable y Santa Batalla de Clavijo, a legal-theological defense of the Battle of Clavijo and the origin of the lordship of Valdeosera by Licenciado Salinas.

Juan Fernández de Medrano affirmed the royal, apostolic, and ancestral dimensions of Spanish sovereignty, describing the monarchy as the divine source of all legitimate nobility:

All sources and rivers (my lord) originate from the sea and return to it... it seemed fitting to [my father] for me to dedicate it to Your Majesty, as the true ocean, origin, and antiquity of all nobility... under whose protection all live very securely, and this lordship will live, this memory will live, and we will live, until we die in the service of Your Majesty.

The prologue to the same work, written by Licenciado Salinas after consulting the Valdeosera archives, confirmed the family's descent from the commander of Clavijo and recognized Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Valdeosera, as the living embodiment of that sacred lineage:

Having seen the archives of their antiquities and closely touched the virtue and nobility of all in general and in particular of V. M. [Tomás Fernández de Medrano] has obliged me to draw a summary apart from the memorable and holy battle of Clavijo, because it is connected with the origin and antiquity of the Solar where they descend from and are lords of, which is one of the notable and worthy of celebration that there is in Spain... dedicated to such a principal successor, true and legitimate descendant of the field master and captain general of King Ramiro the 1st of León, and who now represents his same person in dignity.

Saint James at Clavijo, miraculously aiding King Ramiro I. The image reflects the 1601 dedication in the Sumario by Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval, guided by his father Tomás, affirming the Medrano lineage and Clavijo as foundations of Spanish sovereignty.

These legal and doctrinal affirmations preceded and directly informed Tomás Fernández de Medrano's República Mista, published in 1602. There, Tomás warned against historical revisionism and reaffirmed the sanctity of Clavijo as a foundational event for Spanish national identity:

Saying otherwise would be like denying that the glorious Apostle James preached in Spain, that we possess his body, or that he visibly fought against the Moors in the Battle of Clavijo in support of King Ramiro, leading to a vow from us all. Or claiming that it is merely a saying, without truth, that all nations come to honor him, as they have done for so long. Such assertions would cause scandal to the Church, undermining a long-held, confirmed, and sanctified tradition by the supreme Pontiffs who themselves made pilgrimages and performed miracles at his shrine.

He concluded with a warning to scholars who approached sacred tradition with arrogance:

Handle traditions, sacred or profane, with respect, so as not to appear impious or cynical in a misguided show of curiosity or erudition.

Together, these declarations from Salinas, Juan, and Tomás formed the doctrinal and genealogical groundwork for the Medrano reforms of the Order of Santiago. When García de Medrano y Castejón codified the statutes of the Order between 1601 and 1605, he was executing royal policy and completing a theological and legal legacy rooted in the family's ancestral memory, national service, and the Doctrine of Medrano. The vow of Clavijo, the hereditary lordship of Valdeosera, and the institutional reform of Santiago were all treated as one unified tradition: a sanctified structure of Christian sovereignty.

The Reform of García de Medrano: The Laws and Statutes of Santiago (1601–1605)

Garcia de Medrano's Rules and Establishment of the Knights of Santiago issued by royal decree in 1601, reprinted in 1603, and reissued in 1627.

García de Medrano y Castejón, councilor of the Royal Council of Castile, jurist, member of the Council of Justice and the Council of Orders and knight of the Order of Santiago, carried forward the Doctrine of Medrano by applying the precepts set forth in the República Mista to institutional governance. In overseeing the history, governance, and admissions of Spain's royal military orders, he contributed to the codification of noble service and the regulation of the mechanisms by which royal favor and delegated authority were granted.

Through the Order of Santiago, the Doctrine of Medrano was demonstrated publicly, and incorporated into legal codification. García de Medrano y Castejón advised the General Chapter of Santiago in order to achieve this. By royal decree, García authored two foundational legal treatises, The rule and establishment of the knighthood of Santiago of the Sword, with the history of its origin and principle thereof (1601), reprinted in Valladolid in 1603 and later reissued in Madrid in 1627; and Compilation of the Chapter Laws of the Order of Knighthood of Santiago of the Sword, Compiled and arranged by Licenciado Don García de Medrano, of the Royal Council of Justice, published in 1605 posthumously in Madrid, which established, clarified, and updated laws while systematizing the statutes, privileges, and ceremonial structure of the Order of Santiago.

The Copilación de las Leyes Capitulares de la Orden de la Cavallería de Santiago del Espada, composed and ordered by Licenciado García de Medrano and printed in Valladolid by Luis Sánchez in 1605, followed the legal structure of the earlier compilation by Fernández de la Gama. García de Medrano preserved the spiritual and temporal law titles for the Order's vassals, omitting only the sections pertaining to religious minorities that had been legally abolished.

The compilation incorporated statutes approved from the Chapter of Mérida in 1387 to that of Écija-Seville in 1501–1502 and reflected a sovereign effort to unify centuries of legal tradition under a codified framework of governance. Notably, García de Medrano had already published La Regula y Establecimientos in 1603, which focused on the internal regulation of Santiago knights and drew heavily on the Establecimientos of 1577.

While that earlier work preserved medieval elements, the 1605 Capitular Laws marked a definitive break with the past, integrating legislative acts from Chapters held under Prince Philip in Madrid (1551), Philip II (1560, 1574), and Philip III (1600). The result was a sovereign and institutional reform that incorporated the doctrine set forth by the House of Medrano, authorized by Philip III and the Order of Santiago, one that formalized medrar as an administrative and legal structure within the monarchy itself.

García's reforms codified a system of lawful advancement (medrar) within the monarchy's chivalric and administrative orders. His legal statutes directly reinforced the political theology of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, whose República Mista (1602), dedicated to Lerma, articulated a moral logic of delegated rule. Together, their contributions helped formalize medrar and the Doctrine of Medrano as the operative grammar of noble ascent and royal delegation in the Spanish Empire.

Spiritual Codification: The Council of Trent and the Doctrine of Medrano

The Council of Trent was a Roman Catholic Church ecumenical council (1545–1563). The Council confirmed Christian doctrine and the role of Tradition and Scripture.

Medrano affirms that all the laws of the Kingdom, "which say the same thing," were put in place for "temporal governance, and for the spiritual, what was established in the Holy Council of Trent was also included: all of which was seen and approved in the said Chapter." The Council met for twenty-five sessions between 13 December 1545 and 4 December 1563. For example, the fourth session (8 April 1546) declared the Latin Vulgate as the authentic text for the Church, and reaffirmed the role of Tradition alongside Scripture. Tomás Fernández de Medrano emphasized that traditions, whether sacred or secular, must be treated with reverence and seriousness, not as objects of intellectual display or cynical inquiry. This principle shaped García de Medrano's approach to integrating the Council of Trent's rulings. Spiritual authority was not imposed as rigid dogma but codified as doctrinal guidance consistent with lawful governance.

García de Medrano's legal codification of the Order of Santiago was guided by a deliberate effort to harmonize the laws of temporal governance with the post-Tridentine spiritual order. By affirming that the laws of the Kingdom and those of the Church "say the same thing," Medrano established a juridical continuity between secular authority and ecclesiastical doctrine.

His work positioned the Council of Trent as a binding legal and moral framework for both royal and chivalric institutions. The inclusion of Tridentine decrees within the Leyes Capitulares marked the first formal synthesis of post-Reformation Catholic doctrine into the internal laws of a major military order. This deliberate act affirmed the Medrano doctrine that legitimate governance must align with divine law, and it confirmed García de Medrano's role as a doctrinal jurist who codified the unity of Church and Crown in the wake of the Reformation.

García de Medrano, a member of the Council of the Orders, the Council of Justice and of Castile, concluded in his Leyes Capitulares:

It has been beneficial work for the Order, and I am ready to serve it in whatever capacity I am entrusted with, with great pleasure. Don García de Medrano.

Approval of García de Medrano's doctrinal reform by Philip III of Spain

Coat of arms of Philip III of Spain.

In 1605, the crown compiled and published García's Compilation of the Chapter Laws of the Order of Knighthood of Santiago of the Sword, Compiled and arranged by Licenciado Don García de Medrano, of the Royal Council of Justice, a monumental legal and institutional work for the Order of Santiago. This compilation, printed in Valladolid by Luys Sánchez, was part of a broader reform initiative undertaken between 1603 and 1609 to update and reissue the legal codes of Spain’s military orders, including Santiago, Calatrava, and Alcántara.

Badge of the Order of Santiago at the Walters Museum, 17th century. This badge was designed after the reforms of García de Medrano y Castejón, embodying the Spanish tradition that green stones were tied to divine order and healing.

In compliance with the order of the Chapter, García de Medrano y Castejón reviewed, improved, and updated all the laws of Santiago and compiled it into a legal treatise:

...with great care and diligence, removing those that were no longer necessary, and in others, according to the changing times, increased the penalties for offenders.

The doctrinal reforms carried out by García de Medrano, ratified by Philip III as royal law, updated and improved the laws and statutes governing the Order of Santiago. In his decree, the king explained his intentions:

To maintain as we do in their administration, care of the spiritual and temporal; and being as they are Religious Orders...it is of greater service to our Lord to preserve them in their good state and strive for them to grow in virtue and religion...

This decree represents one of the clearest instances in which medrar was explicitly codified into law, as Philip III transformed the principle of growth (medrar) in virtue and the precept of religion into a binding statutory obligation for the Order of Santiago. King Philip III of Spain, invoking his Apostolic authority as perpetual administrator of the Order of Santiago, decreed that García de Medrano's newly corrected Leyes Capitulares (1605) be observed throughout the kingdom.

Medrano analyzed 70 titles, which were developed into various laws and chapters. Philip III of Spain explained in his royal decree:

Due to the changes of time, the laws needed to be reformed and re-established or ordained anew, dividing what had been corrected and ordained into two books to be printed: one being the book of the Rule and Establishments of said Order, which has already been printed and is to be followed and executed as ordered; and the other being the book of the Capitular Laws, particularly necessary for the good administration and governance of the provinces of this Order, and their districts and jurisdictions.

As the final stage of this reform, García de Medrano's Leyes Capitulares (1605) were formally compiled and published in 1605 to guide just governance and delegated authority.

King Philip III of Spain himself confirms this reform in the same royal decree:

And so that all may know the intent and authority behind it: I confirm and approve all the capitular laws in this volume, whether newly made or amended by the General Chapter, and I command all Priors, Commanders, Treces, governors, magistrates, and good men of the towns of the Order to observe and execute them precisely as written, including all corrections and declarations entered therein. My Council of the Orders shall ensure their fulfillment and enforce them in judgment.

The decree was issued in Valladolid on 15 January 1605, authenticated by Francisco González de Heredia, and verified by Gregorio de Tapia on 4 February for delivery to the Council of the Orders.

Both García de Medrano and King Philip III referred to "the changing times" as the basis for reforming the laws of the Order of Santiago. This shared reasoning indicates a coordinated effort between the monarchy and its legal advisors to adapt institutional governance to new historical and political conditions. The use of identical language affirms that the legal reforms were formally grounded in a recognized need to update the statutes in line with contemporary realities, reinforcing the authority of the Crown and the doctrinal role of the Medrano family in structuring delegated rule.

García de Medrano codified the doctrine, Philip III ratified it in law, and Lerma, the first valido and a knight of Santiago, governed by it. As a Knight of Santiago, he adopted García's legal doctrine to formalize delegated rule. The statutes transformed the Order of Santiago into a juridical instrument for legitimizing royal authority and rewarding loyal service, embedding the Doctrine of Medrano into the institutional foundation of the Spanish empire. These reforms elevated medrar into law, uniting religion, justice, merit, and virtue as precepts of rightful governance. Lerma relied on this structure to formalize medrar through principled patronage and proximity to virtuous officials. This distinguished medrar as legitimate advancement from the opportunism of its antithesis: medro, corrupt ambition led by vice.

1605 Papal and Royal Renewal of the Orders of St. John and Santiago

Painting of Pope Paul V, who personally commissioned Tomás Fernández de Medrano and sanctioned his 1605 legal brief defending and confirming the Order of Saint John's privileges.

In 1605, Tomás and the legal reforms of García de Medrano y Castejón, Knight of Santiago, acted in concert, one under papal sanction and the other under royal decree, to reform and defend the sacred Orders of Christendom. In the 17th century, the family's religious and diplomatic role was strengthened through Tomás Fernández de Medrano, a lay knight of the Order of Saint John. For certain hereditary claims shared by the House of Medrano, Tomás Fernández de Medrano was personally granted the habit of St. John by Pope Clement VIII in 1593.

In 1605, Tomás issued a papally sanctioned legal brief for Pope Paul V. The work, titled Brief of Our Most Holy Father Pope Paul V confirming the privileges of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, was printed in Rome and praised by King Philip III of Spain. Their combined works united spiritual and temporal authority, aligning the governance of the Orders of St. John and Santiago with a legal form of advancement (medrar), service, merit and virtue. Military orders acted as intermediaries in disputes among European powers, using their religious authority and political neutrality to facilitate negotiations and promote peace. Through their diplomatic influence and strategic alliances, these Orders helped shape the balance of power in medieval Europe and left a lasting impact on its political development.

In the first year of Paul V's pontificate, a major confrontation erupted between the papacy and the Republic of Venice. Between 1602 and 1605, Venice had enacted laws limiting ecclesiastical property and challenging clerical immunity. When Venetian authorities imprisoned two clerics accused of common crimes and refused to hand them over to the Church, Paul V treated this as a direct violation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and canon law. It was in this same period, at the beginning of Paul V's pontificate and in the midst of these jurisdictional conflicts, that he personally chose Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Knight of St. John, to produce a legal brief in 1605 confirming the privileges of the Order of Saint John, printed in Rome with papal sanction. In May 1606 Pope Paul V issued an interdict against the entire Venetian Republic, leading to an international diplomatic crisis involving Spain and France.

The matter touched directly on the legal standing of religious orders, their property, their privileges, and their exemption from civil courts. The resolution was achieved only through the intervention and mediation of Henry IV of France, who negotiated between Venice, Spain, and the papacy to bring the crisis to an end. The dispute was resolved only in April 1607, after prolonged negotiations and the lifting of the interdict. In the end, the settlement reaffirmed the principle that no citizen was exempt from the ordinary processes of law.

The Knights of St. John (Knights Hospitaller), in particular, held large estates throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, deriving income from agriculture, commerce, and rents. Their fortified bases on Rhodes and later Malta allowed them to defend key maritime routes and to control much of the trade flowing from the eastern Mediterranean, strengthening their economic and political influence. Military orders such as the Order of St. John and the Order of Santiago played an important role in shaping the medieval European economy. Through land grants, donations, and alliances with monarchs and noble families, these institutions accumulated extensive wealth and property.

The Knights of Santiago played a central role in the Reconquista, supporting Spanish monarchs in consolidating Christian rule across the Iberian Peninsula. The Order of Santiago, while military and religious in form, served as a major financial institution within Spain. It provided loans to the Crown, funded the Reconquista, and received land in return. Unlike broader European orders like the Hospitallers, its focus remained within Iberia, tying its wealth and governance directly to the monarchy. This made García de Medrano y Castejón's legal reforms central to structuring not only chivalric conduct but also the financial and territorial foundations of royal authority.

A Universal Doctrine of Medrano

Doctrinal inheritance

Lands of the Spanish Habsburg Empire in 1598 following the incorporation of the Portuguese Empire, illustrating the scope of the Doctrine of Medrano within imperial governance.

Though widely institutionalized during the Habsburg period, the Doctrine of Medrano did not originate there. It was first embodied in the etymology and roles of the House of Medrano for centuries, in multiple kingdoms, then codified and transmitted by the family, building on earlier systems of noble governance and classical political philosophy. This tradition drew directly from classical, historical, and contemporary models, incorporating influences from ancient and sacred scripture, along with traditions, principles, and precepts from:

• Castilians
• Navarrese
• Egyptians
• Moors
• Persians
• Romans
• Greeks, and others.

Juan Martínez de Medrano: Delegated Authority and Medrar in the Kingdom of Navarre (1309–1330)

As regent, Juan Martínez de Medrano used his family seal for nearly a year to represent the Kingdom of Navarre, exercising sovereign authority in a realm that had no king. In the absence of a king, the Medrano seal rose to sovereign status, becoming the visible expression of medrar in the kingdom of Navarre.

274 years before the República Mista, its doctrine was embodied in Juan Martínez de Medrano, ricohombre of Navarre, baron of Sartaguda and Arróniz, alcaide of Viana, judge of the Navarrese Cortés, and regent of the Kingdom of Navarre during the Capetian-interregnum of 1328–1329.

The House of Medrano is immortalized in Francisco de Paula Van Halen's 1864 depiction of the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212, where Medrano's hollow cross fluery shield on a gules field is prominently shown on a white banner among the royal military standards, underscoring the family's recognized role in one of the defining victories of medieval Spain.

In Navarre, the family's hollow cross fleury featured on Juan's seal had long flown on the Medrano banner, most famously in the retinue of Sancho VII of Navarre and Alfonso VIII of Castile at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (1212) under Pedro González de Medrano, his great-grandfather, and Martin López de Medrano, the latter representing the Castilian branch. Its reappearance signified continuity of arms and the transmission of sovereign authority from battlefield to regency. The cross later appeared on Tomás Fernández de Medrano's coat of arms in the República Mista, affirming its enduring heraldic use. The Medrano family's role across centuries reveals a consistent model of medrar embedded in delegated governance combining military defense, ecclesiastical authority, and service to the crown. Their affiliation with the Orders of Saint John, Calatrava and Santiago formed a durable network of institutional stewardship.

Following the death of King Charles IV of France, his succession was disputed. Juan was elected by the Estates of Navarre to exercise delegated authority and oversee the succession of Joan II of Navarre and Philip of Évreux. He governed with the consent of towns, knights, and barons, and used the Medrano family seal as a sovereign representation of the kingdom.

Before his regency, Juan Martínez de Medrano had already emerged as a national figure of high political standing in the Capet royal court. Invested as ricohombre under King Louis X of France and Navarre shortly before 1309, he represented the highest noble rank in the kingdom of Navarre under Capet rule. On 30 September 1319, he traveled to Paris with five other nobles to witness the oath of King Philip V of France and Navarre, acting as a representative of the ricoshombres and a constitutional delegate of the Navarrese estates. This role affirmed his status not only as a frontier lord, but as a political and legal intermediary between Capetian sovereignty and Navarrese autonomy, a foundational figure in the doctrine of delegated authority that would later be codified in the República Mista.

During his eleven-month regency, Juan reorganized governance, redefined symbols, and exercised full royal prerogatives of regalia, effectively serving as head of state in a kingdom without a king. He imposed loyalty oaths, confirmed succession, restructured judicial posts, reformed taxation, and represented Navarre diplomatically in negotiations with France and Rome. His regency anticipated the eight royal prerogatives of regalia later codified by Tomás in his República Mista (1602).

This was reinforced in 1330, when Juan and his son Álvaro Díaz de Medrano reformed the Fuero General of Navarre, joining preservation with innovation in law. Together, these acts anticipated by nearly three centuries the doctrine later systematized by Tomás Fernández de Medrano. On 10 September 1330, Juan Martínez de Medrano, together with his son Álvaro Díaz de Medrano, presided over the Amejoramiento of the Fuero General of Navarre, a 34-chapter reform enacted in the Cortes of Pamplona under King Philip de Évreux.

As judge of the Cortes, Medrano corrected errors, repealed obsolete laws, and introduced provisions on testimony, pledge law (prenda), taxation of Jews and Muslims, hereditary succession, and ecclesiastical military service. These reforms modernized the law while preserving continuity of institutions. The Amejoramiento reaffirmed the king's oath to uphold the fueros, placed the monarchy under their covenant, and repealed four charters of the Fuero Viejo. Together, Juan's regency and legal reforms embodied the earliest forms of the Doctrine of Medrano, anticipating by nearly three centuries its formal articulation in República Mista.

Arched doorway at the Palace of Velaz de Medrano, ancestral seat of the Vélaz de Medrano family in Igúzquiza, a historic lordship in the Kingdom of Navarre linked to the descendants of Juan Martínez de Medrano, regent of Navarre (1328–1329).

Juan Martínez de Medrano's descendants virtuously advanced (medrar) for generations. In 1328, the regent's son and heir Juan Vélaz de Medrano, a ricohombre of Navarre, appeared as the Alcaide of the Tower of Viana. He received an emolument of 35 pounds. He married Bona de Almoravid, daughter of a ricohombre, and was the father of Alvar Díaz de Medrano y Almoravid, Lord of Igúzquiza. In 1380, the regent's grandson Alvar Diaz de Medrano y Almoravid became the Alcaide of Monjardín Castle, and the following two years he was listed among the King's Mesnaderos.

Alvar became a ricohombre of Navarre and inherited the ancient title Lord of Igúzquiza as Head of the ancient House of Medrano in Navarre and of the Castle of Vélaz de Medrano. This ancestral seat in the lordship of Igúzquiza was known as a palacio de cabo de armería in the Kingdom of Navarre, responsible for safeguarding the Merindad of Estella and the routes leading from Álava and Logroño, while defending the valley of Santesteban de la Solana. The lords of Igúzquiza were among the 74 nobles who held a seat in the Noble Estate of the Courts of Navarre, a distinguished assembly of the ancient nobility. In 1580, the regents direct descendant Juan Vélaz de Medrano y Mauleon, lord of Igúzquiza and the mayorazgo of Vélaz de Medrano, and a descendant of the Kings of Navarre, was recognized as the eldest among the nobility and was therefore summoned to the Noble Estate of the Courts of Navarre.

Tomas Fernández de Medrano: Ecclesiastical Patronage, False Religion, Sedition, and the Collapse of Political Order

Pendón de San Juan raised in the House of Medrano's lordship of Fuenmayor, a symbol of the early Knights Hospitaller under the patronage of Maria Ramírez de Medrano, Lady of Fuenmayor.

From the 11th century onward, the House of Medrano held a central role in the governance of the western frontier of Navarre and La Rioja, where military service, religious patronage, and political authority frequently overlapped. Their legacy spans landholding, monastic patronage, and service to both crown and Church, with longstanding ties to the Camino de Santiago, the Franciscans and the Order of Saint John. The family's legacy across La Rioja and Navarre was territorial, sacramental and juridical, aligned with the doctrine later articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano as a model of ministerial virtue and institutional order. By the mid-11th century, the family held lands along key routes between Nájera and Entrena, participating in the political and religious structure of the kingdom.

The main line of the lineage, the Vélaz de Medrano family in Igúzquiza, oversaw the defense of the Merindad of Estella, maintaining castles at Igúzquiza and Monjardín after Estella's foundation in 1090. These fortresses guarded routes from Álava and Logroño. The ancestral Palace of Vélaz de Medrano included an armory and a water conduit from Montejurra, built to supply the castle and a Hospitaller hospital at Cuesta del Hospital, where archaeological remains survive.

This integration of military and spiritual stewardship was formally articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in his 1602 treatise República Mista. He advanced the principle that the legitimacy of princely authority is fundamentally tied to the preservation of the Catholic religion within a ruler's dominion.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano teaches that false religion produces not only spiritual corruption but also political disorder. He explains that sectarian movements provide shelter for criminals, rebels, and factions that undermine lawful authority. According to Tomás, this connection between false religion and sedition is natural and inevitable.

He cites Aristotle's statement in Politics:

Et metus seditiones movent, tam enim qui fecerunt iniurias metuentes poenam, quam ii qui infens expectant, praevenire volentes, priusquam ea inferatur. ("And fear stirs up seditions, for as many commit wrongs fearing punishment as those who, expecting hostility, wish to strike first before it is inflicted.")

Tomás interprets this to mean that fear of punishment drives some to commit new crimes, while others commit them in anticipation of future conflict. These individuals then seek refuge in sects that protect them from justice. Over time, they gather more followers: those who resent their princes, those who claim unjust treatment, and those who desire change for its own sake. Together they form a destructive coalition.

Tomás records that such groups often seize cities and fortresses, choose a leader of low origin, and establish a new republic opposed to their legitimate ruler. He refers to Münster in Westphalia, taken by Anabaptists who resisted Emperor Charles V, and to the Huguenot strongholds of La Rochelle and Montauban. He adds that Geneva in Savoy was taken by Calvinists. He asks whether such places have not become fortresses of the devil within Christendom, gathering the refuse of the world and resisting royal armies for many years.

He then recalls the biblical example of Abimelech, illegitimate son of Gideon, who became king only by gathering vagabonds and scoundrels. For Tomás, history and scripture both demonstrate that false religion becomes the refuge of rebellion.

From these examples he derives a universal principle, expressed in his own words:

A prince can be certain that if the Catholic religion is not protected and cherished as it should be in his dominion, it will be all too easy for another to take its place. And once another religion has taken hold, he cannot freely call himself lord of that province, for he will remain dependent on it all his life.

Tomás adds that when true religion is lost, impiety enters, factions multiply, and civil destruction follows. He then gives his fundamental axiom:

For if an empire lacks a strong religion, it is impossible for it to be powerful in arms. Without these two things, it must fall. But if they remain united, as they do in this Monarchy, then it will live and stand for a thousand ages.

Because religion is the foundation of political unity, Tomás states that the responsibility for preserving it belongs above all to the sovereign:

Ad quem autem ea potius quam ad Principem pertinet? Decet enim quod optimum est, ab optimo coli, quod imperat, ab imperante. ("To whom does this duty belong more than to the prince? For it is fitting that what is best be honored by the best, and that what rules be served by the ruler.")

Tomás then contrasts the durability of false religions with the far greater endurance of the true faith. If false religions held entire nations for centuries, he reasons, then the Catholic faith, which originates from God and is pleasing to Him, possesses even greater power to sustain kingdoms. He teaches that Catholics are bound by gratitude for the divine gifts that sustain all people. According to Medrano, this gratitude entails love, service, reverence, and obedience to God in proportion to the gifts received, for divine law is the source and mother of all virtues.

Independence from the Prior of Castile: Papal Authority and Hereditary Jurisdiction

The portico and windows of the Hospital of San Juan de Acre, now at the cemetery in Navarrete, built by her son, Martín de Baztán y Medrano, Bishop of Osma.

As La Rioja became a major thoroughfare for pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago, towns such as Entrena, Medrano, Fuenmayor, and Navarrete rose in importance. In 1185, María Ramírez de Medrano, Lady of Fuenmayor, founded the Hospital, Convent, and Commandery of San Juan de Acre in Navarrete under the Order of Saint John. A later manuscript confirms the commandery's jurisdiction over Entrena, Medrano, Fuenmayor, and Baztán. It operated with legal independence from Castilian oversight, under papal privilege affirmed by the 1113 bull Pie postulatio voluntatis.

A 1378 document confirms that María Ramírez de Medrano, Lady of Fuenmayor, founded the Hospital, Convent, and Commandery of San Juan de Acre on her own lands so that it would not depend on the Prior of Castile. Invoking the papal bull Pie postulatio voluntatis (1113), she placed it under direct papal authority, exempt from both royal and regional control. To secure this independence, she donated her estates in Logroño, Varea, and Lardero, granting the hospital the right to take revenues from the bailiwick of Logroño if the Prior of Castile failed to respect its autonomy.

This established an independent Hospitaller jurisdiction governed by divine rather than temporal law, anticipating the precepts later defined in the República Mista in 1602 and reflected again in Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s 1605 legal defense of the Order of St. John's privileges at the request of Pope Clement VIII, in which he acted formally as a Knight of the Order.

Philip IV of France and Navarre, grandson of Saint Louis IX, aided María Ramírez de Medrano's Hospital of San Juan de Acre in 1292 with ecclesiastical funds, continuing the Capetian model of kingship that Tomás Fernández de Medrano cites: rulers must defend and sustain the Church.

In 1292, King Philip IV of France and Navarre intervened directly in financial matters concerning the hospital, convent, and commandery of San Juan de Acre in Navarrete founded by María Ramírez de Medrano. His request for ecclesiastical funds from clergy beyond the Ebro confirms both Capetian patronage and financial donations to María's hospital and the Medrano family's integration into this royal network. The hospital, operating under the Order of Saint John, and the water conduit of Vélaz de Medrano supporting a hospital of St. John, both sustained by hereditary Medrano patronage, became an intersection of dynastic power, ecclesiastical law, and doctrinal stewardship, an early manifestation of the Medrano grammar of medrar.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano illustrates how true monarchy is inseparable from the protection of the Catholic religion. He presents exemplary rulers to demonstrate how princely virtue is measured by their reverence for the Church. He recounts his own sovereign, noting that King Philip III offered a model of youthful holiness and valor comparable to Saint Ferdinand. Although Pope Clement VIII granted Philip permission to use the immense silver wealth of church treasuries, Tomás emphasizes that the king refused to exercise this privilege, choosing instead to safeguard what was sacred.

He next cites Louis IX of France, son of Blanca of Castile, whose piety was so profound that he refused to interfere in Church jurisdiction. When the Pope granted him a dispensation to appoint bishops, Louis rejected the privilege. Tomás records his words, originally in Latin:

"I praise you for having diligently pursued my affairs. I do not approve, however, of what you obtained for me from the Pope. For I understand with what great danger to my soul and to my kingdom I would undertake it."

Louis condemned the privilege as a danger to both his soul and his kingdom and burned the papal bulls rather than accept them.

Tomás then contrasts him with Francis I of France, who also received this privilege from Pope Leo X. Though Francis understood the harm it would cause, he lacked Louis's firmness and accepted it reluctantly, saying:

"Conscientia animum verberat... Take it; this is what will bring ruin to me and my successors."

Francis lamented that the bull would bring ruin to him and his successors. Tomás notes that this prophecy was fulfilled in the downfall of Francis's house.

He then establishes the principle that kings must show favor to the Church, drawing on Maccabees:

Cum sancta civitas habitaretur in omni pace, leges etiam adhuc optime custodirentur propter Oniae Pontificis pietatem. ("When the holy city was inhabited in complete peace, the laws were also still diligently observed on account of the piety of Onias the High Priest.")

Peace in the holy city, he writes, flowed directly from the piety of the high priest, and kings responded by adorning the temple with their greatest gifts. Seleucus, King of Asia, even supported the temple sacrifices from his own income. Tomás recalls Isaiah:

Erunt Reges nutritii tui, et reginae nutrices tuae. ("Kings shall be your foster fathers, and queens your nursing mothers.")

And again:

Edificabunt filii peregrinorum muros tuos, et reges eorum ministrabunt tibi. ("The sons of strangers shall build your walls, and their kings shall minister to you.")

These passages confirm that kings serve as guardians and sustainers of the Church. Tomás then cites Saint Augustine, who taught that Christian rulers must desire that the Church live in peace under their governance. He recalls Pope Leo I, who wrote to the Emperor Leo:

Debes Imperator incunctanter aduertere, regiam potestatem tibi non solum ad mundi regimen sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. ("You, Emperor, must be fully mindful that royal power has been given to you not only for the governance of the world but especially for the protection of the Church.")

The emperor, Tomás explains, must recognize that royal authority was granted not only to rule the world but specifically to defend the Church, repress the wicked, uphold just order, remove disturbances, and restore peace.

He recalled how Saint Isidore of Seville (the Holy Pontiff of Seville), a "Gothic prince and a glorious saint, addressed princes" with these words:

pes saeculi Deo debere se rationem reddere propter Ecclesiam quam a Christo tuendam suscipiunt. ("Let the princes of this world understand that they owe God an account for the Church which they receive from Christ to protect.")

Secular rulers, Tomás writes, will give an account to God for the Church entrusted to them. If it is strengthened by faithful princes, God will reward them. If it is harmed through negligence, He will demand a strict reckoning. For Tomás Fernández de Medrano, these authorities prove that Catholic kings are obligated to defend, preserve, and spread the Catholic Church. Anything less would betray both divine law and the nature of rightful monarchy.

Ecclesiastical patronage, especially during the Spanish Renaissance, notably unknown to historiography, was one of the greatest demonstrations of duty, supremacy and distinction that the nobility of the time could exercise. The appropriation of patronage afterwards was not as common. In 1608, the nuns of St. John at the convent of San Juan de Acre in Salinas de Añana, founded by Medrano ancestors, named Tomás and his wife, Isabel de Sandoval, as hereditary patrons, securing the restoration of the church.

The nuns of St. John wrote in 1608:

...and seeing that the religion of Saint John and the Grand Priors have completely abandoned the protection of this said convent of San Juan de Acre and that the church, house and walls of it have fallen (due to age and antiquity), with the help and favor of their relatives, they have made the said church of stone again...

Fulfilling his obligations to support the convent with sacrifices from their own income, Medrano and his wife endowed the convent with generous donations and were granted burial rights in the side chapel, where they have their coat of arms.

Miracle and Monarchy: Medrano Patronage of the Franciscan Order (1211–1706)

Cross fleury shield of the House of Medrano above the doorway of the castle of Aguas Mansas in Agoncillo, La Rioja

From the early 13th century onward, the House of Medrano maintained a profound alliance with the Franciscan Order, shaping both its spiritual institutions and their political function within the Crown of Castile. According to longstanding tradition, Saint Francis of Assisi passed through Agoncillo in 1211, during the lordship of the Medrano family. There, the saint healed the ailing son and heir of the Medranos, securing the lineage and preserving the lordship of Agoncillo. In gratitude, the family personally granted land and a tower to Saint Francis near the Ebro River in Logroño, enabling the construction of the first Franciscan convent in Spain.

This act of patronage initiated an enduring institutional bond. In the 14th century, Diego López de Medrano, Lord of Agoncillo and royal High Steward under John I of Castile, formalized this connection by founding a perpetual chaplaincy at the convent of San Francisco in Logroño, which became the dynastic burial site of the Medrano lords of Agoncillo.

Over the following centuries, the Medrano family retained perpetual patronage of the convent, which was granted royal privileges, tax exemptions, and jurisdictional autonomy. The Cofradía de la Santa Vera Cruz was founded within the convent in 1537, reflecting the Medrano role in institutional religious development.

Catalina de Medrano's Royal Convent of San Francisco in Atienza

In the early 16th century, the Medrano family's Franciscan patronage extended to the Royal Convent of San Francisco in Atienza, restored and expanded in 1507 by Catalina de Medrano y Bravo de Lagunas, daughter of Diego López de Medrano y Vergara and the sister of Luisa de Medrano. Under the regency of Cardinal Ximénez de Cisneros, this convent was formally declared a Royal Convent, integrating it into the political structure of Atienza.

Her brother Garcí Bravo de Medrano was the patron of her convent. The Guardian of the convent received the rank of Dean Regidor, with two votes in the municipal council and the right to name a substitute representative. These privileges demonstrated the fusion of ecclesiastical authority, municipal governance, and noble patronage. Catalina’s royal chapel became an honored site for the Spanish monarchy, visited by Philip II in 1592, Philip III, Philip IV, and Philip V in 1706 during a time of unrest.

Through centuries of continued royal visits and privileges, the Franciscan convents of Logroño and Atienza became both spiritual strongholds and political landmarks, supported by the Crown, sustained by the Franciscan Order, and shaped by the doctrine and patronage of the Medrano family. Together, they reflect a unified model of divine monarchy, dynastic stewardship, and Franciscan theology in early modern Spain.

Religion as the Foundation of Law and Governance

Tomás Fernández de Medrano placed religion at the absolute foundation of political legitimacy. In República Mista (1602), he presents it not as a cultural choice but as a universal condition for all societies, without which no lawful order can stand. Tomás Fernández de Medrano begins by placing God at the origin and end of all things. He teaches that:

Rulers must acknowledge the Supreme Majesty in obedience and reverence, recognizing that they are His creatures and subject to His laws.

Their conduct becomes formative for the people, for he writes that the example of faith set by rulers becomes:

the surest path to preserving, expanding, and fortifying the realms and borders of their kingdoms and empires.

He explains that in everything composed of matter and form there is a natural structure of command and obedience, and that even in inanimate things there is order. The lower world obeys the higher as a secondary cause. From heavenly nature flows a governing force described differently by philosophers. Tomás refers to:

a certain power which Plato calls the Soul, and other philosophers the Spirit of the universe.

He notes the hierarchy in creation: the sun as king among the stars, the moon as queen over moist things, fire and air as active elements, water and earth as passive. Among birds the eagle has precedence, among irrational animals the lion, in the sea the whale, and in lakes and ponds the pike. Man stands above all creatures. Within man the soul commands the body, and understanding and reason govern desire and appetite. Within the family the head of household governs its members.

A city formed by many families exists within a similar structure of command and obedience.

Tomás then describes provinces where towns and villages lack walls or moats, where people do not pursue letters and live without a king, and other places where men do not live in houses, do not use currency, and subsist on raw meat. Yet even among these, he writes:

there is not one that lives without some specific order, arrangement, and agreement, nor without laws and customs to which they voluntarily submit, nor without some awareness of the divine.

He adds that such peoples still rely on prayers and sacrifices to fulfill their desires, even when these practices are false or misguided.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano teaches that divine justice and human governance are inseparable, stating:

Divine justice and human governance are so closely intertwined that one cannot exist among men without the other.

He supports this with authorities. Plutarch held that:

A city might sooner do without the sun that illuminates and gives it life, than without some establishment of law or some belief that God exists and upholds creation after bringing it into being.

Sallust, addressing Caesar, affirmed that:

It is certain to me that the lives of all mortals are watched over by divine will, and that neither good nor evil is done without meaning, but that, by the natural order, rewards follow the good and punishment the wicked.

Tomás explains that when people abandoned a barbaric and rustic life to form civil society, their first act was to establish a place of worship. He identifies religion as the principal foundation of republics, of the enforcement of laws, of obedience to councils and magistrates, of respect for rulers, of civic goodwill, and of justice.

In the 1791 painting Lycurgus of Sparta by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier, Lycurgus hands over the kingship to a newly born child.

He notes that Lycurgus, Numa Pompilius, Solon, and Deucalion reformed their respective peoples by leading them to devotion through prayers, sacrifices, oracles, and prophecies, instilling fear and hope and a sense of the divine. Citing Polybius, he records that the Romans had nothing more valuable for expanding their empire and securing the glory of their achievements than religion. Cicero defined religion as that which reverently serves divine worship through ceremony. Others described it as the science of divine things and the discernment of what to seek and avoid. Philo called it "the service and clear devotion to God." Servius traced the term to re-ligando, meaning:

"to bind us with the bond of piety, uniting us with God."

Aristotle regarded religion as fitting for cities and taught that a prince must be esteemed as religious and reverent toward God, for subjects more easily bear hardships imposed by rulers they believe to be favored by the gods. He also held that religion is natural to man, shown by the instinctive appeal to God in danger or decision. Man, he said, was born to serve God with internal devotion in prayers and thanksgiving, and external devotion in rites and gestures.

Cain and Abel. Plaster cast after bronze (1425–1438) by Jacopo Della Quercia (1374–1438), Bologna, Italy. National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh

Tomás recalls that from the beginning Cain and Abel offered sacrifices in religious devotion, and Enosh was the first to establish the method of invoking God. After the flood, various nations received religious laws from Mercury and King Menelaus, Melissus, Faunus and Janus, Numa, Moses and Aaron, and Orpheus. He notes the account that Cadmus, son of Agenor, brought from Phoenicia the mysteries and solemnities of the gods, including consecrated statues, hymns, processions, and ceremonies.

He quotes Cicero’s statement:

All are moved by religion and believe that they must diligently worship and uphold the ancestral gods they inherited from their ancestors.

Eusebius Pamphilus affirmed that no nation, however barbarous or savage, lacked some spark of religion and some form of divine worship. Cicero added that observing the heavens leads one to sense the existence of gods, for the order and harmony of the world show that such perfection could not arise by chance.

Macrobius recorded Egyptian worship and sacrificial practices. Tomás notes how various peoples diverted this impulse into idolatry:

The people of Atlantis, not wanting to appear less wise, worshiped the sky, calling it the father of forty-eight children (representing celestial figures) and attributing similar divinity to Ops, his wife (known as Earth), as well as to their daughters, Basilea and Pandora.

He notes the Phoenicians worshiped winds and air; the people of Atlantis worshiped the sky and earth; the Phrygians honored Atlas for his astrological knowledge.

He concludes with the affirmation:

But let that God be yours, the ruler of all things, who is immortal, eternal, unchanging, and imperishable.

Concerning Roman religion, he cites Cicero's testimony before the pontiffs that the preservation of the republic depended on the wise interpretation of divine rites in governing the state:

"With so many things institutedand discovered by our ancestors under divine inspiration, nothing is more admirable than this: that you, pontiffs, preserve the republic by wisely interpreting the religious rites of the immortal gods while steering the state’s governance."

Tomás states that Virgil often attributes piety to Aeneas, especially his devotion to the Penates, whom he cared for even more than his own safety when leaving his homeland, adding: Omnia prospera eueniunt colentibus Deos, aduersa spernentibus, meaning "All good things come to those who honor the gods; adversities befall those who disregard them."

By addressing these pillars in his own words, Tomás makes clear that the doctrine he presents does not emerge from temporary political fashion, but from precepts as constant as the movement of the heavens. Religion is not merely one component of governance, it is the source from which law, justice, and rightful ascent flow.

A Universal Monarchy in the Spanish Empire

The heraldic royal crown of Spain, a symbol of divine order and continuity in the Spanish Empire.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano presents a structured defense of monarchy as the most natural and most stable form of political order. He begins by noting that many strong arguments have been advanced in favor of the kingdom and the monarchical form, supported by numerous reputable thinkers across history. For Tomás, these ancient authorities sufficiently establish the precept that rule should be unified.

He cites Aristotle, who held that:

"A multitude of rulers is not good; therefore, let there be one Prince, one body of rule, governed by one mind."

Tomás affirms that the jurists and legal scholars continued this same line of reasoning, teaching that:

When the homeland is often discordant, there is no other remedy but for it to be governed by one.

He then records the judgment of the Gloss, which declared:

"Too many men slow down assigned tasks."

He also invokes an unnamed author who argued that the governance of one corresponds to the order of nature. From this, Tomás draws the parallel that in the universe there is a single God, creator and governor of all, expressed in the ancient maxim Rex Deus quifpiam humanus est:

The governance of one represents the order of nature, by which all things are reduced to a primary ruling principle, just as all celestial orbs and moving things are ordered by the prime mover. Hence, we observe in the universe a single God, creator and governor of all.

Likewise, he teaches that in the natural world there is one queen among the bees, one shepherd over the flock, and therefore, he concludes, nothing is more fitting for the preservation of peace and the endurance of all things than the concentration of rule in one sovereign.

Pharaoh Amenhotep II making an offering to the gods - Eighteenth Dynasty - Egyptological Museum of Turin.

Tomás states that the government of a kingdom is excellent when the king is irreproachable, like the one "that God has given us," or like the virtuous kings of ancient Egypt, who preserved their dignity through constancy in virtue. He cites their admonition to new rulers:

The government of a Kingdom is excellent if all Kings were like the one that God has given us (who is irreproachable) or like those of the ancient Egyptians, who long preserved their virtue, through which they earned their dignity without straying from it, keeping it always pure and clean. "They have appointed you as leader; do not exalt yourself, but be among them as one of their own," mindful that if the King is lord of all, he is also, with all, a servant of God.

He explains that the virtue of the ancient Egyptian monarchy rested on strict discipline, especially in matters of taxation, and on their rule that kings should employ only noble youths of at least twenty years of age, thoroughly trained in all the sciences. This was to ensure that a king, influenced by the virtue of those around him, would avoid falling into reprehensible conduct. Tomás adds a warning that nothing corrupts princes more quickly than depraved servants who feed their disordered desires, for:

He who associates with the wicked either suffers ill or learns something wicked.

Tomás then describes the model of royal daily governance in Ancient Egypt. The king would rise early, and before doing anything else, give audience and receive letters and petitions so that urgent matters would be resolved and all business guided by order and reason. After this, he would go to the Temple to make sacrifice to the gods. There, the prelate and chief priest would publicly proclaim, before the people, the virtues that shone in the king, affirming the maxim:

"Virtue praised grows."

Turning to the king, the priest would exhort him to uphold religion, practice humanity, and display himself to all as temperate, just, magnanimous, truthful, generous, and moderate in his desires. He would be urged to punish wrongdoers with penalties more lenient than their crimes deserved and to reward subjects with gifts exceeding their merits.

After this ceremony, the priest would instruct the people to live pleasingly to the gods, reminding them:

"Food and drink are not the cause of the kingdom, but justice," and he would present examples of excellent deeds of the ancient practitioners of virtue.

Joseph presenting his father and brethren before Pharaoh (1896). A biblical example of a just king guided by a righteous counselor, illustrating the form of virtuous Egyptian kingship invoked by Medrano in his definition of justice and tyranny.

Tomás then records the explanation given to the people concerning the difference between a tyrant and a just king. The teaching proceeds in the following excerpt:

The tyrant does not care for piety, justice, or faith; rather, he does everything for his own interest, or out of vengeance or pleasure; but the just King conforms entirely with the laws and the will of the gods. The just King seeks to enrich his subjects; the tyrant to ruin them. One values the love of the people; the other, fear. The King enjoys a state of peace; the tyrant lives in perpetual fear. One is honored in life and mourned in death; the other is scorned in death and reviled in life.

According to Medrano, the Egyptians taught that the just king forgives personal injuries yet avenges public ones, protects the honor of maidens and virtuous women, welcomes correction from serious and virtuous men, and burdens his subjects only with what is necessary for the common good.

The tyrant inverts each of these traits: he cruelly avenges his own injuries while forgiving public harms, violates chastity rather than guarding it, rejects counsel that might reform him, and drains his subjects to satisfy his appetites. Through these paired oppositions, the excerpt presents tyranny as the total corruption of princely office, and justice as the harmonious alignment of rule with divine law.

After hearing these teachings, the Egyptian assembly would disperse to attend to their duties. Tomás explains a universal agreement:

"All agree that the kingdom is, among divine and human goods, the greatest, most august, and most highly to be aspired to."

For Medrano, governance is not an arbitrary human arrangement but an extension of natural law, as inevitable as planetary motion. According to Tomás Fernández de Medrano, religion is not merely a social construct but a universal condition, preceding and enabling laws, justice, and obedience.

Altar Q in Copán. The monument depicts 16 Maya kings in dynastic succession, a symbol of divine order and continuity in the Maya civilization.

Historical examples of divine kingship such as those presented by the University College London and the University of Colorado demonstrate how political theology among the Maya and Egyptians arose as an organic response to divine order, sacred law, and ritual obligation.

According to a 2013 monograph published by the Society of Biblical Literature, the titulary system of ancient Egyptian kingship provides a parallel articulation of divine authority. Among the five royal names employed by pharaohs, the Nswt-bjtj (commonly translated as "He of the Sedge and Bee") denoted the dual nature of kingship. First attested under King Den of the First Dynasty, the title distinguished between nswt, referring to the enduring institution of sacred rule, and bjtj, identifying the temporal holder of that office.

Paired with the functions of the Pharaoh, this formula encapsulated a political theology in which the king served as both mortal administrator and eternal representative of divine order, integrating territorial unity with religious legitimacy. Its structure reflects the same logic found in the Doctrine of Medrano, in which lawful authority is defined by service to a transcendent moral and political order.

Within this universal tradition, codified in República Mista (1602), the Doctrine of Medrano articulates a system of delegated authority and divine kingship shaped not solely by inheritance or power, but by the sovereign's ability to reflect and embody the virtues cultivated within a nobility or society committed to service, justice, and order.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano on Obedience and Divine Judgment

Tomás explains that even the Arian kings Teodorico, Atalarico, and others were publicly revered by Christians and Catholics. The bishops and prelates of that age, including Popes such as John I and Boniface, honored them, sometimes out of necessity. In those times neither clergy nor faithful possessed temporal strength to oppose such rulers. The holy fathers refrained from criticizing the princes of their own age while they lived and spoke only after their deaths to correct the customs of the living.

Tomás cites Saint Hilary, who defended the freedom to speak truth with four sentences placed by Tomás in Latin: Non erat temeritas sed fides. Non in consideratio sed ratio. Non furor sed fiducia. Non contumelia sed veritas. He explains that these words teach that free speech in defense of truth was:

Not rashness, but faith. Not inconsideration, but reason. Not fury, but confidence. Not insult, but truth.

Tomás then asks what obligation binds Catholics who live under just, humane, and Christian rulers, if even pagans, heretics, and tyrants were treated with respect. From many examples he shows the deep duty of subjects to submit to their princes even if rulers seize property, impose unbearable taxes, or afflict their people in many ways. However harsh these acts may appear, subjects must recall the offenses committed daily against the divine majesty and understand that rulers may be appointed as scourges for human faults. Tomás cites Hosea: Dabo tibi Regem in furore meo ("I will give you a king in my anger.")

He instructs that these rulers must be borne patiently, for they are given by the hand of one who cannot err. Subjects must also pray humbly for divine help, for God alone governs the hearts of kings and shapes realms and empires as he wills. Tomás then quotes Job 5:17–18 with the Latin Increpationem ergo Domini ne reprobes.

Do not despise the correction of the Lord, for he wounds and heals. He strikes, and his hand will heal.

He continues that these trials, sent from Heaven, afflict no one without the consolation that the same hand that sends them will relieve them at the appointed time.

Citing Psalm 82, Deus stetit in Synagoga deorum ("God stands in the assembly of gods"), he explains that God stands in the assembly of rulers and councils and will judge them. He teaches that "with a single look they will fall and be confounded, not because of their greatness, which may escape our sight, but because they too will be rigorously judged, not by us, but by the Almighty." Tomás then cites Isaiah 10:1–2 with the Latin Vae qui condunt leges iniquas:

Woe to those who decree unjust laws and write oppressive statutes, who deprive the poor of justice and rob my people of their rights.

Tomás teaches that free rulers possess the authority to make and enforce laws upon all, both generally and individually. This authority contains the symbols and acts of supreme sovereignty that jurists call the Regalia. He states that the Regalia may be distilled into eight primary points, so that their lawful exercise may be better understood and obeyed. If rulers exercise these powers, either directly or through ministers to whom authority is delegated, subjects must not scorn or violate the authority of their superiors. Established by God through many decrees and testimonies, this authority must be respected and held as a source of majesty, even if at times it is administered by individuals who are unworthy and make it odious. Subjects must obey laws and ordinances without scheming or undertaking anything that undermines the dignity and authority of princes, ministers, and magistrates.

Medrano outlined a hierarchy of judgment:

It is well understood that subjects lack the authority to scrutinize the actions of their rulers. By the natural order of things, three types of matters have always existed: the works of God, the actions of rulers, and the conduct and deeds of private individuals. As for God's works, no one can penetrate His divine judgments. As for the plans and intentions of princes, private individuals cannot fully comprehend them; they must content themselves with all that pleases their ruler, always holding him in good regard.

The opening of the Sentences in a 14th-century manuscript (Free Library of Philadelphia, Lewis E 170, fol. 1r)

Citing the Sentences and Romans 14, he wrote:

Non enim est damnandus, cuius cogitatio non est aperta ("One is not to be condemned if their thoughts are not laid bare").

He warned against attributing natural misfortunes to political fault:

For it is a grave error to assume that, when any public misfortune occurs, such as famine, pestilence, fire, or widespread disease brought about by natural influences, that it is because the ruler acted against the will of the people. Such a belief stems from ignorance and popular superstition, mistaking fortuitous events for necessary outcomes, and attributing to the ruler’s actions what is, in fact, the product of natural causes.

Medrano illustrated rightful governance through Philip III’s campaign in Algiers:

Who could deny that, as we have seen in both ancient and modern times, no endeavor has been more prudently or providently undertaken than the great task now before us in Algiers? Although it is one of the most costly and challenging ventures, every part and circumstance of its undertaking, guided by wisdom, brings glory to our most illustrious king and to those close to him. It appears destined for success, even with the uncertainties of war.

He affirmed that rulers are judged by their intentions, not outcomes, and that royal authority is a divine trust. Failures do not negate righteousness if acts are guided by faith and wisdom.

The Fourth Spanish Armada (1601–1602) sent to Ireland in support of persecuted Catholics.

Medrano defended Philip III's decision to send aid to Irish Catholics through the fourth Spanish Armada:

Even at this very moment, when the world believed this monarchy to be weakened, diminished, and drained, His Majesty, driven by holy zeal, has sent forth an armada to assist the Catholics of Ireland. Should the outcome fall short of expectations, who could be blamed? And if it succeeds, who would doubt that God alone has a hand in this work?

He explained that kings are tested by God through adversity, which refines their mission and renews divine purpose. Citing Herodotus, he argued:

"There is great profit in wise counsel. For even if events turn out differently, fortune nevertheless favors a well-laid plan. But if a man takes poor counsel and luck happens to smile on him, though he may achieve his goal, it is still poor counsel." As the author and learned scholar of governance rightly tells us, what an unjust condition accompanies the matters of war! Prospera omnes sibi vendicant; adversa pœni imputantur ("All claim success in prosperity, while adversity is attributed to others").

The Medrarid Dynasty

Map of Idrisid Morocco and its neighbors, showing Beni-Medrar's kingdom, the Kingdom of Sijilmasa.

Beyond Iberia and the Americas, the medrar (medr-) root and its association with governance appear in early medieval North Africa, centuries before its formal codification in Spain. The Midrarid dynasty (Banu Midrar or Beni Medrar) ruled the Sijilmasa region of present-day Morocco, a key hub of trans-Saharan trade during the Middle Ages. Their capital became one of the most important commercial and cultural crossroads of its time, linking Mediterranean, African, and Islamic worlds under a stable and prosperous governance of rule. Two main traditions describe their origin. In the second tradition, preserved in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the founder was a smith named Midrar who fled Córdoba after the suppression of the Ribad revolt against al-Hakam I in 818 and settled at the site of Sijilmasa.

A separate account, cited in modern scholarship, places the foundation of the State of Beni Medrar earlier, around 740, during the initial waves of Amazigh settlement in the Maghreb. According to Charles Pellat, the arrival around 823/4 from Córdoba aligns with medieval sources that the dynasty lasted 160 years, and with the fact that no person named Midrar appears before that time.

This second version presents a striking image: a political figure bearing the name Midrar (Medrar), emerging from Umayyad Córdoba into North Africa, and founding a dynasty whose independence, wealth, and diplomatic maneuvering would shape Maghreb history for over a century. This North African lineage, whether through Samgu ibn Wasul or Midrar himself, shows that the name and by implication the ideals of medrar as advancement and governance was active and recognized in political leadership centuries before its Spanish literary debates or its codification in treatises written by the Medrano family.

The resonance with the House of Medrano's origin account is striking. According to early and modern sources, in c. 979 the Caliph of Córdoba asked his courtiers about the Moorish Prince Andrés Vélaz de Medrano, "¿Medra o no?" ("Does he prosper or not?"), prompting him to take the surname Medrano. Both episodes link Córdoba's political sphere to the root medrar, with one line becoming the Midrarids in North Africa and the other forming the Medrano lineage in Iberia, two distinct but contemporaneous manifestations of advancement and sovereignty expressed in a name. Beyond the Maghreb, another polity would rise centuries later, remembered as the Kingdom of Medra, extending the medr- root into a new center of governance in Central Africa.

The Kingdom of Medra

Africae Tabula Nova, 1570, a historical map showing the Kingdom of Medra, by Abraham Ortelius.

Another African polity preserved the name Medra. The toponym Medra appears on the 1570 Africae Tabula Nova, a Renaissance cartographic depiction of West and Central Africa in which major rivers, including the Niger, are prominently illustrated. The Kingdom of Medra is shown inland, situated between the Biafar region and the Amazens, south of the Niger River basin and north of the Gulf of Guinea, and bordered by other labeled regions such as Benin, Biafar, and Zanfara.

Early modern writers refer to the Mandara kingdom in today's Cameroon as the "Kingdom of Medra," and Leo Africanus praises it for "good governors and rulers," with inhabitants "rich and industrious" and "great lovers of justice and equity," which aligns with the later codified Doctrine of Medrar.

The polity later became the Sultanate of Medra (or Mandara), with Islam as the official religion from 1715. Taken together with the Beni Medrar of Sijilmasa, this second case shows the medr‑ root functioning across regions and centuries as a recognized standard of advancement and government.

The recurrence of medr‑ in states and in the Medrano surname strengthens the claim that the Doctrine of Medrano and Its etymological root medrar named a widely understood virtue and principle of good governance, hereditary improvement, and universal doctrine rather than a local invention.

Sacred Assimilation in the Spanish Court

In the 16th century, Mesoamerican jade masks were transported from the Americas to the Spanish court during the reign of Philip II of Spain.

In the sixteenth century, Spanish authorities reinterpreted ritual objects from the Americas within a Catholic and Counter-Reformation paradigm. Teotihuacan and Olmec jade masks, long assumed to have been burial items, are now understood to have been used in everyday ritual and devotional practices in their society. When these objects were transported to Europe, Spanish belief held that green stones could cure abdominal-ailments, and so Teotihuacan jade was absorbed into Catholic systems of medicine and devotion. Under Philip II, such artifacts began to appear in royal collections, upheld as efficacious and holy through a Catholic lens.

Colonial sources show how these jades, once politically and spiritually tied to Aztec snd Maya rulers, were assimilated. This process exemplified the República Mista's universal principle of rule: older traditions were not annihilated but transfigured into a Christianized order of governance and doctrine. In Philip II's court, jade masks once associated with Aztec and Maya ritual were reclassified as curative relics and devotional emblems, brought into alignment with Catholicism and the broader Habsburg program of religious legitimation.

Two centuries later, Phelipe Medrano, Knight of the Order of Santiago, would elevate the Doctrine of Medrano with this same principle from material objects to mathematics. In his doctrinal treatise Quadrados mágicos (1744), dedicated to Queen Elisabeth Farnese, Phelipe Medrano reinterpreted ancient Egyptian and Pythagorean uses of magic squares, which had long been associated with superstition, astrology, and pagan ritual, as a Christianized and mathematical doctrine of good governance, presented as an offering to the Queen. Where the Egyptians and Pythagoreans employed number to invoke fate or the stars, Phelipe Medrano purified and reinterpreted the practice, grounding it instead in divine order, political theology, and the grammar of medrar, etymologically linked to the Medrano surname. Likewise, Giovanni Antonio Medrano expressed the Doctrine of Medrano through architecture for Elisabeth Farnese's son, Charles III of Spain, designing the Obelisk of Bitonto as a monument of legitimate kingship, derived from the Egyptian tradition yet transformed into a Christian symbol of divine rule under one God, correcting the superstitions of the ancient world.

The Medrano Academy of Poetry (1616–1622)

Detail from Mancelli's map of Leganitos street in Madrid, in the first half of the 17th century.

One of the most significant cultural expressions of the Doctrone of Medrano was the Medrano Academy of Poetry in Madrid (1616–1622). Founded and presided over by Dr. Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, the academy gathered many of the most prominent literary figures of the Spanish Golden Age, including Lope de Vega, Francisco de Quevedo, Luis de Góngora, Pedro Calderón de la Barca, and Tirso de Molina, Juan de Amescua, Guillén de Castro y Bellvis, Luis Velez de Guevara, Juan de Alarcon, and Diego Jimenez de Enciso, Gaspar de Avila, Diego de Villegas y Quevedo, Rodrigo de Gerera, and Licentiate Luis Quiñones de Benavente, along with many others.

Medrano even praises Francisco de Borja y Aragón, prince of Squillace and a member of the Medrano Academy of Poetry, "for whom heaven not only made him illustrious in blood but also equaled his genius," describing him as outstanding "in all sciences and faculties."

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, addressing Alonso de Castillo Solórzano, writes that the poets who attended his academy:

were so marvellous in comedy and elegant in other sciences... these individuals are famous in all poems and celebrated in all sciences, subjects, and faculties, and are supreme objects of admiration.

He continues, "Seeing them, as I said, recognizing them, as I confess, and reverencing them, as I should, they have clipped the wings of my aspirations, and I have been cowed and hidden in the shadow of theirs. I praise them while studying them and remain silent while imitating them." Medrano requests that Solórzano, having introduced his works to the public, present them to those whom he regarded as his superiors and convey his apologies to any individuals whom he had not mentioned by name.

Operating from Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's residence on Leganitos Street in Madrid, the academy hosted poetry contests, public lampoons, and royal visits. It became a forum in which erudition, wit, and virtue were displayed before members of the court and nobility. The attendance of King Philip IV at one of its sessions confirmed its status as an institution of cultural influence.

Dr. Sebastián Fernández de Medrano and the Doctrine of Medrano in the Spanish Golden Age

Title page of Favors of the Muses, by Sebastian Francisco de Medrano (1631).

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano (1590–1653), founder and president of the Medrano Academy of Poetry, was a poet and dramatist of the Spanish Baroque and a figure of considerable ecclesiastical and institutional power. Born into the Medrano lineage, he served as commissioner of the Spanish Inquisition, where he exercised official censorship over comedias to ensure that theatrical works aligned with religious and moral doctrine. In this dual capacity as censor and creator, Medrano codified the Doctrine of Medrano in its cultural form, where art, virtue, and institutional authority were harmonized under divine and royal law. Celebrated by contemporaries, he was hailed by Alonso de Castillo Solórzano as "the prince of the most renowned Academy Madrid ever had."

In 1631, Alonso de Castillo Solórzano confirmed Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's doctrinal career in the introductory to the Favors of the Muses, writing:

His works were well-received and applauded by many distinguished audiences, including one session attended publicly by Their Majesties and the most illustrious figures of Spain, both in lineage and intellect. These early achievements prepared him for a literary career, creating works that blend erudition, doctrine, devotion, and example.

His spiritual authority extended further as chief chaplain, chief almoner, and priest of San Pedro el Real in Madrid. He later advanced to the positions of Protonotary Apostolic, Apostolic Judge, and treasurer for Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, 3rd Duke of Feria. His literary output, including the celebrated Favores de las Musas, reflected his dual role as both artist and guardian of doctrine.

Solórzano further described Medrano's character:

He knows how to give each stage of life its due, prudently balancing his pursuits unlike others, who disrupt the natural order of life's stages and in old age are seen with clouded judgment and skewed understanding.

Lope de Vega, Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and a close friend of Sebastián Francisco de Medrano.

He maintained close ties with court poets, and his association with Lope de Vega is the most notable, writing:

As I gradually became wiser, I recognized the prudence in Lope de Vega, the honor of my homeland, a miracle of our nation, and a prodigy for foreigners, to whom all who wish to acknowledge the truth know how much they owe.

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's career unfolded during the height of the new comedy and the changes brought by the theatrical revolution, with which he did not always agree. His preference for classical precepts mirrored in the República Mista did not prevent him from maintaining collegial relations with Lope de Vega. La Barrera noted that their relationship was particularly close and recorded that, by coincidence, Lope de Vega was taken to his room in the Scottish Seminary by Sebastián after collapsing, an event that occurred three days before Lope's death.

Lope de Vega, a member of the Medrano Academy, referred to Sebastian in El Laurel de Apolo (1630), silva VII:

Don Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, illustrious in birth and in genius, with a different spirit, devoutly leaves behind profane writing.

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, as commissioner of the Spanish Inquisition, official censor of comedias, became the official regulator of a theatrical genre largely created and defined by Lope de Vega.

Title page of a comedy by Spanish playwright Lope de Vega

Research from the University of California shows that the comedia of Spain's Golden Age developed as Madrid grew into an imperial capital and corrales brought nobles, women, and commoners together in a unified theatrical space. Plays were written in verse, divided into three jornadas, moved rapidly across time and place, and included music, dance, and comic interludes.

The broader scholarly tradition, including a 1936 University of Edinburgh study, confirms that the term comedia referred to nearly the entire dramatic repertoire of the period, encompassing comedy, tragedy, history, tragicomedy, social drama, national drama, and religious and political drama, excluding only liturgical autos and minor farces.

Lope de Vega's fusion of tragic and comic elements made the genre a reflection of ordinary life, structured around honor, conflict, reputation, class mobility, and public authority. Because actresses performed female roles, themes of gender, disguise, and identity became central, while characters of lower status often advanced through hope and intelligence while nobles maintained duty and social expectation.

The comedia relied on realism, intuitive dramatic construction, and intricate plots designed to entertain mixed audiences, making it both popular and culturally formative. This broad reach meant that the stage functioned as a public arena where issues of class, gender, religion, and authority were displayed and interpreted. Within this environment, Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's role as official censor determined which comedias could circulate.

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano reviewed, approved, or rejected works before publication or performance, linking literary production to institutional oversight and ensuring that plays staged in major cities aligned with the religious and moral doctrine of the Spanish monarchy codified in the República Mista while suppressing those that promoted disorder or hostility toward the common good. This oversight allowed theatrical companies to perform officially approved comedias across Spain in the seventeenth century.

Juan de Morales Medrano: Professional Theatre within the Medrano Cultural Network

Toledo by El Greco. Morales Medrano and his troupe appeared in Toledo for the Corpus Christi celebrations.

Sebastian's relative Juan de Morales Medrano was active as an actor by 1595, although his prominence arose from his work as an author of comedias and as a theatrical empresario. Married to the famous actress Jusepa Vaca, celebrated by members of the Medrano Academy such as Lope de Vega and Luis Vélez de Guevara as one of the most famed actresses in Spain of her time, he directed his own company almost continuously from 1601 to 1631 and became one of the most recognized theatrical figures of the early seventeenth century. His troupe appeared in Corpus Christi celebrations sixteen times from 1604 onward across Seville, Madrid, Toledo, Medina de Rioseco and Valencia, reflecting its sustained visibility in major urban centres.

By 1603 his company was already linked to the royal household, performing private comedias for Margaret of Austria, Queen of Spain, in Valladolid. From 1625, performances for Philip IV became frequent, and in 1623 his troupe was selected for the festivities during the visit of the Prince of Wales (the future Charles I of England) to Madrid, where they were assigned a principal stage in the city. However, by 1631, Luis Quiñones de Benavente described his troupe as outdated in the Loa con que empezó Lorenzo Hurtado en Madrid la segunda vez, reflecting its decline. He dissolved the company in 1632 and later joined the troupe of his son-in-law Antonio de Prado. A document signed by Jusepa Vaca in 1647 confirms that he had died by that date.

Within the broader cultural setting of the Medrano Academy of Poetry, his career shows how theatrical companies, court performances and public comedias reviewed by Sebastián Francisco de Medrano formed a parallel channel for the circulation of erudition, wit and artistic discipline in Madrid. While Sebastián Francisco de Medrano shaped doctrine and culture within the academy, Morales Medrano contributed through professional theatre and public performance, representing a complementary expression of early seventeenth-century artistic life.

Medrano Academy of Poetry: Cultural and Literary Patrons of the Spanish Golden Age

Within the context of the Doctrine of Medrano, the academy served three main purposes:

• Cultural Legitimacy. By gathering the leading poets, dramatists, noble patrons, and professional actors of the Spanish Golden Age, the Medrano Academy of Poetry positioned the House of Medrano as an institutional center of Spain's literary life. Its membership, its royal attendance, and its connection to the comedia tradition created by Lope de Vega gave the academy a public role in shaping the cultural standards of early seventeenth-century Madrid.
• Doctrinal Transmission. By concentrating the leading poets, dramatists, court intellectuals, and noble patrons of the Spanish Golden Age, the Medrano Academy of Poetry functioned as an institutional center of literary and theatrical life in Madrid. Its membership overlapped with the major architects of the comedia, including Lope de Vega, and its royal attendance confirmed that the academy operated as an extension of the cultural life of the monarchy, not simply a private gathering.
• Integration of Court Theatre and Professional Theatre. The academy stood at the center of a cultural network that included both court poets and professional companies such as that of Juan de Morales Medrano. Sebastián's reviews determined which plays could legally circulate, while Morales Medrano's troupe performed these works across major cities. This created a unified system in which doctrine was articulated in the poetic academies, regulated through censorship, and disseminated through professional theatre, ensuring consistency between artistic production, public entertainment, and the moral expectations of the Spanish monarchy.

The Medrano Academy of Poetry functioned as the artistic counterpart to the Empire's doctrine. It demonstrated how governance, virtue, and culture could be integrated into the life of the empire, ensuring that harmony, justice, and rational order were present both in political institutions and in the cultural sphere of Spain's Golden Age. Outside of Madrid, Sebastián's contemporary and relative Francisco de Medrano y Villa, considered one of the best of the Spanish imitators of Horace, continued the family's literary tradition in Seville. His kinsman José Velázquez de Medrano furthered its artistic legacy as one of the foremost silversmiths of the age, active in Logroño.

Juan de Espinosa Medrano: The Doctrine in the Andes and the Atlantic

(Middle Portrait) Miniature of Juan de Espinosa Medrano from the Allegorical Garden of the Seminary of San Antonio Abad. The writing below the miniature reads: "The Archdeacon you see here is Medrano, that giant who in the field of good letters and sciences has no equal."

Juan de Espinosa Medrano, chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV, upheld the role of the valido in the Americas. Although often mislabeled as criollo, he was a nobleman of Indigenous and Spanish heritage, educated and ordained in Cuzco. He advanced the Ibero-American intellectual tradition in both political doctrine and literary theology. A playwright and polyglot, Juan de Espinosa Medrano translated Virgil into Quechua.

Cathedral of Cuzco, where Juan de Espinosa Medrano delivered a major sermon in 1673.

His Apologético (1662) was the first transatlantic defense of Luis de Góngora, a member of the Medrano Academy of Poetry in Madrid, and a literary affirmation of Andean-Spanish nobility, dedicated to Luis Méndez de Haro. His Apologético (1662) should be understood within the doctrinal continuity of the Medrano lineage. He dedicated his Apologético to Haro, valido of Spain, presenting him as a second Apollo and a restorer of peace, aligning with the Medrano vision of the valido as a divinely sanctioned executor of royal order. This embodied the Medrano doctrine: virtuous ascent through learning and loyalty. In the Apologético, Espinosa Medrano combined scholastic rigor with baroque rhetoric, drawing from classical and modern sources including Tertullian, Apuleius, Saint Jerome, Galileo Galilei, and Justus Lipsius.

His multilingual and rhetorical range asserted Cuzco's central role in Spanish imperial culture, both as heir to Inca and Spanish nobility and as a seat of Catholic scholarship. Espinosa Medrano extended the Doctrine of Medrano across the Atlantic, affirming that noble status and authority must rest on knowledge, virtue, and alignment with divine order. His dedication to Haro reinforced the valido as a mediator of royal will. Through literature and theology, Espinosa Medrano became a principal representative of the Medrano doctrine in the Americas.

His Philosophia Thomistica (1688) also expressed medrar in scholastic form, combining Aristotelian logic with Platonic metaphysics. He defended Plato's theory of ideas as "species and universal essences," a rare position in seventeenth-century Second Scholasticism. Espinosa Medrano's aims were twofold: to defend traditional philosophy against Jesuit "moderns" such as Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and Rodrigo de Arriaga, and to uphold Ibero-American intellectual dignity against European critics who dismissed it as inferior.

Sacsayhuamán is an Inca ceremonial fortress located two kilometers north from Cusco.

Responding to Justus Lipsius, he cited Jerónimo de Valera:

God is so powerful that He can raise children of Abraham from Peruvian stones.

This positioned Andean learning within the universal system of the Doctrine of Medrano, which regarded ascent (medrar) as a divine gift and moral duty, applicable in both Spain and the New World.

His clerical career began in 1655 at the Parish of the Sanctum. He served in Juliaca (1660–1668), then in Chincheros and San Cristóbal. In 1683 or 1684, he became magisterial canon of Cuzco Cathedral, and in 1688, archdeacon. His funeral was attended by high clergy and civic leaders. His polemic against Manuel de Faria e Sousa engaged the ideological split after the 1640 separation of the Iberian crowns. Rather than adopt anti-Spanish rhetoric, he defended Castilian baroque literature and upheld the intellectual participation of the Andes within the Spanish monarchy.

The House of Guzmán merged indigenous nobility and Spanish heraldry within coats of arms in the same manner as Juan de Espinosa Medrano. In 1673, he preached at the Cathedral of Cuzco in honor of Our Lady of Charity, patroness of the Dukes of Medina-Sidonia. Commissioned by Alonso Pérez de Guzmán, corregidor of Cuzco, this sermon aligned him with one of Spain's most prestigious noble houses with genealogical ties the Medrano family.

Magnanimity in Medrar: Power Guided By Virtue

Bust of Emperor Hadrian. Hadrian is cited by Tomás Fernández de Medrano to illustrate medrar as lawful advancement through restraint, virtue, and magnanimity, in contrast to medro as the impulsive pursuit of power.

Emperor Hadrian exemplifies the doctrinal contrast between medrar and its antithesis, medro. Whereas medro denotes impulsive self-interest and ambition severed from virtue, medrar signifies lawful advancement achieved through moral restraint, service to the common good, and the just treatment of even one's adversaries.

In his República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano writes:

Emperor Hadrian took particular care to favor those he had previously counted as enemies before ascending the throne.

Medrano extends this principle to the Spanish monarchy through the example of the Duke of Lerma, valido of Philip III of Spain, to whom Tomás Fernández de Medrano and his son Juan dedicated the República Mista. According to Medrano, the duke, though surrounded by men of merit, became known for doing more good to his enemies than to his friends.

According to Medrano, Francisco de Sandoval y Rojas, 1st Duke of Lerma, mirroring Emperor Hadrian, fufilled the requirements of virtuous rule, upholding magnanimity and justice as foundational precepts for lawful and rightful governance.

Rather than seek vengeance, the 1st Duke of Lerma rewarded service and loyalty regardless of past grievances. Medrano writes:

He often said that abstaining from harm does not constitute virtue, while doing good merits a crown. To refrain from doing good when able is to surrender one's virtue.

He cautions that the higher a person's station, the greater the risk of their downfall if governed by passion or pettiness.

The higher a man's rank and dignity, the greater his duty to guard against actions motivated by passion that might harm others unjustly.

Citing Cicero, he emphasizes:

Where there is anger, nothing is done rightly, nothing thoughtfully.

And adds:

Rash impulse poorly serves all things.

When the duke was urged to retaliate, he is said to have answered in the words of Scipio:

Nature made me a commander, not a soldier.

This response by the 1st Duke of Lerma captures the essence of medrar: to act justly out of discipline and commitment to a higher form of office.

Such men can be described as exalted by divine gift, not subject to envy, hatred, or personal whims.

Medrar is embodied by Lerma, guided by discipline, virtue, and divine order. Lerma stands in opposition to the pícaro or opportunist, who advances under medro, seeking elevation through calculation, deceit, and personal ambition. Drawing on this example, Medrano codified the moral boundary between lawful advancement and corrupt ambition, revealing the inner measure of true nobility.

Medrano turned to the Duke of Savoy, who was "so generous that he refuses nothing to those in need." When he is asked for things he has already promised, he says that "if what is requested is just, the promise stands; if not, it is merely an expression of goodwill." Medrano confirms he demonstrated both greatness of spirit; and the integrity of justice.

Medrano recounts the moment when Caesar Augustus saw that a friend of his named Aspren had been accused in court, fearing that his presence might influence the proceedings, he went to the courtroom without saying a word so that his friend would neither lose nor gain from his support.

Medrano writes that Agesilaus once declared justice to be the greatest of all virtues, and that bravery without it was worthless. If all men were just, he said, there would be no need for bravery or even for laws. "The law is not made for the just," he taught, "but for those who need correction." Laws may punish offenses, but they cannot cleanse the conscience. For those who rule, only honor or necessity can restrain them.

One day, an ambassador told Agesilaus, "The great king desires it so." Agesilaus responded, "He may be a great king, but is he more just than I am?" He implied that justice should be the measure of greatness and rule, which princes must uphold to govern their subjects. Honor and glory lie in virtue, not in rank, for those who misuse their power will be called tyrants, not just rulers.

Medrano described the time a poor woman once approached King Philip of Macedonia, begging for an audience to present her grievance. When Philip replied that he had no time, she boldly answered, "Then do not be king if you have no time to hear our complaints." Moved by her words, Philip returned to his palace and spent many days hearing grievances, beginning with hers. Medrano affirms that his compassion and commitment to justice made him beloved among his people.

Critique of Corrupt Rule and the Defense of Virtuous Merit

Medrano uses Demetrius I Poliorcetes as an example of corrupt rule, who, after receiving numerous petitions from his subjects, threw them all into the river while crossing a bridge, which angered the people so greatly that within a few days his army abandoned him and joined Pyrrhus, his enemy, driving him out of the kingdom without a fight. Medrano recounts that Henry, King of Sweden, struck a poor knight with a dagger simply because the man pressed him for justice. This act so outraged both the nobility and the common people that they imprisoned him and raised his brother to the throne, who, as he notes, reigned thereafter.

Who would not seek to avoid discord in the republics brought on by acts of injustice, so as not to die filled with dread, terror, and a tormented conscience? For any wickedness is its own punishment, continually haunting the soul of the wrongdoer with shame, guilt, turmoil, and deep unrest.

Medrano affirmed that there is no greater example of justice and sanctity than that shown by King Philip III in Valladolid. When constructing a passage for his own comfort and convenience, the King graciously sent a request to a poor baker, asking him with the utmost respect whether he would allow the passage to go through a small room in his house. The baker, responding with loyalty and wisdom beyond his station, replied that the King's will should be done, for his life and livelihood were at the King's disposal. In return, the King rewarded this common man with generous gifts befitting a humble subject who had served his sovereign like a true noble.

In the República Mista, Medrano teaches that:

Since God is the ultimate author of justice, continually demonstrating it in us through such clear signs, we should neither disregard nor violate it. Those entrusted with administering justice or appointing others to this role, must select people who are fit for such weighty responsibilities, learned and exemplars of good conduct.

Medrano warned that rulers who appoint corrupt or incompetent officials violate divine justice. In his view, such appointments are not merely administrative failures but moral transgressions, equal in gravity to the people's sin of tolerating unjust monarchs.

Let none take on the role of teacher who does not know how to teach. The fault lies with rulers who, against God's will, place corrupt judges over the faithful.

He warns that, otherwise, the great and supreme Judge will closely scrutinize the grievances inflicted upon the innocent, the abuses, and the scandals caused by the ignorant, bringing ruin upon countless families:

Ad delictum pertinet Principum, qui pranos indices contra voluntatem Dei populi fidelibus praeficiunt ("The fault lies with rulers who, against God's will, appoint corrupt judges over the faithful").

Just as it is the people's sin to endure unworthy rulers, so too is it the ruler's sin to elevate unjust ministers.

Medrano's Message to the Kingdom of France

Saint Isidore of Seville, whom Medrano quotes in the República Mista (1602): "who doubts that a ruler commits a sin when he appoints a corrupt shepherd to his flock?"

Drawing upon Saint Isidore of Seville, he affirmed that rulers sin when they entrust governance to corrupt ministers. He drew a clear moral parallel: as the people are at fault for enduring wicked rulers, rulers are equally at fault for empowering unworthy officials (Ad delictum pertinet Principum, qui pranos indices contra voluntatem Dei populi fidelibus praeficiunt).

Since God is the ultimate author of justice, continually demonstrating it in us through such clear signs, we should neither disregard nor violate it. Those entrusted with administering justice or appointing others to this role must select people who are fit for such weighty responsibilities, learned and exemplars of good conduct. For otherwise, the great and supreme Judge will closely scrutinize the grievances done to the innocent, the abuses, and the scandals caused by the ignorant, bringing ruin upon countless families. Ad delictum pertinet Principum, qui pranos indices contra voluntatem Dei populi fidelibus praeficiunt: "The fault lies with the rulers who, against God’s will, place corrupt judges over the faithful." Just as it is the people's sin to have unworthy rulers, so too is it the ruler's sin to have unjust ministers. Who doubts, says St. Isidore, that a ruler commits a sin when he appoints a corrupt shepherd to his flock? For just as it is a transgression of the people to have wicked rulers, so it is equally a transgression of the ruler to appoint unworthy ministers. And what of those offices that have been sold?

He reserved his strongest condemnation for the sale of secular and ecclesiastical offices. This practice, he argued, allowed unworthy men to buy their way into power, eroding the moral foundations of the republic and weakening the integrity of both Church and Crown.

"From this, we can infer what the Sorbonne of Paris advised King Francis II regarding the need for reform in his kingdom. They argued that the gravest injustices stemmed from the sale of secular and ecclesiastical offices, often to unworthy men, as if these roles were simple merchandise. Such corruption, they stated, had led to the rise of new religious factions and widespread abuses. By selling justice, the most sacred foundation of the world, the republic, the blood of the subjects, and the very laws themselves were betrayed. This practice destroyed hope and stripped honor, virtue, wisdom, piety, and religion of their rightful rewards."

In such an environment, merchants and commoners could purchase honors once reserved for the virtuous and noble. Once in office, these officials often recouped their investment through bribery, influence-peddling, and extortion. Tomás argued that this cycle institutionalized impiety and ignorance and violated both civil and canonical law, as well as the customs of honorable monarchs.

"They opened the door to robbery, extortion, greed, ignorance, impiety, and ultimately to all manner of vice and wickedness. Through this, commoners, who had gained wealth through various trades, could buy titles and honors that only the virtuous and noble had previously earned through merit. And afterward, finding themselves financially depleted, they sought to recover their expenses by selling, bit by bit, what they had purchased in bulk, directly contradicting the civil and canonical laws that had formed the foundation of the royal statutes and venerable customs upheld by the king's ancestors."

He then cited Emperor Alexander Severus, whose maxim encapsulated the logic of corruption:

Vendat necesse est, qui emit: "He who buys must inevitably sell."

Citing the Sorbonne's counsel to King Francis II, Medrano warned that selling offices had precipitated widespread injustice. The Parisian faculty had condemned this practice for turning virtue into a commodity and for sowing religious division and civil disorder. Tomás echoed their warning, framing it as a betrayal of law, justice, and honor.

"It was precisely this kind of corruption that brought ruin to the republic of Sparta and to other once-thriving kingdoms, a fate that France, above all, should take care to avoid."

The warning addressed to the Kingdom of France by Tomás Fernández de Medrano proved profoundly relevant under Louis XIV and later in Spain during the Bourbon era. The same abuses he condemned, including the sale of offices, the elevation of the unworthy, and the corruption of justice for profit, reappeared in France and Spain. By the 18th century, widespread opposition to venality and fiscal exploitation in Spain and the Americas confirmed the enduring truth of the doctrine Tomás codified, which held that kingdoms fall into disorder whenever merit yields to ambition and justice is treated as merchandise.

The Decline of Virtue and the Corruption of Nobility

Franciscus Titelmans, 16th-century image.

Medrano demonstrates the universal nature of merit, codified in his República Mista, by citing Titelman's commentary on Job:

"It was an ancient custom among the Eastern peoples, who lived according to natural law, to entrust the administration of the republic only to those who excelled others in wisdom and integrity."

Medrano asserts that this aligns with the famous maxim of a celebrated philosopher:

"And would that in this age of ours, the most praiseworthy custom of those times, that most noble principle, were not so far removed, for among the Christian people, a most corrupt custom has taken hold: one which regards only noble lineage, neither the integrity of character, nor the clarity of wisdom, nor any of those qualities which ought to be held in the highest expectation.

A nobility of mere flesh (as they call it and contrive it) now, alas, renders even the ignorant and the depraved suitable for every office, whether civil or ecclesiastical. The antiquity of their portraits and the brightness of their ancestral line alone elevate men immersed in all manner of vice, even to the highest dignities, I must add, weighted down with multiple pontifical titles. This misfortune within the Holy Church of God, I deem so grievous that no amount of tears could ever rightly mourn it."

Medrano notes how the author appears to have a particular enmity toward the vices of the nobility, and "with good reason, for those who should serve as examples of virtue often lack it." Medrano explains that some believe it is wrong to honor a nobleman only because his ancestors earned distinction through virtue and valor when he himself is corrupt and unworthy. Doing so, he writes, dishonors true virtue and brings shame upon the ancestors who had once been rightly esteemed for their merits.

Medrano cites the Roman general and statesman Gaius Marius, who addressed the weak-hearted nobles who envied his achievements, saying:

"If they think they have reason to disdain me because I lack statues of my ancestors, they may feel the same way about their own forebears who built their nobility on virtue."

In this reflection, Tomás Fernández de Medrano defines the moral and social essence of medrar as hereditary advancement through virtue, wisdom, and divine justice, in contrast to medro, advancement through privilege, vanity, wealth, or deceit. By invoking Marius, he reinforces that true nobility is not inherited by birth but renewed through action and moral excellence, preserving both the honor of one's lineage and the integrity of the republic.

Doctrine of Medrano: Virtue Before Lineage

Coat of Arms of Medrano (smaller shield) on top of the coat of arms of Valdeosera (larger shield) as seen in Tomás Fernández de Medrano's República Mista (1602). The Latin script reads: "Protection and Honor. We bless those who have endured."

In the República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano defined how nobility in Spain functioned when properly ordered, presenting it as a moral condition rather than a hereditary privilege. He taught that the true measure of a man's worth lay not in his birth, but in his virtue and service to the republic:

When in the distribution of goods and honors, one considers more the worth of each person than his wealth or lineage, and values personal merit more than riches or the vain ostentation of ancestors, each person is given what is rightfully his.

Here, Medrano introduces a social and moral framework in which lawful advancement (medrar) arises from merit. A direct historical example of this principle appears in New Spain in 1671, when Governor Juan de Medrano promoted Juan Domínguez de Mendoza to sargento mayor in the Spanish Tercio, immediately below that of maestre de campo, on the basis of his documented service record, which Juan de Medrano praised for its demonstration of his merits and quality.

Medrano explains that this system inspires even the humblest citizens to serve the common good:

Those who are poor or of humble status, with the hope of ennobling themselves and advancing, are motivated to perform marvels in service of the republic, just as I have seen the poorest soldiers, often regarded as ragged, perform.

He then turns to the nobility itself, warning that titles without virtue endanger both the noble house and the republic:

Generous men, hidalgos, and knights, recognizing that it does not benefit them to be noble only by blood but also by virtue, follow the example of their ancestors. To avoid losing for themselves what their ancestors left to them, they strive to imitate them and preserve the ancient luster of their house.

For Medrano, the hope of the humble and the vigilance of the noble form the dual pillars of a healthy government, therefore:

The hope of some and the justified fear of others are the health and conservation of the republic. For it is very true, as the saying goes, that if there is anything good in nobility, it is that it places a certain necessity upon nobles to imitate their predecessors and not fall short of the virtue and greatness that their forebears bequeathed to them.

Finally, he anchors this moral order in divine law and sacred example, invoking the dying words of Mattathias as a commandment to future generations:

This may have been why the glorious Mattathias said on his deathbed to his sons, Estote emulatores legis et date animas vestras pro testamento patrum, memores operum patrum, Be zealous for the law and give your lives for the testament of your fathers; remember the deeds of your fathers, and you will achieve eternal glory and an everlasting name.

This principle in the República Mista was embodied by Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, 1st Marquess of Tabuérniga, whose 1676 informaciones de méritos to the Council of Castile illustrate the application of the doctrine of virtue before lineage.

According to a 2025 study by Cambridge University, in early modern Spain, royal service was regarded as a familial vocation rather than an individual achievement, as loyalty, merit, and royal favor were understood to accumulate across generations, granting officials both the credit and the obligation of their ancestors' service. In his submission of 13 April 1676, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano summarized his own service as governor of Nieuwpoort in Flanders and as an officer in the wars of Flanders, Catalonia, Extremadura, and Galicia.

Coat of arms of the House of Medrano

He then listed the deeds of his father, General Pedro Vélaz de Medrano; his grandfather, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano y Mendoza; his great-grandfather, Rodrigo Vélaz de Medrano; and his great-great-grandfather, Hernán Vélaz de Medrano. Each had served the kings in regions including Sicily, Brazil, and Málaga. Antonio also identified himself as the direct descendant and heir of Andrés Vélaz de Medrano, a Moorish Prince who converted to Christianity and became the progenitor of the Medrano family established at the Palace of Vélaz de Medrano. In his informaciones de méritos (1676), Antonio affirmed that Andrés was favored by King García Sánchez II of Pamplona in the eleventh century, linking his lineage to the earliest royal service of the family. Antonio presented his family's record of service as a single moral and legal testament.

As recognition for his loyalty and to compensate for his relinquishment of the Principality of Tobago project, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano was granted the title Marquess of Tabuérniga de Vélazar in 1682 by King Charles II of Spain. According to the República Mista, nobility was to be continually renewed through virtue, service, and imitation of one's ancestors, ensuring that the republic remained ordered by justice and merit rather than privilege and vanity.

By defining virtue before lineage, Tomás Fernández de Medrano codified the moral foundation of lawful advancement which already guided Spain and their ancestors, including Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, 1st Marquess of Tabuérniga de Vélazar.

Doctrine of Medrano: Virtuous Nobility and the Hierarchy of the Republic

Spanish Marquess coronet, representing the divinely ordered distinctions between noble and commoner, as affirmed by Tomás Fernández de Medrano: 'Just as God wills that there be various degrees in the republic, so too are there in heaven.'

Building on his arguments for virtue over mere lineage, Tomás Fernández de Medrano also defended the importance of legitimate nobility, when properly grounded in service, character, and inherited virtue. He maintained that hierarchical distinctions between noble and commoner were natural, divinely ordained, and socially stabilizing, provided they were governed by just and lawful precepts:

It is, indeed, necessary to have distinctions between the nobleman and the commoner, between the noble and the non-noble, between the great and the small, for just as God wills that there be various degrees in the republic, so too are there in heaven. Not all saints in glory are equal, nor do all stars possess the same magnitude and brightness.

While denouncing the elevation of unworthy men to high office, Medrano maintained that virtuous nobles must be honored and entrusted with leadership. Their elevation was not only just, but also essential for the prince's own authority and for the political stability of the realm.

In the end, it behooves the Prince to honor virtuous knights and nobles, to make use of them, to grant them great favor, and to prefer them over those who lack virtue. He should demonstrate by his actions that he recognizes and esteems what is deserved through their persons and through their fathers and grandfathers. For this, besides being reasonable and just, is crucial for the authority of the Prince himself and for the stability of his Kingdoms, which tend to become unsettled and disturbed when, disregarding the great and principal lords of his Estates who merit it, he serves instead people of low and vile standing.

Medrano warned that placing men of low character into high positions not only insulted the nobility but provoked dangerous instability:

Si rempublicam ignorantis non magni pretii hominibus committis, statim, et nobilium, ac strenuorum iram in te provocabis, ob contemptam eorum fidem, et maximis in rebus damna patieris — "If you entrust the republic to men of low worth, you will immediately provoke the ire of the nobility and valiant men because of your contempt for their loyalty, and you will suffer great losses in matters of importance."

He contrasted this danger with the flourishing state of Spain in his own time, attributing it to the fact that noble and capable men held the reins of governance.

I do not believe that Spain has seen more glorious times than it does today in this regard, as the distinguished and grave personages (Princes, I may say) occupy the offices, hold the government positions, and serve in the Councils.

This statement reflected the reality of his era. Tomás had relatives serving in key government positions within the Council of the Indies, the Council of Finance, and the Royal Chambers of Castile and the Indies. Members of his own family, such as Francisco de Medrano y Bazán and others served prominently in the Council of Castile, the Council of Justice, and the Council of Military Orders.

Digital facsimile reproduction of the original print preserved in the National Library of Spain1662. The title page displays the coat of arms of Francisco de Medrano y Bazán.

During Francisco de Medrano's time as Alcalde of King Philip IV's Casa y Corté, a work titled Part sixteen of new and select comedies by the best minds in Spain was dedicated to him in 1662 by Mateo de la Bastide and published in Madrid by Melchor Sanchez. The dedication reads:

To Don Francisco de Medrano y Bazan, Of His Majesty's Council and alcalde in His casa y corte: Having given this book to the press at my expense and translated it into new light, it seemed I would not fulfill one of the obligations Your Excellency advises unless I placed it under your protection, so that with this refuge and defense it may have an immortal duration. The benefits I have received from Your Excellency are so numerous that I have never forgotten them, always desiring an occasion to show gratitude, which the impression of this book now permits, the offspring of one of the best intellects of Spain, adopted by Your Excellency's generosity. It resorts to your hands humble, because I send it, and useful, because it gains greater applause, confident in Your Excellency’s kindness, for neither it nor I require the cultivation of lies disguised as flattery, since we are free from such a base means. Trusting Your Excellency’s grace will not fail them, I choose as its auxiliary patron Your Excellency, whose merits, eloquence, wisdom, antiquity, and virtues, along with the adaptability and tireless effort required in the administration of justice, need no recounting. May God keep you healthy and happy for many years in the positions your person seems born to occupy. A grateful servant, Mateo de la Bastide.

After affirming that virtuous men occupy the offices, hold the government positions, and serve in the Councils, Tomás Fernández de Medrano then turned to legal authority, quoting a law from the Partidas to emphasize that nobility was not simply inherited but composed of virtuous character and usefulness to the Crown:

A law in the Partidas states these words: Saber usar de nobleza es claro ayuntamiento de virtudes, por ella los caballeros deben ser muy honrados por tres razones: la primera, por la nobleza de su linaje; la segunda, por su bondad; la tercera, por el provecho que de ellos viene, por ende los Reyes les deben mucho honrar, como aquellos con quien han de hacer su obra. "To know how to use nobility is a clear union of virtues; for this, knights ought to be greatly honored for three reasons: first, for the nobility of their lineage; second, for their goodness; and third, for the benefit that comes from them. Therefore, kings should greatly honor them, as those with whom they are to accomplish their work."

He closed this doctrinal statement with a direct warning about the damage done when rulers align themselves with the ignoble, invoking classical authority:

What noble person is there who will align himself with the low and base? Vilis ille, qui tantum viles sibi admovet. "He is contemptible who only associates himself with the contemptible." Quis hostis eum non contemnat? "What enemy would not scorn him?" And what soldier would not feel humiliated to serve under his command?

And finally, teaching that the sovereign's ability to judge and recognize men was not instinctual, but a learned virtue essential to governance:

Teaching the King the importance of being able to recognize men, another law says that this knowledge consists of understanding their lineage, customs, character, and the deeds they have accomplished.

These principles, including virtue before lineage, the recognition of character and deeds, and the obligation of rulers to appoint based on merit, guided the political ethos of the Habsburg monarchy in Spain. Monarchs such as Charles II applied them in practice, selecting officials who embodied the Doctrine of Medrano. Among them, Diego Ros de Medrano, Bishop of Ourense and Governor of Galicia, exemplified the union of ecclesiastical and civil authority. His career reflected the doctrine's central tenets: advancement (medrar) through service and example, moral integrity, and the exercise of institutional responsibility through lawful delegation.

Charles II of Spain: Recognition and Appointment of Bishop Diego Ros de Medrano

Portrait of Diego Ros de Medrano, "The Most Excellent and Venerable Sir Don Diego Ros de Medrano, Bishop of Ourense and Captain General of the Kingdom of Galicia, died in the year of Our Lord 1694" (lower cartouche)

The ideal monarch described by Tomás Fernández de Medrano, one capable of recognizing men based on lineage, virtue, character, and proven deeds, was not merely a theoretical construct. This model was applied in practice by the Spanish monarchy, including King Charles II.

Among the most vivid embodiments of the Doctrine of Medrano, and of royal recognition in accordance with it, was Diego Ros de Medrano, who served as Governor Captain General of the Kingdom of Galicia and Bishop of the Diocese of Ourense:

As all of Spain recognized his courage and great understanding, His Majesty chose him, like Gideon, as Governor of this Kingdom, hoping for its restoration under his governance.

Personally chosen "like Gideon" and appointed on 9 October 1686 by Charles II of Spain, he held dual authority as both spiritual and political leader, mirroring the balance of ecclesiastical virtue and royal governance that Tomás Fernández de Medrano had championed. He clearly had the trust and backing of King Charles II of Spain. Although it was usually the Archbishop of Santiago who served as acting governor of Galicia during times of transition, this tradition was set aside.

Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Galicia in 1750.

In his Aclamacion posthuma, immortal fama, panegyrico clarin de virtudes a Diego Ros de Medrano (1714), Jacinto Andres Phelipes honors the Bishop:

His fame and apostolic calling led him to renounce the Mitres of Plasencia and Santiago. A truly apostolic man, Primitive, Servant of God, Pious, Just, and Venerable. Exemplar of Princes, Mirror of Ecclesiastics, Model for Bishops, Master of all. Spain itself shines brighter because of the example he set. His Nobility, the illustriousness of his Surnames attest to it.

As Bishop of Ourense and Governor Captain General of the Kingdom of Galicia, his bishopric and government embodied the virtues and precepts of the Medrano doctrine: sacrifice, justice, humility, obedience, piety, royal favor, moral example, and institutional harmony, all flowing from the name Medrano and its etymological root, medrar. Praised in death as a "new Moses," his life fulfilled the sovereign synthesis that República Mista sought to enshrine: a regime where divine selection, etymology, royal legitimacy, and noble virtue converge.

Diego Ros de Medrano also held the Chair of Prima in Theology of St. Thomas at the University of Alcalá. He was a Collegian of the Colegio Mayor of San Ildefonso, Canon of the Magistral Church of St. Justo.

Ourense Cathedral, religious seat of Bishop Diego Ros de Medrano in Galicia, which he would not abandon despite being tempted with more than one promotion.

Bishop Diego Ros de Medrano took charge of the diocese of Ourense, which he would not abandon despite being tempted with more than one promotion, renouncing the mitres of León, Plasencia, and Santiago, remaining in charge of a modest, rural diocese with limited income. Instead, he remained devoted to uplifting Ourense. Despite leading a smaller diocese, Diego Ros de Medrano was appointed to oversee the Royal Chancery of Valladolid during a period of serious and complex challenges.

Shortly afterward, on 9 October 1686, he was named Governor and Captain General of the Kingdom of Galicia, taking over from the Duke of Uceda, who had received permission to relocate to the royal court. In this theological-political role, Bishop Diego Ros de Medrano governed Galicia in accordance with the Medrano grammar of medrar: proximity to the monarch, service through sacred and civil office, and loyal stewardship of delegated power.

Diego's sister, Mariana Ros de Medrano, provides an example of the doctrine through her marriage to Antonio de Salinas y Erafo, mayordomo of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso. After his early death, Mariana received a stipend from the college chapel, explicitly tied to her dowry contract and her family's longstanding ties to the institution. This arrangement was not incidental favor but the direct result of reforms carried out by her relative, García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, who created dowry and educational funds for noble daughters of the Medrano lineage, including Mariana herself.

In 1668, García de Medrano incorporated the Verdes College into the College of Santa Catalina de los Medrano, securing perpetual fellowships for students from Vizcaya under the protection of Captain Plasencia and other royal judges. These reforms carried the Doctrine of Medrano beyond councils and chaplaincies into the structures of education, marriage, and inheritance. By securing stipends, dowries, and fellowships within Spain’s most prestigious colleges, García de Medrano built a system that sustained lineage through centralized merit and hereditary improvement. Mariana Ros de Medrano embodied this in practice: her protected dowry and stipend showed how medrar shaped not only institutions but also the intimate fabric of family advancement, preserving noble ascent across generations.

In contrast to medrar, which was embodied in the life and works of Juan de Espinosa Medrano, the word medro, the antithesis of medrar, often circulated in Spanish society in distorted ways, most notably in the picaresque tradition, where it was reduced to opportunistic self-advancement and ambition.

Codification and Transmission: García de Medrano and the Restoration of Spain's Imperial Colleges

In 1666, the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso in Alcalá de Henares underwent a comprehensive program of academic and institutional reform.

The Doctrine of Medrano was embedded into the heart of the Spanish Empire's educational institutions by García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos. He served as Minister of Finance and Justice, minister of the Council of the Indies, councilor of the Council of Castile, the Indies, and the Chamber of His Majesty. He was also knight of the Order of Santiago, perpetual regidor of Soria, procurator in the Cortes, crime prosecutor of the Royal Audiencia and Chancery of Valladolid, auditor of Valladolid, auditor of the Council of Finance and of the Council of the Indies, regent of the kingdoms of Navarre and Seville, doctor of Canons, and professor at the University of Salamanca, where he presided over the Hall of Mayors of Castile.

These were only some of the posts he held. Following his father's reform and codifications of the laws and statutes within the Order of Santiago, García was commissioned by royal authority to restore and reform Spain's colleges in the seventeenth century. His measures institutionalized and restored order in the kingdom's most prestigious schools.

Regencies of Navarre and Seville under the law of Medrar and the House of Medrano

As regent of the Kingdom of Seville with delegated sovereign authority, and later as regent of the Kingdom of Navarre from 1645 to 1648, García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos governed and enacted the harmony of religion, obedience, and justice in public rule. According to the Actas de Diputación, his administration made such a profound impression that, upon the conclusion of his regency, the Navarrese formally petitioned the Crown for his successor to be:

"of equal standing… worthy as is Don García."

This rare affirmation confirmed that he had fulfilled the doctrine in law and action. His regency exemplified a visible virtue (medrar) and law, expressed through governance, confirmed by the people, and upheld by royal service.

García de Medrano's unification of the Colegios into the Colegio de Santa Catalina de los Medrano in Spain

Between 1663 and 1664, as Visitador General by royal commission, García unified the colleges of Tuy, Vizcaínos, and Verdes under uniform constitutions. Acting as heir and patron of their founders, García de Medrano transformed fragmented noble foundations into a centralized system of merit-based fellowships. This consolidation, approved by the Royal Council of Castile, institutionalized García reform, enabling advancement (medrar) through learning, service, and lineage, within a framework of royal and ecclesiastical oversight. The final incorporation of the Verdes college into the Colegio de Santa Catalina de los Medrano in 1668 confirmed the House of Medrano's lasting role in educational governance and doctrinal stewardship.

García de Medrano's reformation of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso

Title page of the 1666 royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso led by García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos.

García de Medrano's most influential work came with the 1666 royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso, Spain's elite training ground for future statesmen. Enacted by Charles II of Spain on 4 November 1666 following a decree issued on 27 August 1665 by Philip IV of Spain, the reform was designed and implemented by García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, a senior jurist of the Royal Council of Castile and the son of García de Medrano y Castejón. His statutes addressed absenteeism, corruption, and moral decline with a comprehensive code regulating elections, lectures, residence, and governance. His reform at the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso effectively ended the university's traditional autonomy, long supported by the Catholic Church, and came to symbolize the intersection of royal power, legal rigor, and educational governance in seventeenth-century Spain.

Commissioned by King Philip IV to restore academic and moral order, García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos produced 82 statutes regulating elections, lectures, residence, and governance, establishing one of the most comprehensive educational reforms of the seventeenth century. The reform marked a decisive moment in the transmission of medrar as a political-educational doctrine embedded in the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso. In the aftermath of institutional decline at the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso, marked by absenteeism, corruption, and moral deterioration, the royal appointment of García de Medrano in 1665 did not merely impose discipline; it revived the ethical grammar of medrar.

The Colegio's collapse, emblematic of broader tensions in Habsburg Spain's educational and spiritual life, revealed the very human vulnerability to disorder and drift. But rather than deny this fallibility, the Medrano response, grounded in precepts and principles, was to restore virtue through structure, transforming decay into doctrinal opportunity. Medrar, then, was not the absence of failure but the form through which failure was met: with law, hierarchy, visibility, and purpose.

By formally linking academic excellence to royal service, the statutes of Medrano framed advancement not merely as personal ambition (medro) but as the result of visible merit, hierarchical loyalty, and institutional discipline (medrar). Students were now evaluated not only on learning but on their conformity to the Medrano ethos of order, governance, and usefulness to the Crown, qualities explicitly cultivated by the lectures, statutes, and residential life designed by García de Medrano. Rather than simply impose discipline, he legally declared advancement in the colegios as the result of merit, virtue, hierarchical loyalty, and service to the Crown.

Medrar and García's Reform of the Colegio de San Eugenio

He also carried out a major restructuring of the Colegio de San Eugenio (San Ambrosio), historically known as the Colegio de los Gramáticos and located on Nebrija Street, named after Antonio de Nebrija, the 15th-century scholar who formally defined medrar, making the educational institutions a literal and symbolic locus of the doctrine's linguistic, political, and educational codification. Originally housing 36 collegians studying Latin and Greek, the colegio de San Eugenio was formally restructured by García de Medrano, who reduced its numbers to 16 in a move toward intensified selectivity and doctrinal precision.

The San Eugenio college, documented in the Archivo Histórico Nacional, was explicitly devoted to the teaching of grammatica (grammar), forming students not only in language but in the structured logic of moral ascent, service, and legal reasoning. In San Eugenio, medrar becomes pedagogy, the grammar of rule instructed to the empire's future statesmen. The Colegio de San Eugenio, also known as San Ambrosio, formed part of a key educational complex in Madrid alongside the Colegio de San Isidro and the Hospital de San Lucas.

The reform of the Colegio of Ildefsonso, and later San Eugenio provided the colegios with correction and reaffirmed that medrar is a disciplined return to natural and divine order. Through these reforms, García de Medrano transformed decline into doctrinal and educational renewal, codifying medrar as a virtue of governance; a doctrine lived by students who were bound to moral order, royal service, and institutional discipline.

The Medrano Academies and the Scientific Foundations of the Spanish Enlightenment (1675–1706)

Bottom right corner of the "Geographic Map of a New Description of the Great River and Empire of the American Amazons" c. 1700.

Tomás shared the Fernández de Medrano surname with Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, sole-director of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels from 1675 to 1705. Founded in 1675 at the request of the 9th Duke of Villahermosa, Governor and Captain General of the Spanish Netherlands, the academy is widely regarded as the first modern military and mathematical institution in Europe.

Before the rise of the Bourbons in Spain and the 18th-century Spanish Enlightenment, King Charles II sought to harmonize intellect and reason with dynastic authority. In order to advance (medrar) Spain's military capabilities and address the shortage of artillerymen and engineers in the Spanish Tercio, the 9th Duke of Villahermosa appointed Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, whose doctrinal treatises were composed specifically for the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels (1675–1706).

It combined theoretical instruction with practical training, offering a curriculum that included arithmetic, geometry, fortification, artillery, algebra, cosmography, astronomy, navigation, mechanics, and elements of civil architecture. Medrano's military and mathematical academy is regarded as the first formal project of general military training in Europe. It served as the institutional predecessor of later Royal Military Academies established in Barcelona, Ceuta, Oran, and eventually the Academia General Militar.

The 9th Duke of Villahermosa informed the king that when he established the Royal Academy of Mathematics in the States of Flanders by His Majesty's order and approval, he also made the choice of Captain Sebastián Fernández de Medrano to teach various subjects to the officers and soldiers of the army. In a 1680 letter, the 9th Duke of Villahermosa wrote to King Charles II of Spain informing him of the national advancements (medrar) made because of Sebastián Fernández de Medrano:

In the limited time that the military have attended, many have become very proficient in the understanding of the arts that make a soldier capable in his profession... the proof of having already sent some engineers to other armies, who with the experience previously acquired and the theory of mathematics, have advanced in such a way that it has been achieved that today Your Majesty no longer needs to rely on engineers and artisans from other nations, which carries so much risk of confidence, having expert Spaniards in these matters.

Medrano was promoted to Maestre de Campo by the King, who decreed that all of Spain honor his service. In his own autobiography, Medrano described the academy's mission:

I had partially fulfilled the honors owed to the Royal Clemency of His Majesty by establishing this Military Academy, as it was intended to nurture capable individuals in the Martial Art, just as similar seminaries in other Princedoms produced engineers, therefore avoiding the reliance on foreign engineers, in whom confidence was risked, and recognizing the favor bestowed upon me in this regard, it quickly became evident how significant this Academy was when several capable individuals in Military Architecture emerged from it, not only for the domains of His Majesty but also for those of the Princes of the League, who have requested them on various occasions.

For example, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano sent one of his most promising students, Juan de Ortega, to support the Archbishop-Elector of Trier, Johann Hugo von Orsbeck, during the siege of Mainz. Ortega was killed in action. Charles V, Duke of Lorraine, mourned the loss, reportedly remarking that "a valuable man had been lost." Among Medrano's most distinguished pupils was an engineer named Reysemberg, who went on to serve as General Engineer to Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, while another became an engineer in the service of King James II of England.

He explained:

Upon being informed by my generals, I owed to their magnanimity the noble attribute of being named in their Royal Dispatches as a benefactor to their armies.

Most importantly, Medrano formally described the academy's curriculum as a doctrine:

Moreover, to facilitate the understanding of this doctrine for the dedicated, it was decided to publish various books on all aspects of the Mathematical Disciplines relevant to this profession, such as Geography or World Description, Geometry, Fortification, Squadron Formation, Artifices of Fire, and the usage and practice of Artillery and Mortars, all of which were lacking in our language.

Illustration in "Geography or modern description of the world and its parts" (1709 edition) by Sebastian Fernandez de Medrano

The doctrine taught by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano at the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels united virtue, service and merit with mathematics, geography, geometry, fortification, squadron formation, artifices of fire, military engineering, artillery and mortars under royal service, even at his own expense:

Having achieved all this with success, I resolved to cease writing, as the works were sufficient and the multitude of plates required caused considerable expense.

From 1694 he instituted annual gold medals for outstanding students that paired Mars and Pallas and King Charles II in their iconography, a visual expression of the academy's union of royal authority and military discipline with learned science.

King Charles II issued a royal directive on 20 May 1688, ensuring that his salary would be paid without delay or condition. Citing his "singular merits" and the academy’s unmatched utility, the King affirmed that doctrinal service, like military service, required proper reward to safeguard peace, education, and continuity within the imperial order, thereby enacting in royal decree the precepts and principles set forth in the República Mista.

Medrano trained engineers and officers who shaped military campaigns and imperial projects. His method became the model for future military academies in Barcelona, Ceuta, Oran, and beyond. Enrollment was renewed annually, with officers and cadets admitted to a one-year course in core studies, followed by a second year of advanced work for selected pupils. Graduates received diplomas qualifying them for service as engineers and artillery officers and many were deployed both in Europe and in colonial cities in the Americas.

Sebastián received support under the patronage of Francisco Antonio de Agurto Salcedo Medrano, 1st Marquess of Gastañaga, Governor and Captain General of the Spanish Netherlands. Sebastian Fernández de Medrano personally wrote and developed a consistent pedagogical program through a series of his own textbooks and treatises used at the academy, among them Rudimentos geométricos y militares (1677), El práctico artillero (1680), El ingeniero práctico (1696), El perfecto artificial, bombardero y artillero (1699), and later compilations in geography and military architecture.

18th century: The Bourbon Enlightenment and the Institutional Doctrine of Medrano

The Perfect Architect in Military Art (1700) dedicated to Luis Francisco de la Cerda y Aragón, 9th Duke of Medinaceli (1660–1711): "The blood of your ancestors, whom sacred virtue and the fame of war made divine, has deservedly come to you, from Medrano, the labor of the craftsman of Mars."

In 1700, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano dedicated his treatise El architecto perfecto en el arte militar to Luis Francisco de la Cerda y Aragón, 9th Duke of Medinaceli. In the dedication, Medrano explicitly invoked the Duke’s patronage as a guarantor of doctrinal and intellectual legitimacy, affirming that the work would circulate under his noble protection. He opened with the following address:

"The Doctrine treated in this volume saw the light of day under the protection of Your Excellency, so that by such privilege it might circulate safely, secure from all censure. Although I confess my humble style unworthy of so enlightened a patron, I offer this work as the fruit of my poor and uncultivated field, trusting that Your Excellency's magnanimity will accept this modest gift. Even as the great Emperor of Russia once received with gratitude a farmer’s handful of herbs, may Your Excellency graciously receive the offering of my labor. Encouraged by your generosity, I hope to continue serving His Majesty in whatever measure my insufficiency may allow. Brussels, the first of July, 1700. At the feet of Your Excellency, always, Don Sebastián Fernández de Medrano."

Written at the close of the Habsburg era, Medrano's military academy in Brussels obtained the spiritual and political authority of Madrid's highest noble house, bridging the intellectual legacy of the Spanish Empire into the Bourbon Enlightenment. As royal minister and viceroy under Charles II, the Duke of Medinaceli safeguarded the circulation of Medrano's doctrine at the threshold between the Habsburg and Bourbon monarchies, maintaining the union of nobility, intellect, and service in the early eighteenth century.

Emblem of the Spanish Military Engineers

Under the Bourbons in Spain, Medrano's Academy was protected and upheld by the new monarchy. However, French occupations in the Low Countries weakened the institution after 1697, and the academy ceased operations following the Battle of Ramillies in 1706. After the Treaty of Utrecht transferred the Southern Netherlands to the Austrian Habsburgs, a military engineering academy was reconstituted in Brussels with French as the language of instruction. It gradually declined in status and closed in 1783.

Medrano's instructional model, however, directly shaped later royal military academies at Barcelona, Oran, and Ceuta, and ultimately influenced the organization of the Corps of Engineers in the early eighteenth century, which was later solely represented by Lorenzo de Medrano y Treviño.

Regarding Medrano's doctrine taught at the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels, Spanish military historian Serafín María de Sotto, 3rd Count of Clonard, later wrote:

The Spanish can rightly claim the glory of having advanced [medrar] in the science of war more than the rest of cultured Europe.

Medrano's academy anticipated Enlightenment principles by teaching rulers and officers through scientific doctrine rooted in moral order. His work fulfilled the vision of the República Mista and ensured Spain's advancement through virtue, not imitation. His doctrine remains a foundational pillar in the intellectual history of Spanish governance.

By the early eighteenth century, Enlightenment reformers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Baron d’Holbach called for the sciences to replace scholastic traditions in European education. However, the House of Medrano had already fused scholastic tradition with the sciences, implementing mathematics, mechanics, and astronomy as central elements of instruction decades earlier.

The academies and colegios led by members of the House of Medrano continued to provide the doctrine to the Empire and anticipated many of the educational reforms later promoted by Enlightenment thinkers in Europe. Unlike France and England, where Enlightenment reformers sought to replace scholastic traditions with science, Sebastián pioneered a uniquely Spanish model that fused doctrine with the education taught at the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels, embedding scientific knowledge into state institutions decades before similar reforms elsewhere. While Jesuit colleges in France and Spain continued to focus on Greek and Latin classics with limited instruction in mathematics, physics, or astronomy, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano established a curriculum that integrated both scientific and practical disciplines.

Furthermore, Medrano's legacy as a legitimate bearer of the doctrine and surname was formally upheld by imperial authority, affirming both his authorship and the doctrinal continuity he embodied. In 1723, Emperor Charles VI (Holy Roman Emperor) issued a royal privilege granting the widow of printer Henrico Verdussen exclusive rights to publish las Obras de Medrano ("the Works of Medrano") in the Spanish Netherlands. The decree explicitly named Medrano as the sole author of the collected works, omitting any alternate attribution, and extended legal protection for their publication over six years. This formal recognition by the imperial crown affirmed the doctrinal authority of Medrano's writings, their rightful transmission under his name, and their continuity within the Habsburg and Bourbon monarchies and Holy Roman Empire as part of the Doctrine of Medrano and its inheritance through the institutions of imperial law and education.

The Pícaros failed medro versus medrar

Quevedo's El Buscón, written in 1603 and published in 1626, represents a significant example of the Picaresque novel genre, a fictional world where the word medro becomes a hollow, corrupt and unstable imitation of medrar.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth-century, the derivative word medro circulated in Spanish society as a debated and distorted idea. Medro, in the picaresque novels, was portrayed as opportunistic self-advancement. Francisco de Quevedo, himself a member of the Medrano Academy of Poetry from 1616–1622, and a Knight of the Order of Santiago, demonstrated this contrast in El Buscón, published in 1626, where medro appears as a hollow, corrupt imitation of medrar, thereby underscoring the true doctrine of lawful and virtuous advancement.

In Spain's Golden Age, these novels depicted social ascent from society's margins in sharp contrast to the hierarchical and lawful advancement defined by the Doctrine of Medrano. Told in the voice of marginalized rogues (pícaros), works such as Lazarillo de Tormes (1554), Guzmán de Alfarache (1599/1604), and El Buscón (1626) portrayed success as a pragmatic survival strategy, attaching oneself to the powerful without regard to moral law. In this fictional world, medro was precarious, reliant on favoritism and artifice, and detached from the precepts of justice or service to the common good.

As Maravall notes, "The pícaro leaves his environment to affirm his self, stifled by social pressure, and believes that the achievement of his aim can be demonstrated by showing his successful path." According to the pícaro's:

For those who abandon their family sphere and the protection and affections it provides, there remains no other compensatory satisfaction than success… attaining that aspiration to medrar, by leaping over whatever stands in the way, will become his sole objective."

This placed medrar in direct opposition to the pícaro's opportunistic path of medro. In the Spanish imperial order, by contrast, Tomás Fernández de Medrano defined a doctrine of advancement through virtue, service, and ancestral example.

Medrano, in his República Mista, makes a clear distinction between a good subject and those who are proud, idle, or ambitious:

"A good subject should be humble, gracious, obedient, and devout, not proud, ambitious, or idle. It is critical for both great and small to be content in their stations without aspirations for higher ranks than suit their condition, lest they disrupt the republic by their ambition."

A similar pattern appears in the chapbook El hijo del verdugo by Juan de Medina (1701), where the protagonist escapes the dishonor of his birth through fabricated genealogy, bribery, and courtly favoritism, eventually receiving a habit of Santiago and an administrative post in the Indies. In this satire, the habit is reduced to a hollow emblem of status, visually familiar yet stripped of the lawful service and codified merit it represented in the doctrinal model of medrar, as codified by García de Medrano in the laws of the Order of Santiago.

In deliberate contrast to medro, the Viaje de Turquía (c. 1557) presents medrar in the life of Pedro de Urdemalas, a knight whose adventures among the Ottoman Turks lead to both social and moral transformation. Pedro's eventual mission is governed by divine law and directed toward the virtuous service (medrar).

Pedro explicitly affirms:

Medrar is a virtue of great value... Success is dependent upon medrar... only those who find the right friends attain that special state that places them among the buenos, and always, as they say, attach yourself to the buenos, I sought good company and sought to be among the fellowship of gentlemen.

"The Barber at the Souk" by Enrique Simonet, 1897

Later, newly freed from his chains, he is told by the Turkish barber:

Do you think you are in your own land, where by omens you are going to medrar? Make sure you never give up on anyone, but promise everyone health right away… the Turks never blame the doctor for death, but each one has written on his forehead what will be his fate, and when the hour comes, it is fulfilled.

The Turkish barber describes medrar through opportunity and navigation of social relations expressed in a pragmatic form that lacks the doctrine's moral and institutional safeguards. The Turkish barber's remark reveals the cultural shift Pedro must face: among the Turks, success depended on adapting to local customs and perceptions of fate. In the Viaje, this moment serves as a step in Pedro's transformation, ultimately leading him back to Spain as a knight, where he embraces a virtuous form of medrar.

Viaje de Turquía (c. 1557) shows that medrar was understood beyond Spain, including in the Ottoman world. There, advancement followed local customs and fatalistic beliefs, lacking the moral discipline and institutional framework of its Spanish form. This contrast reveals how the universal impulse to advance can take very different forms depending on its moral and institutional foundations.

Julián Íñiguez de Medrano: Exemplarity and Medrar in the Kingdoms of Navarre and France

Château de Nérac, where Julián Íñiguez de Medrano was a courtier of Queen Margaret's court. The Queen commissioned Julián Íñiguez de Medrano to compose La Silva Curiosa in 1583.

One of the clearest historical examples of medrar, the etymological root of the Medrano name and doctrine, is illustrated in the life of Julián Íñiguez de Medrano, Lord of Maumusson. In 1583, Tomás Fernández de Medrano's contemporary and kinsman Íñiguez de Medrano, Navarrese knight and court poet, authored La Silva Curiosa at the request of Queen Margaret of Valois, Queen of Navarre and consort of the future Henry IV of France.

Previously, Julián lived with Prince Henry II of Navarre in his royal service as a man-at-arms, and later entered the service of Antoine of Navarre. Julián was also linked to the royal House of Íñiguez and a descendant of Íñigo Arista, the first king of Pamplona (Navarre).

In 1531–1532, he fought in the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars under Charles V before he departed to Navarre. According to Arbizu, he was the interpreter and guide in Germany and Hungary for Antonio de Peralta y Velasco (c. 1490–1545), 2nd Marquis of Falcés and Count of Santesteban.

Before writing La Silva Curiosa for Queen Margaret of Valois, Julián had been associated with the court of Queen Marguerite de Navarre (1492–1549).

Before he wrote La Silva Curiosa in 1583, Julián had been associated with the court of Marguerite de Navarre (1492–1549), Queen of Navarre and author of the Heptameron. This association placed Julián within the intellectual and moral environment of Marguerite de Navarre's reformist court, which emphasized reflection, virtue, and moral governance through literature.

Archival records from 1548 indicate that, with her support, it had been arranged for Medrano to marry Sérènne de Montauban, daughter of Bertrand de Montauban, lord of Maumusson and Florès. To formalize the marriage, he presented a ruling from the divisero and lord of Valdeosera, confirming his descent from the royal House of Íñiguez de Medrano and his entitlement to a share of its collective estate. The hereditary institution of Valdeosera later included his kinsman and contemporary Tomás Fernández de Medrano, author of the República Mista, who became a divisero in 1589 and in 1600 was appointed mayor, chief magistrate (alcalde mayor), and lord of Valdeosera. Tomás was recognized as one of the most qualified and ancient lords of that estate. Both Julián and Tomás held the Medrano entitlement to Valdeosera, representing a continuous noble and doctrinal tradition linking Navarre, France, and Castile.

While residing at the courts of Fontainebleau and Saint-Maur, Íñiguez de Medrano composed the Silva under commission by Queen Margaret of Valois in 1583. Written in Spanish and formally dedicated with humility and reverence, La Silva Curiosa features a dedication to the Queen, encoding lawful service, restraint, and gratitude toward sovereign order. Originally from Estella in Navarre, Julián likely relocated to France sometime between 1532 and 1542.

Julián Íñiguez de Medrano's Silva Curiosa functioned as a doctrinal instrument shaped by global experience, courtly service, and the cultivation of virtue. Before entering the household of Queen Margaret of Valois, Medrano traveled extensively across Spain, Italy, Sicily, Flanders, Portugal, the Indies, and Africa. His role as a gentleman of Navarre and lord of Maumusson was defined by direct engagement with sovereign courts, diverse cultures, and religious traditions, and his literary work was composed with the deliberate aim of transmitting it to the royal court and courtiers. The structure of the Silva, composed of proverbs, epitaphs, moral narratives, allegories, poetic compositions, and exempla, reflects a purposeful arrangement of intellectual materials drawn from direct observation and diplomatic travel. The work employs a technique of motley ordering, characteristic of the silva genre, to encourage discernment, memory, and moral reasoning through the art of conversation.

Odysseus and the Sirens, Ulixes mosaic at the Bardo National Museum in Tunis, Tunisia, 2nd century AD.

The literary tributes included in the Silva attest to Julián Iñíguez de Medrano's reception as a figure of exemplary virtue and philosophical depth. Jean Daurat, the royal french poet, identifies Medrano as a new Ulysses (Odysseus), whose journeys yielded not spoils but cultivated knowledge for sovereign governance, writing:

"Behold, Julio de Medrano, a new Ulysses of sorts, returns from different peoples and from a diverse sea, bearing every kind of gem and all kinds of gold: a treasure never as great as that of Ulysses [Medrano]."

The Hermit of Salamanca compares him to a bee gathering the wisdom of nations and returning to nourish the homeland. In 1583, N.L.B. composed an ode to Julián (Julio) Íñiguez de Medrano, affirming the intellectual treasures and princely virtues he brought to Navarre and France:

You, Julio, returning unharmed, have diligently examined and bring back to your homeland. Though you live esteemed among noble princes, the blood of noble ancestors, of the Medrano lineage, well known is the virtue of the men that house produced, yet it is your sacred strength of mind, ennobled by its deep virtue, that my lyre would praise. For this alone escapes the funeral pyre and, for all the years to come, remains.

The ode by N. L. B. characterizes Medrano as the embodiment of medrar and a bearer of doctrinal treasures gathered through hardship and confirmed by noble blood. These tributes frame the Silva as a work of public conversation and instruction through cultural form, embedding his Silva Curiosa into the moral culture of the court. This passage confirms the recognition of Medrano's lineage as noble and his work as intellectually and morally enduring. The royal court served as a medium for transmitting his Silva Curiosa, relying on influence through literary exemplarity rather than formal doctrine. It directly embedded the Medrano tradition into the memory, discourse, and behavior of courtiers and the monarchs. Its influence aligns with the later formalization of these values in República Mista by his relative and contemporary Tomás Fernández de Medrano and reflects the continuous transmission of doctrine and service across generations of the Medrano house.

The Mirror of the Soul: Julián Íñiguez de Medrano and the Necessity of Exemplarity

La Silva Curiosa by Julián Iñíguez de Medrano (republished in 1608 by César Oudin)

Within La Silva Curiosa (1583), Julián Iñíguez de Medrano draws on selections from Girolamo Ruscelli, and aligns the classical image of the Wheel of Fortune with Christian precepts of divine justice. One of his passages affirmed:

Friend, this is the wheel of fortune, which doth not stay in the same state, but changes with varying fates, raising some while lowering others ... yet none has escaped his rightful fate under the law of divine order.

This reflection was followed by a maxim reinforcing the proper response to divine justice and human error:

He who stumbles but does not fall advances on his way. He who sins and then mends his ways entrusts himself to God. For, as Scripture says: Humanum est errare; sed ferinum et diabolicum perseverare in errare. (To err is human; but to persist in error is beastly and diabolical.)

These lines affirmed that sin or failure does not preclude virtue and advancement (medrar). Refusal to reform signals a fall from lawful order (medro). Restoration through repentance is an act of strength, not weakness. Julián emphasized that in order to advance, people must examine themselves through the mirror of scripture, reason, and exemplarity:

Likewise, you may look upon the lives and examples of the following men as a true mirror of the soul, which being so necessary and beneficial should often be set before our eyes, not only the eyes of the body, but also of the spirit.

This passage aligns with the doctrines function of exemplarity as a moral mirror by which the soul may be measured. According to Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros and Julián, the mirror of the soul must reflect the mirror of truth; therefore, people must embody a mirror of virtue.

The examination of virtuous lives, of those who entrust themselves to God and do not persist in error, is presented as a method of self-governance. Anybody who refused this mirror, whether of sacred law, historical precedent, or natural virtue, were considered to have departed from the bounds of lawful advancement and to be vulnerable to the disorder of fate. Julián's words were not made in abstraction. He became Lord of Maumusson in southern France, where his descendants held numerous noble titles in Gascony, including the Marquessate of Medrano, and perpetuated the doctrinal legacy through service, alliance, and noble continuity.

Henry IV and the Restoration of the Kingdom of France (1593–1605)

Portrait of Henry IV of France.

Tomás Fernández de Medrano experienced firsthand the French Wars of Religion from 1591–1598 against Henry IV of France. As Secretary of State and War to the Duke of Savoy, Medrano, with the support of the King of Spain, backed the Catholic Guise and Montmorency families against the Protestant faction led by the House of Condé and Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre. The conflict reached resolution in 1598 when Henry of Navarre, who had converted to Catholicism in 1593, issued the Edict of Nantes, granting defined liberties to the Huguenots while maintaining Catholic legitimacy.

The articulation of Medrano doctrine at the French court predates the political consolidation of Henry IV. This became evident in 1593, when Henry IV, previously Protestant, renounced Calvinism and converted to Catholicism to secure the unity of the French crown. Though the phrase "Paris is well worth a Mass" may be apocryphal, the act affirmed a political theology of peace, unity, and legitimacy through sacramental kingship. His conversion, coronation at Chartres on 27 February 1594, and papal absolution on 17 September 1595 completed the ritual and juridical recognition of his sovereignty. Henry's conversion alienated some Protestant allies but secured the loyalty of most Catholic subjects.

Writing soon after Henry IV's coronation, Medrano identified the disorders of the previous reign as rooted in the arbitrary elevation of unworthy individuals under Henry III:

One of the causes of ruin in France under Henry III, as a modern author claims, was that people sprang up like mushrooms, elevated overnight to great dignities without the experience, age, or virtues possessed by those born and bred for such roles. [...] Those who occupy positions without merit bring envy upon themselves and disrepute upon their patron.

19th century statue of Euripides in a niche on the Semperoper, Germany

He drew from Euripides to compare such honors to golden wings that appear to elevate but instead weigh down the unworthy, and continued:

Qui dicunt impio justus est... Maledicent eis populi, et detestabuntur eos tribus. (The people and nations curse those who say to the wicked, "You are just.")

For Medrano, rulers who fail to reward merit or punish injustice become complicit in wrongdoing. Political legitimacy, he taught, depends on moral hierarchy and virtuous rule. The conversion and coronation of Henry IV, culminating in the Edict of Nantes, embodied these principles, restoring divine order through justice and exemplary kingship.

Le Soldat Navarros (1604) and the Four Pillars of Governance

Two years after Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s República Mista (1602), Pierre Lostal, vice-chancellor of Navarre under Henry III of Navarre (Henry IV of France), published Le Soldat Navarros (1604). Addressed "Au Roy," the work portrayed the monarch as the restraining force against ambition and disorder, grounding royal authority in four cardinal virtues: justice, prudence, magnanimity, and temperance:

Every request, every estate, every undertaking of princes, and every action must be established upon these four pillars, and pushed forward with their aid. A request must have justice for its foundation. The estate in its body must have prudence for its guidance. An enterprise must have magnanimity for its pursuit and support. Action must be restrained by temperance.

Lostal's hierarchy of virtues shows the shared moral language of Castile and Navarre. The continued activity of Medrano family members under Henry III of Navarre and Louis XIII confirms that these were expressions of a single doctrinal current operating across both monarchies.

Lostal invoked ancient examples: Pythagoras honored courage only when tied to lawful victory, while the ruins of Apollo's temple at Delos warned against hubris. Through these examples, he situated the king within a universal tradition of sacred kingship, bound to the same obligations emphasized by Philip II and Medrano. By 1604, Le Soldat Navarros demonstrated that the universal precepts codified in the República Mista were not confined to Castile but extended across Navarre and France. Justice, prudence, magnanimity, and temperance were understood as the universal grammar pillars of rightful rule within Catholic monarchies.

Bilingual Franco-Turkish translation of the 1604 Franco-Ottoman Capitulations between Sultan Ahmed I and King Henry IV, published by Savary de Brèves in 1615.

In the same year Le Soldat Navarros appeared, Henry IV extended these precepts into foreign policy by concluding peace with the Ottoman Empire. The Traité des Capitulations of 1604, signed between Henry IV and Sultan Ahmed I, was one of the most significant cross-civilizational alliances of early modern Europe. The treaty expressed magnanimity as defined in early modern political theology. It represented a correction of medro (ambition) through legal medrar (improvement), restraining overreach and restoring balance through reason of state. The restoration of France to Catholic unity and the 1604 Franco-Ottoman peace reflected the same precepts of justice, prudence, temperance, and magnanimity articulated in Le Soldat Navarros and República Mista. Henry IV demonstrated that rulers of differing creeds could enter concord through obedience to divine order.

The 1604 treaty reshaped the European political order, easing confrontation and allowing Spain to consolidate internally. This balance enabled the Spanish Crown to implement reforms already set forth in República Mista (1602). In 1605, Philip III published García de Medrano y Castejón's Copilación de las Leyes Capitulares de la Orden de Santiago, formalizing medrar as statutory law under Philip III, confirmed with Apostolic Authority.

The 1604 treaty, Tomás Fernández de Medrano's legal defense of the Order of St. John in 1605, and García de Medrano's 1605 reforms of the Order of Santiago applied the Doctrine of Medrano across diplomacy and law, aligning foreign peace and domestic institutions. In this context, the doctrine was fully enacted through precepts of justice, prudence, temperance, and magnanimity.

Diplomatic Doctrine of Delegated Authority: From Bayonne (1388) to the Pyrenees (1659)

Sepulchre of John I of Castile in the Toledo Cathedral. As mayordomo mayor, Diego López de Medrano met with John of Gaunt to affirm the legitimacy of the Trastámara dynasty, culminating in the Treaty of Bayonne (1388).

In 1386, Diego López de Medrano, Lord of Agoncillo and High Steward to King John I of Castile, was entrusted with a pivotal diplomatic mission to meet with John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, who had landed in Galicia asserting a claim to the Castilian throne through his wife, Constance of Castile, daughter of Peter I of Castile.

Diego, accompanied by Prior Juan de Serrano and Doctor Alvar Martínez de Villareal, delivered King John's reply in a formal audience. He spoke on behalf of the Crown, affirming its legitimacy and offering terms of personal or representative combat to avoid the shedding of Christian blood.

Lord, the King of Castile, my lord, says that you sent him a herald stating that you have greater rights to the Kingdom of Castile than he does... To this, the King my lord says that he has the right to the Kingdom of Castile, and if you decide otherwise, he will fight you personally, or with ten against ten, or a hundred against a hundred, for the service of God and to avoid the spilling of Christian blood...

This speech led to days of deliberation and a peaceful agreement. The result was the Treaty of Bayonne in 1388. John of Gaunt renounced his claim in exchange for 600,000 gold francs, an annuity, and the marriage of his daughter Catherine to the future Henry III of Castile. This agreement established dynastic legitimacy through the Trastámara line and created the title Prince of Asturias. It also bypassed the claim of Constance’s sister Isabel, Duchess of York, whose descendants later made symbolic claims through the Yorkist line.

The Trastámara dynasty's legitimacy was preserved through diplomacy, lawful counsel, and dynastic union. This episode prefigured the doctrine articulated in Tomás Fernández de Medrano’s República Mista, where delegated authority, princely education, and sacred kingship ensured peace and governance without civil war.

Centuries later, Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros echoed the same doctrinal principle. In his Heroic and Flying Fame, he claimed to have first conceived the proposal for peace with France, which he transmitted to Luis Méndez de Haro, royal valido of Philip IV. This initiative led to the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659, securing peace through dynastic marriage and sovereign counsel.

As with the Treaty of Bayonne, the Treaty of the Pyrenees established peace through a marriage alliance, this time between Louis XIV of France and Maria Theresa of Spain, with a promised dowry of 500,000 gold écus. The French later used Spain's failure to deliver the dowry as justification for the War of Devolution in 1667.

In both treaties, the Medrano family played the role of mediator and counselor. In 1388, Diego López de Medrano as High Steward helped avoid war and ensured succession through lawful recognition. In 1659, Diego Fernández de Medrano, as chaplain to the valido, transmitted the doctrine of peace through legitimate marriage and divine governance. These two moments formed a continuous arc in Spanish diplomacy guided by the Doctrine of Medrano.

Ministry of Luis Méndez de Haro, Valido of Philip IV

Portrait of Luis Méndez de Haro y Guzmán by Cornelis Meyssens. Diego wrote the Heroic and Flying Fame of the Most Excellent Lord Don Luis Méndez de Haro as his chaplain, advisor and trusted confidant.

In the 17th century, the House of Medrano maintained a political and religious alliance with the House of Haro, reinforced through the influence of Andrés Félix Vélaz de Medrano, 2nd Marquess of La Lapilla and lord of Fuenmayor and Almarza. These territories, previously held by Diego López de Medrano y Zúñiga, connected the Medrano line to the House of Zúñiga and, through them, to Luis Méndez de Haro and the Lordship of Cameros.

Diego López de Medrano y Zúñiga was also the uncle of Diego López de Medrano, Lord of Agconcillo, High Steward of John I of Castile in the fourteenth century. This interweaving of lineage, landholding, and service established a noble network of doctrinal and administrative continuity during Haro's ministry as valido of Spain in the seventeenth century.

Diego Fernández de Medrano as Chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro

The legacy of doctrine was continued by Tomás Fernández de Medrano's great-nephew Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, who inherited the title lord and divisero of Valdeosera and Sojuela, and served as both chaplain and advisor to Luis Méndez de Haro and Pedro Coloma, Secretary of State.

Title page of Heroic and Flying Fame of Luis Méndez de Haro by Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, lord of Valdeosera and Sojuela, chaplain and advisor to Haro, valido of Spain.

Diego authored a political treatise, Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul, dedicated to Prince Philip Prospero, and a panegyric entitled Heroic and Flying Fame of the Most Excellent Señor Don Luis Méndez de Haro (1659–1661). Together, these works reaffirm the precepts first set forth in Tomás Fernández de Medrano's doctrine and demonstrate the role of the valido as the moral and political extension of the monarch.

In his panegyric, Diego argues that Spain, through Haro, surpassed even the classical traditions of Greece and Rome:

Credits were given to the memory of Aristotle ... Maecenas, valido of Augustus Caesar, sought to seize for himself in the world the name of Prince ... But neither did Aristotle know how to discourse ... nor Maecenas to the Privados, better than the Most Excellent Señor Don Luis Méndez de Haro.

He credits Aristotle as "Prince of Philosophy," Euclid for geometric precision, Apelles for mastering royal portraiture, and Lysippus for the refinement of sculpture. Figures such as Gennophontes, Plutarch, and Maecenas are noted for offering guidance to princes and validos. Yet, Diego concludes that none succeeded in perfecting the art of royal counsel and governance better than Luis Méndez de Haro.

In a structured litany of questions, Diego proclaims that Haro lacked no quality of an excellent prince, cavalier, or patron. By embodying medrar, he provided charity toward subjects, unwavering loyalty to his king, prudence in adversity, justice in reward, and diligence in administration. His counsel was distinguished by brevity, consistency, and restraint, and he governed through peaceful means while preserving vigilance and firmness in war.

Juan de Espinosa Medrano as Chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro

Portrait and coat of arms of Juan de Espinosa Medrano, Quechua Indigenous nobleman and writer, archdeacon, and theologian of Peru, who, as Rector Priest of the Holy Cathedral Church of the City of Cuzco, head of the Kingdoms of Peru in the New World, embodied and advanced the Doctrine of Medrano in the Americas

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's República Mista was not confined to European contexts. The Doctrine of Medrano, present in Europe, also appeared in the Americas. In Peru, medrar was embodied in the life and works of Juan de Espinosa Medrano. In the Viceroyalty of Peru, Espinosa Medrano, serving as chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Spain, alongside his kin Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, illustrated the integration of religion, virtue, and universal governance outlined in the República Mista and Heroic and Flying Fame.

Juan de Espinosa Medrano is regarded as the first major Quechua writer, Indigenous archdeacon, and sacred theologian of Peru. He was enrolled as "Royal Fellow of the illustrious Seminary of San Antonio the Great, Professor of Arts and Sacred Theology therein; Rector Priest of the Holy Cathedral Church of the City of Cuzco, head of the Kingdoms of Peru in the New World."

Rising (medrando) through sacred office and imperial pedagogy, his life presents an example of the doctrine's theology of ascent across cultural and ecclesiastical boundaries. In 1662, Juan de Espinosa Medrano dedicated his Apologético en favor de Don Luis de Góngora to Luis Méndez de Haro, the powerful valido of King Philip IV of Spain. Written in Cuzco and dated February 20, the dedication demonstrates Espinosa Medrano's mastery of the Doctrine of Medrano and the Baroque, while maintaining deep loyalty to the Spanish monarchy. The text elevates Haro as a universal emblem of peace, virtue, and imperial restoration, while asserting the legitimacy of American letters within the cultural sphere of the empire.

Espinosa Medrano begins with exalted titles for Haro:

Hercules of the Catholic Firmament, Delight of the Spanish World, Father of the Fatherland, Prince of Peace

Juan invokes Hercules and even describes Haro as a "Prince of Peace," a title that would later take legal form as Príncipe de la Paz (Prince of the Peace), granted to Manuel Godoy, valido of Spain under Charles IV on 27 September 1795 after securing the Peace of Basel.

Juan acknowledges the audacity of addressing such a powerful figure from the distant Peruvian viceroyalty and celebrates Haro's virtues as transcending Europe and reaching the New World:

Your Excellency is indeed a lofty patron for one as lowly as I to dare aspire to your protection; but it must be one so great, if his shadow is to reach even into the Other World. Here, the lights of your Valor, Prudence, Rectitude, Magnificence, and Kindness arrive, an enchantment that could have sufficed to confine its brilliance to the sphere of all Europe. Yet it sweeps beyond, powerfully capturing veneration and flooding new climates with the fragrance of so glorious a name.

Espinosa Medrano draws parallels with classical examples of political loyalty:

Alexander would not have been truly "the Great" if, amid the opulence of his empires, he lacked the tender trust of his Hephaestion. Nor did Darius gain greater fame from his innumerable armies than from the loyal devotion of his Zopyrus.

Haro is praised as restoring a golden age to Spain and credited with enabling Diego Fernández de Medrano's proposed peace between France and Austria:

Let Spain glory in having produced, among the Haros, the golden branch that in so calamitous an age restores the golden centuries, centuries now enjoyed as war is crowned with victorious palms and peace with fruitful delights. Let France celebrate the blossoms that now flower in the sweet union of both Crowns, for to Your Excellency it owes that Austria inhaled the most gentle Auster wind to make fertile the French lilies. With such a Mercury, war has turned to abundance, fury to concord, arms to jubilation, horror to joy, and wrath to serenity.

Espinosa Medrano reframes the wolves of the Haro coat of arms:

Among some Spanish peoples, it is read that those who sent envoys to Marcellus seeking peace brought with them, not olive or verbena, but a wolf's skin as caduceus. No caduceus or olive is needed when the Wolves of the royal Haro shield announce prosperity, not fierce, but loyal; not savage, but pacific.

He aligns Haro with Apollo:

If Your Excellency is the Apollo who fosters them, then surely it is true that even Apollo, arbiter of the Arts and Father of the Muses, chose Wolves as insignia of his greatness.

He alludes to the legend of Gelon:

If today they seize this paper from me with force, I gladly offer it to the blazons of Your Excellency. Let them take it, whether notebooks or volumes of more serious studies, I shall find a way to repay the debt of having honored these scribbles.

As a token from the Indies, he offers:

A feather from the Indian World descends at the feet of Your Excellency, not in so humble a flight that it has not at least crossed the Antarctic and Gades seas. It arrives to pay homage, this drop to your Ocean of glory.

He concludes:

You live securely, Excellency, in the serene heights you occupy. For who else but Your Excellency, who has left virtue beyond the reach of emulation, exhausting even the final efforts of envy? Solus hic invidiae fines virtute reliquit, humanumque modum (He alone left behind the bounds of envy through his virtue and surpassed the human measure)... For who could be vexed that the stars shine eternally, that Jupiter wields the thunderbolt, or that Phoebus is sovereign of wisdom? Est aliquod meriti spatium, quod nulla furentis invidiae mensura capit (There is a span of merit that no measure of raging envy can contain)...

He signs as Haro's chaplain, Dr. Juan de Espinosa Medrano.

Taken together, these dedications express a coherent political theology in which the valido functions not as a usurper of royal authority, but as its clearest expression in action. Within the Medrano tradition, the valido is conceived as both servant and statesman, embodying the doctrinal virtues necessary to govern a composite monarchy with justice, prudence, and loyalty.

Treaty of the Pyrenees: The Valido and Medrano's Peace Policy (1659)

Painting of the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659) depicting Philip IV of Spain, Louis XIV of France, Luis Méndez de Haro, Valido of Philip IV, and Diego Fernández de Medrano, Chaplain to Haro.

According to his chaplain Diego Fernández de Medrano, Luis Méndez de Haro was praised for subordinating ambition to divine justice and the common good at the Treaty of the Pyrenees. Diego confirms Haro's role:

The restoration, not only of the Spanish Monarchy but also of the entire world, is owed to the Most Excellent Lord Don Luis Méndez de Haro, Archpolitician of the World.

This "remedy for Christendom," as Diego calls it, is presented as a divine and universal act of governance. It secured peace between the crowns of France and Spain, restored hope to the poor, and relieved kingdoms from a general epidemic of suffering. He did not act with passion but with equity, allowing criticism as counsel and correcting faults with favor. Diego emphasizes that Haro viewed peace as a moral imperative, not merely a diplomatic strategy. By avoiding the seduction of war and steering clear of both idleness and tyranny, Haro introduced a just peace into Christendom and relieved its afflicted.

Medal celebrating the Treaty of the Pyrenees, issued in 1660.

The treaty, in Diego’s view, was not just a diplomatic achievement but a doctrinal act that repaired the rupture between the two great Catholic monarchies, pillars of the faith, and extinguished the ambitions of heretical and pagan adversaries who had long benefited from their division. Diego's invocation of Cardinal Mazarin and the "ever-attentive dispositions" of Philip IV and Louis XIV frames the peace as an act of providential politics, in which both kings served as instruments of divine order.

Diego concludes that if the Romans awarded crowns to those who liberated their homeland, then those who restore the world deserve eternal monuments:

If they deserved such great glory, what crowns do the restorers of the World deserve, and those who remedy its intrinsic damages?

In this panegyric, Diego positions his own authorship as a mirror for princes and a testimony to true ascent through virtue, counsel, and divine alignment. He affirms that Haro's fame must be cast not in fragile stone, but in enduring bronze.

Diego affirms that the valido, Luis Méndez de Haro, has served God and therefore the world, writing:

He has so faithfully served Divine Majesty, has so greatly strengthened the Catholic Church, and has so generally benefited all the kingdoms of the world.

For Diego Fernández de Medrano, the peace of 1659 represented the doctrinal triumph of lawful advancement, order, virtue, and divine hierarchy. Diego's presence at the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659), negotiated by Haro and Cardinal Mazarin, signaled the doctrinal transition from treatise to action.

Possible depiction of Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, standing apart in clerical-style robes with distinctive red calzas. The painting, attributed to Jacques Laumosnier (c. 1660), captures the 1659 signing of the treaty.

In his Heroic and Flying Fame of Luis Méndez de Haro, he explicitly claimed to have conceived the policy that culminated in the treaty:

And I glorify myself in my discourses, for having first thought and defended … that the only remedy for Christendom and the World was this peace … settled among the Catholic and Most Christian princes.

The panegyric served as a formal declaration of doctrinal participation in the construction of peace through the valido. It marked the Medrano tradition as a historical doctrine and a living instrument of Catholic statecraft enacted on the world stage. This restoration culminated in the marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain, which Medrano portrayed as a union not only of dynasties but of providential governance.

Pheasant Island, where the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659) was signed. Diego Fernández de Medrano, acting through Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Spain, claimed to have "first thought and defended" the peace as the only remedy for Christendom.

He invoked the "Catholic Philip IV of Spain and the Most Christian Louis XIV of France" as agents through whom divine will had acted to "secure a just, lasting, and enduring peace." In their accord, he saw a bulwark against "the infidels and heretics" whose survival depended on disunion.

Diego described Haro as "singular and great in loyalty and love for his sovereign Prince, and in charity with his subjects," praising his justice in rewards, his restraint in power, and his consistency in adversity. He emphasized Haro's capacity "to reconcile the wills of the people amiably" and to respond with actions rather than words, casting him as the ideal privado formed by divine mercy and guided by reason. Medrano, who claims to have first thought and defended this peace, explicitly declared Haro was responsible for nothing less than the restoration of order and the establishment of Christian peace.

Diplomacy and Division: From the Pyrenees to the Treaty of the Hague (1659–1698)

Territorial cessions made under the Treaty of the Pyrenees.

The Treaty of the Pyrenees (7 November 1659) was widely regarded as a landmark of European peace. Negotiated at Pheasant Island between France and Spain, it ended the Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659). France secured significant territorial gains including Artois, Northern Catalonia (Roussillon and French Cerdagne), Montmédy, parts of Luxembourg and Flanders, while Spain relinquished claims to Catalonia and Portugal. The treaty arranged the marriage of Louis XIV of France to Maria Theresa of Spain, daughter of Philip IV.

Maria Theresa renounced her claim to the Spanish crown in exchange for a promised dowry of 500,000 gold écus to be paid out by Spain. However, this dowry was never paid. The unpaid settlement later became the pretext for the War of Devolution (1667), in which Louis XIV invoked the obscure law Jus Devolutionis to assert that the Spanish Netherlands had "devolved" to him by right of his marriage to Maria Theresa.

In 1663 Louis XIV recognized that French and Dutch objectives in the Low Countries were incompatible and exploited the Second Anglo-Dutch War to launch his campaign in May 1667. In the aftermath of the War of Devolution, the diplomacy of dynastic succession shifted into clandestine mechanisms. On 23 January 1668, the Triple Alliance was concluded between England, the Dutch Republic and Sweden. Parallel to this, on 20 January 1668 Louis XIV and Emperor Leopold I secretly agreed a Partition Treaty dividing the Spanish Empire in the event of Charles II of Spain's death without heir.

Spain was not party to these negotiations. By privately negotiating the partition of the Spanish monarchy, these powers departed from the principle that legitimate rule requires institutional continuity, national consent and doctrinal counsel. The secret treaty included clauses obliging Spain to end its war with Portugal and committing France to retreat to its 1659 boundaries if hostilities continued.

Despite this, Louis XIV prepared for the Franco-Dutch War (1672–1678), which expanded into the Third Anglo-Dutch War and the Scanian War (1675–1679). From 1675 to 1705, the Army of Flanders, responsible for the defense of the Spanish Netherlands, was placed under the instruction of General Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, Maestre de Campo and Master of Mathematics in the Low Countries, founder and sole director of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels. Sebastián fortified the borders of the Empire and was supported by each Captain General and Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, including Carlos de Aragón de Gurrea y de Borja, 9th Duke of Villahermosa, and Francisco Antonio de Agurto Salcedo Medrano Zúñiga, 1st Marquess of Gastañaga. Sebastián's role was vital in consolidating doctrinal instruction, strengthening the Army of Flanders and the Spanish Tercio, and maintaining continuity in the Spanish Netherlands even as foreign powers plotted its division in secrecy.

Nieuwpoort on the Ferraris map (c. 1775), where Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, first Marquess of Tabuérniga, served as Governor during the Franco-Dutch War (1671–1678). He ordered the flooding of the surrounding plains to impede the French advance, a strategic action that preserved the fortress until the signing of the Peace of Nijmegen (1678–1679).

At the same time, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, 1st Marquess of Tabuérniga, Sergeant General of Battle, and Governor of Nieuwpoort (1671–1678), commanded one of the region's principal fortresses during the Franco-Dutch War. A knight of Santiago and descendant of the ancient Navarrese line of Medrano, Antonio embodied the same doctrinal discipline that shaped Garcia de Medrano's legal reforms of the Order of Santiago, and Sebastián's academy. His governorship represented the Medrano ideal of lawful advancement (medrar) through sacrifice: to prevent the fortress from falling, he ordered the dikes surrounding Nieuwpoort to be broken, flooding the land to halt the French advance. Though it devastated the local economy, his decision preserved the city's defenses and demonstrated the doctrine's teaching that ambition (medro) must yield to justice, and personal cost to divine order. The fall of Nieuwpoort in early 1678 marked the close of his command and coincided with the signing of the Peace of Nijmegen (1678–1679).

While France could not destroy the Dutch Republic or fully conquer the Spanish Netherlands, the Peace of Nijmegen confirmed many of France's gains from the prior conflict. The Nine Years' War (1688–1697) followed, illustrating the limitations of dynastic expansion without stable institutional mediation. French armies invaded the Rhineland, occupied key fortresses and engaged in a scorched-earth campaign in the Palatinate and Baden. The German princes, England and the Dutch Republic formed the Grand Alliance and fought across Europe, including Ireland, Scotland, the Spanish Netherlands and Italy. A combination of financial exhaustion and famine led to the Treaty of Rijswijk (1697) which ended the war but left unresolved the question of Spanish succession.

Doctrine and Consequence: The Treaty of the Hague (1698)

With Charles II childless and European dynasties in flux, Europe attempted to return to the path of treaty-based designs of succession rather than conquest. However, the Treaty of The Hague (1698) marked a corruption of diplomacy. France, Great Britain, and the Dutch Republic assigned the crown of Spain to Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria without consulting Spain, and attempted to unlawfully empower viceroys and governors throughout the Empire to hold territory in sequestration, using force if necessary against so-called 'unauthorized' claimants.

Portrait of "The Lord General Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zapata, governor of the province of Carrión in the valley of Atlixco" (1693–1706) wearing red calzas

In opposition to the ambitions of the Treaty of The Hague (1696), various governors and viceroys in the Spanish Empire upheld the legitimacy of Charles II of Spain, including Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zapata, Lord and Divisero of the Solar de Regajal, Knight of the Order of Calatrava, and Governor of the Province of Carrión in the Valley of Atlixco. A cousin of Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, chaplain to the valido, and a descendant of Francisco Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Regajal, the brother of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, he embodied the same doctrinal and genealogical legacy as the authors of República Mista and Mirror of Princes. From 1693 to 1706, he governed the Province of Carrión in the Valley of Atlixco, a key region in Puebla and served as a living example of their doctrinal enactment in public governance. By applying the precepts of religion, obedience, and justice, Diego's government during the War of the Spanish Succession preserved loyalty to the Spanish Monarchy under the Habsburg dynasty and subsequent Bourbon dynasty, maintaining peace in the Province of Carrión during a dynastic transition.

The Treaty of the Hague (1698) confirmed the warnings of Tomás Fernández de Medrano in his República Mista (1602), where he condemned rulers and ministers who violate the precept of distributive and commutative justice, and those who seek to exchange kingdoms through injustice, offenses, and deceit:

Those who act against this precept cannot plead innocence before divine majesty, for it is known that "The Lord abhors all injustice." Ecclesiastes warns us sternly with these words: "A kingdom is transferred from one people to another due to injustice, injuries, offenses, and deceitful dealings."

He insists that gentleness and clemency are virtues worthy of a noble and magnanimous spirit and are paramount in a prince or magistrate. However, they must not be so excessive as to harm the republic; they must be tempered with a degree of severity and rigor as is necessary to govern and lead a multitude effectively.

He quotes Polybius:

"That state of the republic is most desirable and stable," says Polybius, "in which, privately, all live uprightly and harmlessly, and publicly, justice and clemency prevail."

For Medrano, the establishment of the kingdom and its public good, "as well as for the sacred and divine order, all subjects ought to be obedient to their superiors, who are legitimately chosen to govern, teach, and judge all things." Each individual, he affirms, must therefore strive to follow their calling with the obedience and dedication appropriate to their obligations.

Doctrinal Succession and the Will of Charles II: The Instruction of Joseph Ferdinand (1696–1699)

Title Page of The Practical Engineer, or Modern Military Architecture by Sebastian Fernández de Medrano (1696) dedicated to Joseph Ferdinand, Electoral Prince of Bavaria.

Although the Treaty of The Hague (1698) named Joseph Ferdinand as heir, Charles II rejected the treaty and independently designated him through a lawful Spanish will. The Spanish monarchy refused to have its empire divided without consultation, and on 14 November 1698, Charles II issued his will naming Joseph Ferdinand heir to an independent and undivided Spanish Empire. His mother, Mariana of Austria, recognized Joseph Ferdinand as rightful heir and firmly advocated for his claim, which brought her into conflict with her brother Leopold I and daughter-in-law Mariana of Neuburg, who favored Leopold's son, Archduke Charles, the future Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor.

By 1696, the House of Medrano was already preparing the Bavarian prince for kingship, anticipating the will of 1698. This early formation helps explain why Charles II later chose him as heir to the undivided Spanish Empire. Charles II recognized that naming Joseph Ferdinand as heir required doctrinal education to ensure dynastic legitimacy amid rival claims. As part of this formation, Sebastián dedicated El Ingeniero Práctico (1696) to the young prince, transmitting the Doctrine of Medrano as the foundation of his intellectual and political training.

Allegorical engraving of Pallas Athena and Mars offering the Doctrine of Medrano to Joseph Ferdinand, Prince of Bavaria. From El Ingeniero Práctico (1696), dedicated to Joseph Ferdinand by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano.

Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria receives the doctrine from Pallas and Mars, who address him with a doctrinal inscription in Latin. The inscription reads:

"Mars and Pallas offer you the teachings of Medrano. These are the works of your father; may you be the warlike offspring worthy of him."

Virtutem disce, duce Laborem. "Learn virtue; let Labor be your guide."

Sebastián’s dedication to Joseph Ferdinand, written as an allegorical sonnet, positioned the prince as a sovereign in formation. It emphasized Pallas (wisdom) and Mars (valor) as guardians of doctrine and presented the treatise as a legitimate offering to the future monarch:

To the Most Serene Lord Joseph Ferdinand, Electoral Prince of Bavaria, A gift such as this my pen dares to offer. It is from Pallas, this burning Architecture, O Prince, Mars himself safeguards it. The Region is vast and far-reaching, To raise up Bavaria to such height, That the whole world may find it without peer.

Through this poetic dedication, Sebastián affirmed that the doctrine was both symbolic and institutional, a legacy to be received through royal education. The invocation of Pallas Athena and Mars reflected the synthesis of wisdom and war, framing the teaching as both educational and imperial in scope. By offering this "burning Architecture" to the Bavarian heir, the House of Medrano extended its role in shaping the political theology of succession under the Habsburg monarchy. The dedication signaled that doctrinal transmission was not confined to Spain but extended to the wider Habsburg inheritance and the formation of a universal Catholic monarchy.

Joseph Ferdinand’s education under the Doctrine of Medrano represents a formal transmission of the doctrine at the highest level of dynastic succession, demonstrating continuity from Castile to Brussels and from military academies to royal households. However, he died of smallpox on 6 February 1699 at the age of six, leaving the question of Spanish succession unresolved. He was buried in Brussels, marking the end of the furthest line descending from the marriage of Philip IV of Spain and Mariana of Austria. The figure of Joseph Ferdinand, though his life was brief, represented the symbolic recipient of a fully codified system of royal instruction. Joseph's death disrupted the intended balance of European powers, but the doctrinal foundation endured. The 1696 dedication by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano to Joseph Ferdinand, Prince of Bavaria, demonstrates how the Doctrine of Medrano was transmitted institutionally and dynastically to the House of Wittelsbach two years before Charles II's will. It was incorporated into the pedagogy of Sebastián's Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels and taught to European princes, as shown in El Ingeniero Práctico (1696), where Pallas and Mars offer Joseph Ferdinand wisdom and war as Medrano teachings.

Coat of arms of the House of Wittelsbach as Prince-Electors of Bavaria

The esteem for Sebastián's role in the Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels as its sole director was confirmed by Joseph Ferdinand's father, Maximilian II Emanuel, Prince-Elector of Bavaria and Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, who witnessed firsthand the effects of Medrano's military and academic work. In a formal letter to Charles II dated Brussels, 26 January 1694, Maximilian praised Medrano’s service in strengthening the monarchy and requested royal recognition of his merit:

Your Majesty is aware [of his value] through the reports of your generals and the very effects that his ingenuity and application have benefited the Royal service. I bring them again to Your Majesty’s gracious attention… it will not only be a worthy exercise of Royal justification, but also the most useful application, as it will serve to invite encouragement and imitation.

This correspondence confirms that Sebastián Fernández de Medrano’s teachings were regarded as institutionally essential. His contributions improved military organization, advanced technical instruction, and provided a model for the education of noble youth and heirs. By advancing the capabilities of the Spanish Empire, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, Royal Master of Mathematics in the States of Flanders, embodied the Doctrine of Medrano in his work and academy, becoming a recognized element of European royal pedagogy, with its influence extending from Flanders to Bavaria.

Under Philip V, the instability following Joseph Ferdinand's death was met with doctrinal continuity in the Bourbon court, where the princes of Spain were educated by Giovanni Antonio Medrano, Royal Governor of Mathematics in the Kingdom of Naples. Giovanni's pedagogical program combined political theology, mathematics, and architecture, instructing Charles III, Ferdinand VI, and the other infantes in the enduring application of the Doctrine of Medrano.

The universality of the Medrano doctrine was later affirmed in Enlightenment thought. Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789), though a materialist and atheist, echoed its central precept:

Education should teach princes to reign, [and] the ruling classes to distinguish themselves by their merit and virtue.

This Enlightenment ideal had already been practiced in Spain by the Medrano family, who for centuries instructed monarchs in divine kingship and educated the ruling class in science, law, and moral philosophy, ensuring that their learning united dynastic continuity with rational order.

Doctrine of Medrano in the Bourbon and Enlightenment era

Royal Greater Coat of Arms of Spain (1700-1761) under the Bourbon Dynasty.

The Bourbon dynasty assumed power in Spain with the accession of Philip V in 1700, following the death of Charles II, the last Habsburg monarch in Spain. Philip V of Spain (r. 1700–1746), grandson of Louis XIV, succeeded Charles II as the first Bourbon monarch following the Habsburg extinction.

Habsburg dominions in Europe, 1700. After the death of Joseph Ferdinand, Philip V became the King of Spain on 1 November 1700, officially transitioning into the Spanish Bourbon era

His accession, confirmed by Charles II's will, provoked the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714), in which France and Spain opposed the Grand Alliance of England, the Dutch Republic, and Austria. Castile supported Philip, while Aragon and Catalonia favored Archduke Charles of Austria. The conflict, fought across Spain, the Low Countries, and Italy, caused over 400,000 deaths.

The Treaty of Utrecht (1713) recognized Philip as king but barred the union of the French and Spanish crowns, transferring the Spanish Netherlands, Naples, Milan, and Sardinia to Austria, Sicily to Savoy, and Gibraltar and Menorca to Britain. Philip introduced the semi-Salic law to secure male succession. To enforce centralization, Philip issued the Nueva Planta decrees (1707–1716), abolishing Aragonese and Catalan privileges and imposing the Bourbon model of centralized administration. Navarre and the Basque provinces, loyal to Philip, retained their fueros, preserving historical jurisdictional balance.

Philip sought to recover lost territories, leading to the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718–1720), where Spain faced Britain, France, Austria, and the Dutch Republic. This led to the Treaty of The Hague (1720), the Anglo-Spanish War (1727–1729), the Treaty of Seville, the War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739, and the wider War of the Austrian Succession in 1740.

Following Queen Maria Luisa's death (1714), Philip V married Elisabeth Farnese of Parma, whose influence, guided by Cardinal Alberoni, shaped Bourbon policy in Italy and Spain’s renewed dynastic ambitions. Philip abdicated in 1724 in favor of Louis I, a prince instructed by Giovanni Antonio Medrano, who died seven months later, prompting his return to the throne. His second reign saw the reconquest of Naples, Sicily, and Oran, yet Spain's finances collapsed, forcing a 1739 debt suspension. His later years were marked by severe depression, during which Elisabeth Farnese governed and the singer Farinelli tended to him.

Philip died in 1746 at La Granja de San Ildefonso and was succeeded by Ferdinand VI, who had received formal instruction from Giovanni Antonio Medrano. Philip's reign established a centralized monarchical structure in Spain, although this process imposed significant costs on the overall welfare of the state. By this time, the Doctrine of Medrano had already been legally codified and maintained across the Spanish Empire through the institutional work of the House of Medrano. Within the Bourbon period, the doctrine functioned as a developed system encompassing virtue, merit, architecture, mathematics, political theology, law, and hereditary counsel, and it retained its etymological basis in the verb medrar ("to prosper, to advance," and "hereditary improvement").

The House of Medrano's genealogical ties to the Bourbon Dynasty

Arms of the Bourbon Kings of Navarre and France (1789)

In Navarre and Castile, the Medranos have been recognized as a royal lineage due to their genealogical ties to the Castilian, French, and Navarrese monarchs, such as the Capetian dynasty, particularly through the Lords of Igúzquiza, Viscounts of Azpa and Marquesses of Fontellas, among others. Juan Martínez de Medrano's direct descendant, Juan Vélaz de Medrano y Mauleón y Navarra, Lord of Igúzquiza and of the palace of Vélaz de Medrano, was also a descendant of Joan II of Navarre and Philip III of Évreux, and of the Blois-Navarrese kings. This continuity was reinforced through marital ties linking the Dukes of Bourbon with the House of Medrano through the Count of Torrubia line in Castile.

García de Medrano y Mendizábal, 1st Count of Torrubia, lord of San Gregorio, a knight of Calatrava, and a councilor of His Majesty's Chamber and the Council of Orders, was granted the Torrubia title in 1694 under King Charles II of Spain, during the final years of the Habsburg dynasty. The Torrubia title, linked to the son of García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, maintained its noble status during a change in dynasties. Through marital alliances with the Mendoza de Borbón branch, the Counts of Torrubia are linked by blood to the Dukes of Bourbon and the Bourbon dynasty. According to Luis Núñez Burillo y Ginel de Medrano, a branch of the de Medrano y Mendoza de Borbón family lineage, which included the Counts of Coruña, Dukes of Bourbon (Peers of France), Marquesses of Santillana, and Dukes of Infantado, was renowned for its academic and intellectual achievements.

The Count of Torrubia'a relative Pedro Antonio de Medrano y Albelda stood at the convergence of the principal Navarrese and Medrano lineages that shaped the political and legal culture of both the late Habsburg and early Bourbon monarchies. Through his paternal line, he descended from the royal House of Íñiguez, the dynasty of Íñigo Arista, the first King of Pamplona, while his grandfather Pedro de Medrano y Íñiguez and father Pedro de Medrano y Echauz held military, municipal, and noble offices in Logroño and the castle of Calahorra. Through his maternal grandmother Teresa Manuela de Echáuz y Velasco, he descended from Infante Luis of Navarre, Count of Beaumont-le-Roger, linking him to the Beaumont and Velasco houses that dominated Navarrese aristocratic politics. His wider family network tied him to the Echáuz, Álvarez de Arellano, Loyola, and Ricóvado lines, including the viscounts of Azpa and the marquesses of Vessolla. This combined royal descent, high Navarrese nobility, and service-based Medrano heritage gave Pedro Antonio the hereditary authority and institutional legitimacy that underpinned his later regency of the Kingdom of Navarre and positioned him as a central transmitter of the Doctrine of Medrano into the Bourbon era.

Continuity of the Medrano Doctrine Across the Habsburg-Bourbon Transition in the Royal Councils

Courtyard within the University of Salamanca, where members of the Medrano family served as rectors and jurists, shaping Spain's legal and academic tradition.

Domingo, García, and Andrés de Medrano y Mendizábal formed the principal seventeenth-century juristic lineage linked to Tomás Fernández de Medrano. As grandsons of García de Medrano y Castejón and sons of García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, their ancestry created one of the most extensive and influential legal families serving the Crown.

García de Medrano y Mendizábal embodied the family’s authority through his roles in the Royal Chancery of Valladolid, as corregidor of Gipuzkoa, alcalde de Casa y Corte, councillor of the Council of Orders, and rector of the University of Salamanca. His elevation as first Count of Torrubia in 1694 consolidated the family’s position in the final decades of the Habsburg monarchy.

Domingo de Medrano y Mendizábal maintained the doctrinal foundation through his knighthood of Calatrava, his professorship and rectorship at Salamanca and his service as Judge of Degrees in Seville. His academic record linked him to the intellectual tradition of Luisa de Medrano, and together with García he sustained the unified academic and juridical system that prepared the transition to their youngest brother.

Andrés de Medrano y Mendizábal unified late Habsburg and early Bourbon legal administration. Educated at the Colegio Mayor de San Bartolomé, he served as Chief Judge of Biscay, oidor in Valladolid, fiscal of the Council of Finance, and later Dean of the Royal Council of Castile under both Charles II and Philip V. He preserved legal continuity during the War of the Spanish Succession and carried the doctrine intact across the dynastic divide. His investiture as Knight of Calatrava reaffirmed the family’s longstanding military and juridical lineage.

Baltasar Alvarez de Medrano was the rector of the Colegio Mayor de Santa Cruz at the University of Valladolid (1687–1690) during the final years of the Spanish Habsburgs. Baltasar educated the next generation alongside Pedro Antonio de Medrano, regent of the Kingdom of Navarre.

The doctrine passed directly to the next generation through Baltasar Álvarez de Medrano, rector of the Colegio Mayor de Santa Cruz. His later service as Alcalde del Crimen, Alcalde de Casa y Corte, minister of the Royal Council of Finance, and corregidor of Logroño and Cuenca applied Medrano principles of learned judgment and ordered administration during the early Bourbon reforms. During his rectorship, Pedro Antonio de Medrano served on the academic staff, later becoming regent of Navarre and extending the doctrinal line into Bourbon governance.

Pedro Antonio de Medrano y Albelda continued the juridical legacy as a member of an extended noble line including the Counts of Torrubia, the Viscounts of Azpa, and the Marquesses of Fontellas. Descended from both the medieval kings of Navarre and the House of Íñiguez, he combined dynastic authority with scholastic training. Educated in Canon Law at Valladolid and admitted to the Colegio Mayor de Santa Cruz by examination, he taught Roman and canonical jurisprudence for several years and advanced to multiple academic chairs. His work reproduced the scholastic formation established by Luisa de Medrano and maintained by García de Medrano y Mendizábal and Baltasar Álvarez de Medrano. His judicial service as interim Judge of Vizcaya, judge of the Biscayan lordship, and oidor of the Royal Chancery of Valladolid placed him within the same territories historically administered by earlier Medrano jurists.

On 9 May 1702 he was appointed regent of the Royal Council of Navarre, succeeding Juan Antonio de Molina. His appointment was the only regency document of the eighteenth century not signed by the king, being authorized instead by Cardinal Portocarrero during Philip V's absence in Italy. Although he did not receive viceregal authority due to the king's absence, his regency positioned him as the third member of the House of Medrano to hold the office after Juan Martínez de Medrano in 1328 and García de Medrano in 1645, maintaining continuity in the kingdom central to the Medrano lineage. In 1705 he received the habit of Santiago and entered the Council of Orders, where he served until his death in December 1721. His lineage, scholastic formation, judicial service, and regency ensured the transmission of the Doctrine of Medrano into the Bourbon monarchy, linking his career directly to the institutional work of García, Domingo, Andrés, and Baltasar.

Arithmetic and Medrar: Phelipe Medrano and the Doctrine of Medrano (1744)

Title page of Quadrados mágicos, dedicated to Elisabeth Farnese, Queen of Spain (1744) by Phelipe Medrano, whom sought to guide the Bourbon monarchy back toward divine proportion.

In 1744, Phelipe Medrano published Quadrados mágicos, a mathematical treatise that redefined traditional "magic squares" as Christian instruments of order and virtue. Dedicated to Queen Elisabeth Farnese, the work rejected superstition and affirmed number as a vehicle of divine harmony and moral law. Medrano explicitly distanced his doctrine from earlier planetary cults:

Those men believed that engraving a square upon the metal sympathetic to a chosen planet would acquire its protection. A false remedy, a vain delusion. In my offering to Your Majesty, I remove that delirium of fabled superstition… May the best planet with benevolent aspect guard Your Majesty. I offer to Your Majesty these magic squares, once dedicated by the Egyptians and Pythagoreans to the planets; yet I differ from their superstitious error. They lost the merit of their devotion through idolatry.

The prologue recounts how a friend’s 3×3 square inspired a much broader metaphysical and mathematical inquiry. Medrano constructed squares up to 32×32, seeing in each the imprint of divine order and rational perfection:

Folio 1 of Quadrados mágicos (1744), where Phelipe de Medrano introduces the foundational 3×3 magic squares

A gentleman friend… formed a square of three houses on each side… I undertook the execution, overcoming many obstacles with more effort than art. The inventors of these squares were the Egyptians and disciples of Pythagoras… They believed that such a medal would be favorable. I, in contrast, choose to demonstrate… the rational harmony of divine order. Since this is a mathematical treatise… whoever doubts may test the propositions. If they find them true, they must acknowledge the labor. The twenty-three letters of the alphabet may be simply combined in 258,201,673,888,497,664,000,000 different ways.

Medrano’s efforts aligned with the doctrine articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in the República Mista, where just governance arises from the balance of virtue, law, and divine principle. Phelipe Medrano’s contemporaries recognized his doctrinal intent. Joseph Cañizares affirmed the centrality of his work: "If arithmetic began to medrar, it is because of Medrano."

The Marqués de la Olmeda praised the treatise as a theological correction of ancient errors:

The ancients placed their deities in squares… as though divinity resided in quantity. But the Supreme Deity knows no bounds nor permits summation. He is a new Ganymede grasping Archimedes’ spheres.

Other poetic tributes emphasized his triumph over superstition and his elevation of arithmetic to sacred form. This restoration of numerical doctrine paralleled the architectural works of Giovanni Antonio Medrano, who served as royal engineer to Charles III and Ferdinand VI. In Naples, Giovanni’s designs for the Palace of Capodimonte and the Teatro di San Carlo expressed the same principles of equilibrium and virtue through spatial proportion. Together, the works of Phelipe and Giovanni Medrano extended the Doctrine of Medrano from jurisprudence and theology into the realms of architecture and arithmetic.

Giovanni Antonio Medrano and the Education of the Bourbon Princes (1729-1734)

Through Elisabeth Farnese, her children, including Charles III of Spain and his brothers, were taught by Giovanni Antonio Medrano in political theology, architecture, mathematics, and royal education.

Medrano teachings, once articulated in law, literature, and number, were carried forward in practice and architecture by Giovanni Antonio Medrano, Major Royal Governor of Mathematics in Naples, chief royal engineer, and royal architect of the kingdom. Queen Elisabeth Farnese, eager to secure her children's legitimacy, educated her sons in the Doctrine of Medrano. Through Giovanni Antonio Medrano, the doctrine's political-theological and mathematical vision passed to her sons, becoming embedded in their royal education. From 1729 to 1734, Giovanni Antonio was entrusted with the education of the Bourbon princes, the future Charles III of Spain, Ferdinand VI, and their princely brothers. Medrano personally instructed the princes in geography, history, mathematics, military science, architecture, and the precepts of enlightened kingship, ensuring that the Doctrine of Medrano was not only inherited but enacted within the Age of Enlightenment.

Giovanni Antonio Medrano and King Charles Arrive in Naples (1734-1738)

Through his design of the Royal Palace of Capodimonte, now the National Museum of Capodimonte, Giovanni Antonio Medrano secured both international recognition and the dynastic continuity of the Bourbon monarchy in southern Italy.

In 1731, Charles was named Duke of Parma and Piacenza following the death of his grand-uncle Antonio Farnese. Medrano accompanied him to Livorno and, from 1732 to 1734, continued in service during his residencies in Florence, Parma, and Piacenza. A year later, Charles became King of Naples and King of Sicily (1735–1759). Giovanni Antonio Medrano was appointed by Charles as royal architect of the kingdom of Naples. Charles understood the need to create a system of self-representation capable of manifesting his new political identity in the context of the highly competitive Neapolitan society. Giovanni Antonio Medrano was employed to design the palaces necessary to enact Charle's new status, while a royal household and court etiquette were also established.

Giovanni's design of the Royal Palace of Capodimonte, designed in August 1738, which incorporated dedicated quarters for the royal family, projected dynastic permanence at a moment when the very survival of the Bourbon line in Southern Italy was uncertain. In doing so, he enacted the Doctrine of Medrano in architectural form, using spatial design as an instrument of governance that anticipated heirs, secured legitimacy, and bound political foresight to material order. When Charles and Giovanni arrived in Naples in 1734, the royal household established under Elisabeth Farnese and the Count of Santiesteban was transferred intact to the new kingdom. This reorganization created an entirely new court that fused Spanish ceremonial traditions with Neapolitan forms of government. The household's structure was supervised by Santiesteban until 1738, when administrative authority passed to José Joaquín de Montealegre, marking the shift from aristocratic governance to bureaucracy.

Within this transformation, Giovanni Antonio Medrano emerged as the technical and intellectual figure responsible for translating the principles of dynastic legitimacy into spatial and mathematical form. His appointment as Royal Engineer and Governor of Mathematics in Naples placed him at the intersection of education, architecture, and administration, embodying the transition from the noble counselor to the enlightened architect of order and legitimacy.

Obelisk of Bitonto by Giovanni Antonio Medrano in Naples, 1736.

The obelisk of Bitonto, designed by Medrano after serving as brigadier in the Battle of Bitonto (1734), transformed the ancient tradition into a symbol of military authority, kingship and dynastic continuity, securing the Bourbon claim to southern Italy. The 18 metre Carolinian obelisk, begun in 1736, was conceived by Giovanni Antonio Medrano in a truncated pyramid shape with inscriptions on the four sides attributed to B. Tanucci.

The obelisk of Bitonto, designed by Giovanni Antonio Medrano following his service as brigadier in the Spanish victory at the Battle of Bitonto (1734), represented Charles' consolidation of southern Italy. The choice of the obelisk carried deliberate resonance within Enlightenment culture, where Egyptian-inspired forms were widely reinterpreted as symbols of antiquity, sovereignty, and legitimacy, divorced from their original contexts and reimagined to articulate new political identities. In ancient Egypt, obelisks were paired and associated with temples, solar cults, and the benben stone, the primordial mound of creation, but in early modern Europe they were transformed into solitary civic monuments, projecting dynastic order into public space.

Medrano's obelisk at Bitonto in 1736 therefore paralleled earlier Baroque and Counter-Reformation uses of the form, most notably in the works of Gian Lorenzo Bernini in Rome, while simultaneously transmitting Bourbon legitimacy across southern Italy in the wake of Habsburg defeat.

Giovanni Antonio Medrano designed the Teatro di San Carlo for Charles in Naples, Italy.

Giovanni designed the Teatro di San Carlo (1737) for Charles while he was King of Naples, today the world's oldest continually operating opera house, and the Royal Palace of Capodimonte (1738), both monumental statements of Bourbon dynastic authority commissioned for Charles as King of Naples.

Giovanni's design and construction of the Teatro di San Carlo in 1737 gave visible shape to the Bourbon dynasty's cultural authority in Italy, embedding the doctrine within the arts through theatre and music as instruments of dynastic cohesion and public magnificence, a legacy preserved in the world's oldest opera house still in operation.

His role is confirmed by a stitched inscription on the lining of a silk vest worn by a polychrome-terracotta figurine of the king’s attendant, preserved at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which reads:

The grandeur and beauty of this theater make it the most remarkable in Italy. It was designed by Chevalier Medrano.

It was built in 1737 during the reign of Charles as King of Naples, based on the design of Gioavanni Antonio Medrano and executed by Angelo Carasale in 270 days. These works reinforced the legitimacy of Charles as king of Naples and affirmed both the enduring legacy of the Bourbon monarchy and the Doctrine of Medrano (medrar) in the Kingdom of Naples, part of southern Italy.

On 10 August 1759, Charles succeeded his half-brother Ferdinand VI as Charles III of Spain and resigned the crown of Naples to his third son, Ferdinand I, King of the Two Sicilies. When Charles arrived in Spain in October 1759, he disembarked at Barcelona, the same city seized by his father’s forces in 1714. Although the Catalans had once supported Archduke Charles, they greeted the new king with a celebratory acclamation:

Viva Carlos Tercero, el verdadero! (Long live Charles the Third, the true one!)

The Marquesses of Tabuérniga: Doctrinal Resistance to Bourbon Centralization

Ferdinand VI, Charles III, and their princely brothers were educated by Giovanni Antonio Medrano and maintained close ties to the House of Medrano, whose proximity to their moral and institutional formation provoked unease among the absolutist ministers of Philip V. Tension between ministers, citizens, and crown officials culminated in the Bourbon Reforms and the intervention of Jaime Vélaz de Medrano y Barros, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga, and his son Fernando Vélaz de Medrano, 4th Marquess of Tabuérniga, a close classmate of Charles IV.

Together, the Marquesses of Tabuérniga would appeal to the crown princes in opposition to the same injustice, corruption, monopolies, fiscal despotism, and exploitation that the República Mista had warned against. The Marquesses efforts to uphold the precepts of religion, obedience, and justice under divine order, lawful advancement (medrar), and moral governance positioned them as both defenders of Spanish continuity and the Ibero-American unity.

Elisabeth Farnese and the Centralization of Court Power (1715–1738)

Painting of Philip V and Elisabeth Farnese, c. 1739. The portrait symbolizes the transfer of authority within the Spanish monarchy during a period of political centralization.

Elisabeth Farnese entered the Spanish court in 1715 during a time of instability and factional conflict. Philip V's poor health had weakened governance, and rival French and Spanish influences competed for control. Elisabeth quickly mastered court politics, creating a personal network of loyal administrators that replaced the older system of noble counsel. Through ministers such as José Patiño and Manuel de Benavides y Aragón, 10th Count of Santiesteban, she consolidated royal power through direct command, secrecy, and surveillance, transforming the court into an instrument of centralization.

Amid this expansion of control, doctrine endured through figures like Pedro Medrano, Knight of the Order of Santiago, who had served as Secretary of War for the Navy and later as senior Second Official of the Secretariat of State for the Negotiation of Italy under Elisabeth Farnese. Pedro's career illustrates that the Doctrine of Medrano survived through a continuous, multigenerational system of rectors, regents, magistrates, and ministers whose influence extended into Giovanni Antonio Medrano's princely instruction of Charles and Ferdinand. Pedro Medrano formed part of a wider Medrano juridical and administrative network that preserved the doctrinal equilibrium of the monarchy from within the very Italian and military institutions Elisabeth Farnese sought to centralize.

When Duke Antonio of Parma died in 1731, Elisabeth secured her dynasty by arranging for her son Charles to inherit Parma and later Naples. She designed his household herself, appointing the Duke of Tursi as sumiller de corps, Prince Bartolomeo Corsini as caballerizo mayor, and the Count of Santiesteban as mayordomo mayor. These appointments merged Spanish, Tuscan, and Parmesan interests under her authority, with Santiesteban effectively governing the new royal court from Italy. Under the Bourbons, the great household offices that had structured royal life under the Habsburgs were altered in both function and political meaning. The mayordomo mayor, sumiller de corps, and caballerizo mayor had traditionally regulated ceremonial access, household discipline, and the king's daily movement, serving as mediators between the monarch and the nobility. In Philip V's reign these posts were retained, but Elisabeth Farnese transformed them into instruments of central direction. Their authority became less a channel for noble counsel and more a mechanism for surveillance, logistical control, and the consolidation of factional loyalty. The household no longer acted as a shared courtly space governed by established officers, but as an administrative extension of the crown's political agenda, with appointments determined by ambition and personal trust rather than lineage or customary precedence codified in the República Mista.

When Charles finished his education and entered Naples in 1734, Elisabeth's vision was complete. The new court, modeled on Spanish ceremony, functioned as a disciplined instrument of political control. Santiesteban supervised finance, ceremony, and household organization, while the Queen extended honorary gentilhombre de cámara titles to Neapolitan and Sicilian nobles without granting influence. Through this structure of controlled inclusion, loyalty was secured through dependence and prestige was separated from power.

By 1738, King Charles's marriage to Maria Amalia of Saxony shifted the court's balance. Santiesteban fell from favor and returned to Spain, replaced by administrators such as José Joaquín de Montealegre. The Neapolitan court, once envisioned as a school of virtue, became a bureaucratic apparatus. In this environment, the contrast between medrar and medro became clear. However, the chivalric discipline of the Order of Santiago persisted as a remnant of moral order within an expanding bureaucratic state.

Charles as King of Spain (1759)

Statue of King Charles III of Spain in Madrid.

Charles III's political character was shaped in his youth by the instruction of Giovanni Antonio Medrano, who educated the princes between 1729 and 1734 in mathematics, architecture, classical literature, and the principles of just kingship. This formation emphasized reason, proportion, lawful authority, and the duty of rulers to maintain moral order. As a result, Charles carried into adulthood a conception of monarchy that aligned closely with the Medrano doctrinal tradition rather than with the absolutist culture that Elisabeth Farnese later attempted to impose.

Although Charles inherited the court structure designed by Elisabeth, his government operated within recognized legal limits. He avoided renewing universal taxation when opposed by established estates, refused to burden ecclesiastical institutions with extraordinary levies, and governed with an understanding that royal authority was bounded by juridical proportion. His early reign was marked by moderation, administrative regularity, naval strengthening, and careful diplomacy intended to stabilize rather than dominate.

His decision to sign the Family Compact of 1761 is interpreted as a calculated effort to improve Spain’s strategic position. In the Americas he pursued reforms that aimed for consistency, defense, and fiscal order. Implementation often met obstacles of distance and local resistance, but the underlying intention was coherence rather than arbitrary imposition.

Charles's ecclesiastical reforms, including the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767, were understood internationally as measures of state consolidation. They were not revolutionary in intent and sought to preserve political balance within the empire. Near the end of his reign, however, new ideological movements abroad, especially the French Revolution, promoted what scholars describe as expansion driven by ambition and revolutionary spirit. This shift corresponds to medro, defined as political advance through appetite and corruption rather than through moral restraint.

Two principal factions shaped the court. The Aragonese faction, composed of reformists and the traditional sword-bearing nobility, was led by Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, 10th Count of Aranda. Opposed to it were the golillas, the jurists and administrative officials most closely aligned with Charles, under the leadership of José Moñino, 1st Count of Floridablanca and Pedro Rodríguez, Count of Campomanes.

The Royal and Much Distinguished Spanish Order of Charles III (1771)

Portrait of King Charles III of Spain (1716–1788), wearing the habit of the Order of Charles III, which was created by the monarch himself in 1771. The portrait is a visual testament of his formation under the Doctrine of Medrano.

Through the education of Charles III by Giovanni Antonio Medrano, the Doctrine of Medrano was transmitted into the Bourbon court as a comprehensive grammar of governance in which advancement, legitimacy, and public service were assessed through a unified moral, juridical, and administrative framework. Within the Doctrine of Medrano, medrar functions as this framework, a disciplined structure of lawful ascent that joins virtue, capacity, loyalty, and service.

The Royal and Much Distinguished Spanish Order of Charles III was created by Royal Decree on 19 September 1771 as the highest civil honor of the Spanish Crown, founded with the motto:

Virtuti et Merito (Virtue and Merit).

The Order was intended to reward service to Spain and to the monarchy within a regulated framework of merit.

Star and sash of the Order of Charles III of Spain with the motto: Virtuti et Merito (Virtue and Merit)

The Order placed the Immaculate Conception at its center. Its badge bears this emblem, and members were required to affirm Catholic doctrine, recognize the monarch as Great Master, and meet annual sacramental obligations. The Order's motto, Virtuti et Merito (Virtue and Merit), articulated this doctrinal architecture in a civil form and identified advancement within the Order as the continuation of this Medrano system.

The founding regulations imposed two conditions on prospective members. In order to satisfy the king's requirement, each candidate was expected to medrar through virtue and merit, that is:

to be "worthy and affectionate of His Highness."

Its origin lay in Charles III's prayers and thanksgiving for the continuation of the dynasty. After years without issue from the marriage of Charles IV and Maria Luisa of Parma, the announcement of an heir prompted the king to create a permanent expression of gratitude to God and the Virgin Mary. Charles III assumed the title of Great Master of the Order and extended this designation to his heirs who would succeed him as King of Spain.

The Order formed part of the broader Bourbon project to regularize civil honors and incorporate them into the administrative framework of the state. It continued earlier Spanish institutional patterns, especially the controlled admission, doctrinal requirements, and graded advancement that had defined the military orders.

Originally composed of Knights Grand Cross and Knights Pensioners, it added Supernumerary Knights in 1783. Holders of the Collar and Grand Cross bear the style The Most Excellent, and other members The Most Illustrious. Membership required an oath of loyalty to the monarch and the Royal House, affirmation of the Immaculate Conception, and adherence to statutory norms. Since 1771 the Order has served as Spain’s principal civil distinction, recognizing service that reflects the unity of virtue and merit shaped by the institutional program of Charles III.

Charles III is therefore seen as a monarch whose policies reflected the balance of reason, justice, counsel, and disciplined sovereignty taught by Giovanni Antonio Medrano. His reign forms the essential bridge between the doctrinal formation of the princes and the later diplomatic and constitutional interventions of Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, as well as the atmosphere into which Ferdinand VI emerged.

Jaime Vélaz de Medrano y Barros, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga's Representación and Doctrinal Counsel to Ferdinand VI of Spain

16th century coat of arms of the Vélaz de Medrano family, Lords of Igúzquiza, Sartaguda, and Learza, Viscounts of Azpa and Amaláin, Marquesses of Tabuérniga, Espinal, and Fontellas, descendants of the Évreux, Capet, and Blois-Navarrese kings.

A relative of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga, a lieutenant of the Spanish Royal Guards and close friend of Infante Ferdinand, wrote the prince a letter in October 1730 detailing a vivid example of injustice, systemic corruption, misfortune, and the decline of commerce and the army, and detrimental ambition (medro) within the Bourbon monarchy.

In October 1730, when Jaime composed his Representación, Infante Ferdinand was in the second year of his formal education under Giovanni (Juan) Antonio Fernández de Medrano (1729–1734). This timing shows that Jaime composed the Representación during the same formative period in which Giovanni Antonio Medrano was educating the princes. Giovanni's instruction combined mathematics, architecture, classical literature, and political theology, transmitting a model of kingship based on justice, counsel, virtue, and rational order to the princes.

His Representación al Príncipe Don Fernando, written in Seville and seized before its delivery, sought to restore moral and juridical order within the Spanish monarchy through lawful persuasion. The work defended the precepts articulated in the República Mista and Mirror of Princes, while denouncing the ambition and corruption that, in his view, had come to dominate the Bourbon court.

Portrait of Prince Ferdinand in 1731, painted during his formal instruction under Giovanni Antonio Medrano, who educated him in the Doctrine of Medrano for 5 years between 1729 and 1734.

Addressing Prince Ferdinand, son of Philip V, Jaime described the decline of the monarchy with solemn precision, portraying Spain as a moral body afflicted by disorder:

"Spain, Sire, venerable patrimony and most beloved fatherland of Your Highness, groans silently in her misfortune, for she no longer even has breath left to make her pitiful complaints heard; and, like a living corpse, she lives in her agonies, but lives dying."

In this representation, the source of Spain's suffering was the abandonment of virtue by those entrusted with public office. Jaime wrote that tribunals trafficked in justice, servants of the royal household suffered harshness, and the army and commerce had fallen into misery.

Even the Church, he observed, was consumed by a voracious appetite for privilege:

"If slaves work, their master sustains them; but alas for the vassals, who sweat blood only for it to be devoured by the insatiable fury of ambition, which leaves them not even the smallest portion of their blood to nourish themselves."

His words mirror Tomás Fernández de Medrano in the República Mista, who warned, "by selling justice, the most sacred foundation of the world, the republic, the blood of the subjects, and the very laws themselves were betrayed."

Jaime Vélaz de Medrano then turned to the Prince as the lawful image of divine kingship, urging him to act as a restorer of order and moral governance.

"How long must the dissimulation and tolerance of Your Highness last? All our hopes rest in Your Highness."

Jaime proposed that the prince take refuge in Portugal, seeking the moral and material support of his father-in-law, King John V, to compel Philip V to fulfill his duty and abdicate lawfully. He concluded his appeal with a declaration of loyalty, affirming that his actions were motivated by fidelity to the king, the good of the country, and merit.

"The satisfaction of my King, the good of my country, and the glory of Your Highness, in whose defense I will be while I live, ready to shed my blood willingly and voluntarily, aspiring to no other reward than the noble interest of merit."

The Representación al Príncipe Don Fernando marked a decisive moment in the struggle between doctrinal counsel and the tightening political control of the early Bourbon court. Jaime Vélaz de Medrano wrote it privately in 1730, appealing to the prince's moral and juridical formation. The reaction of the monarchy, however, exposed the growing fear of reformist influence and the extent to which the court had become shaped by internal suspicion, factional rivalry, and the expanding power of Queen Elisabeth Farnese and her ministers.

Before he could deliver his memorandum, Jaime was arrested while leaving the Cathedral of Seville. Interrogated under secret proceedings, he claimed that the representation had been written only as a private reflection and not intended for Infante Ferdinand. Despite the absence of formal charges or conviction, he was imprisoned in the fortress of Vélez-Málaga.

During his confinement, Medrano was examined under a secret and irregular process led by Francisco Manuel de Herrera, prosecutor of the Audiencia de la Contratación and a trusted agent of José Patiño. Medrano later protested that Herrera had served as "defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge" at once, pressing him to identify accomplices in the supposed conspiracy. He maintained that he had acted alone and that the memorandum reflected private political reflection rather than an attempt to incite rebellion.

Jaime Vélaz de Medrano’s Representación reaffirmed a model of rule grounded in natural and divine law, in which kings, princes, and ministers were bound to act as instruments of justice amid political decay. The misfortune of Medrano's intervention produced lasting consequences within the Bourbon court. Instead of weakening Elisabeth Farnese's influence, the fallout from the affair consolidated her authority over the king and strengthened the faction aligned with her policies. José Patiño's position as chief minister became more entrenched, and foreign policy remained oriented toward the queen's dynastic designs in Italy. Among those sympathetic to Prince Ferdinand, the affair intensified anxiety about the direction of the monarchy and deepened divisions within the court. In the aftermath, surveillance measures increased sharply. Jaime Vélaz de Medrano remained under close observation, but the most severe restrictions were imposed on Prince Ferdinand and his household.

Ferdinand VI's Isolation and Early Political Formation

Access to the prince's chambers was limited to his governor, lieutenant governor, mayordomo, and a single stable boy. The same restrictions applied to the princess Barbara of Portugal, whose attendants were reduced to her chief chambermaid, lady-in-waiting, mayordomo, and one cavalryman. Only the ambassadors of France and Portugal were exempted from these controls. The prince and princess were prohibited from eating in public, attending church, or making any visible public appearances. These restrictions reflected the atmosphere of suspicion that followed the Tabuérniga affair and revealed the degree to which the monarchy sought to insulate itself from internal reformist influence. The repression of Ferdinand's court marked the depth of the crisis and the extent to which the incident had disturbed the political equilibrium of the reign.

The consequences of the Tabuérniga affair were profound. Following Ferdinand's education under Giovanni Antonio Medrano, historians observe that from 1734 onward the prince and his wife Bárbara of Bragança lived almost entirely removed from public affairs, and at times even in formal disgrace, a situation attributed to the sustained machinations of Elisabeth Farnese. During these years the prince was excluded from government, subjected to continuous surveillance, and monitored through a network of informants who reported even minor details of the couple's daily life and health.

This prolonged seclusion shaped Ferdinand's temperament. Contemporary diplomatic observers described him as reserved, suspicious, and difficult to assess, even though he was naturally inclined toward generosity and moderation. His fear of assassination, his withdrawal from courtly life, and his reluctance to appear publicly were attributed to the conditions of enforced isolation under which he had lived for more than a decade. Ferdinand and his wife developed a close personal dependence on one another, and Queen Bárbara's firmness and political intelligence played an important role in supporting the prince during this period of uncertainty.

Although foreign ambassadors viewed Ferdinand as an enigmatic figure, the broader Spanish public regarded him as a source of renewed hope, a native-born prince who might restore the integrity of the monarchy once he ascended the throne. This contrast between diplomatic uncertainty and popular expectation reflected the extent to which his early formation had been obscured by years of political exclusion and the continuing rivalry between the factions that dominated Philip V's court.

Modern historians have noted that Ferdinand VI emerged from the prolonged political courtly isolation imposed by Elisabeth Farnese with a temperament shaped more by introspection and restraint than by the factional culture of the Bourbon court. According to W. N. Hargreaves-Mawdsley, Ferdinand and his wife Bárbara of Bragança had lived "completely outside the course of public events, and some of that time even in disgrace," producing in the prince a reserved and enigmatic character whose natural generosity endured despite isolation and surveillance.

Sir Benjamin Keene observed that the new king would "love peace as much as his father had loved war," a judgment that aligns with the princely formation Ferdinand received under Giovanni Antonio Medrano (1729–1734). Ferdinand's combination of doctrinal instruction, political exclusion, and personal adversity produced a monarch whose preference for moderation, peace, and justice fulfilled the principle articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano: that a prince rightly instructed remains inwardly intact and pure until the end.

Statue of Ferdinand VI in the Plaza de la Villa de París, Madrid. Ferdinand was educated in the Bourbon court during the period in which Giovanni Antonio Medrano instructed the royal princes between 1729 and 1734.

In the República Mista (1602) Tomas Fernández de Medrano affirmed that monarchs are bound by natural and divine law, urging them to remember that "if the King is lord of all, he is also, with all, a servant of God." In stark contrast to mere absolutism, Medrano advised all rulers that "since they have appointed you as leader; do not exalt yourself, but be among them as one of their own."

He cites psalm 82 and Isaiah 10:1–2 to warn against injustice and corrupt laws decreed by kings, councils, and magistrates.

"For if kings, councils, and magistrates are on earth an image of God, then they too must strive to imitate His goodness, perfection, and justice, as our own rulers do as much as their strengths allow, to lead through example (which is the most powerful influence) toward true piety and virtue for those under their charge."

Medrano compares this to anatomy:

"just as the heart in an animal's body is always the last part to succumb to corruption, holding the final remnants of life, it is fitting that when some illness begins to corrupt the people, the prince and magistrates remain pure and untainted to the end."

He explains further:

"The philosophers say that all the ills of the soul come from the weaknesses of the body, which is subject to perverse inclinations, and that all of man’s well-being arises from the body as its foundation. It would be a monstrous thing, contrary to nature, if all bodily ills derived from the soul, and if the virtues of one's being became corrupted by the spirit's vices. It would be wholly unreasonable if corrupted customs, unjust laws, vices, and impieties were brought to the people by the prince and magistrates, who hold the same place in the republic as reason does in the soul, which governs the other parts with wisdom."

Medrano insists that the example set by princes either uplift or undermine the lives of their subjects, writing in Latin:

"Kings easily either uplift or undermine the lives of their subjects by their example; therefore, it does not befit a prince to commit sins, lest he create a model of sin. For a king who falls into vice soon draws God's anger for his error."

Tomás Fernández de Medrano teaches that the intervention of virtuous and faithful men ultimately restrains the ambitions (medro) of corrupt princes, ministers, and magistrates, citing Tacitus:

"There will always be vices as long as there are people. Yet these are neither endless nor without remedy, being tempered by the intervention of better men."

The República Mista advanced (medrar) a vision of political legitimacy and governance grounded in natural and divine law, merit, virtue, delegated authority, and justice. It rejected absolutism, corrupt ideologies, monopolies, colonial exploitation, and the consolidation of power through despotic administration, calling instead for the restoration of a moral and hierarchical order sanctioned by God then law and sustained through the historical continuity of its universal doctrine embodied by heads of state, including Ferdinand VI of Spain, known as "The Just."

Jaime Vélaz de Medrano's Secret Peace Negotiations with Spain and Great Britain under King Ferdinand VI of Spain (1737–1746)

Allegorical portrait of King Ferdinand VI As a Peaceful King (1754), showing the monarch honored by Agriculture and Art, with symbols of peace, abundance, and the fine arts at his feet. Armor lies discarded to signify the triumph of peace, while Fame appears above announcing his virtues as ruler.

After escaping the fortress of Vélez-Málaga in 1737, the Marquess of Tabuérniga married in British Gibraltar, and two years later departed for Lisbon. From Lisbon, Jaime Vélaz de Medrano traveled to London in 1739, where he secured residence in a country already entering a pre-war climate only months before the outbreak of the War of Jenkins' Ear. In London, he presented himself at court as a Grande de España and an unjust victim of the Queen's despotic policies, but above all as a valuable diplomatic asset due to his close relationship with Prince Ferdinand.

Medrano asserted that he had shared in:

"all of the prince's misfortunes" and that, once Ferdinand ascended the throne, he could negotiate a lasting peace between Spain and Britain.

Jaime's ability to act as a diplomatic intermediary in 1746 rested entirely on the close ties with the prince and the bond of shared persecution he had formed with Ferdinand during the years of confinement imposed after the Tabuérniga affair. The English authorities found his claims credible, and the 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga demonstrated considerable skill in winning the confidence of ministers and courtiers. Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga, had become a well-positioned intermediary between Britain and Spain. His years in exile had earned him the trust of influential British statesmen, including Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle.

As a mark of confidence, King George II of Great Britain and Fredrick, Prince of Wales, personally granted Jaime Vélaz de Medrano a pension of 1,000 pounds per year. During his time in London, he would become the father of Ana Catalina Vélaz de Medrano, Fernando Agustín Vélaz de Medrano, IV Marquess of Tabuérniga, María Rafaela Vélaz de Medrano, and Jorge Vélaz de Medrano.

Portrait of Sebastián de la Cuadra Medrano y Llarena, 1st Marquess of Villarías and First Secretary of State under King Ferdinand VI. The Tabuérniga and Villarías negotiations to end the War of Jenkins’ Ear exemplified the enactment of the Doctrine of Medrano in high diplomacy.

The death of Philip V in 1746 and the doctrinal accession of Ferdinand VI in Spain opened a window of progress to shift foreign policy toward peace. Acting as an intermediary between Britain and Spain, Jaime Vélaz de Medrano introduced secret peace proposals to end the War of Jenkins' Ear through doctrine and high diplomatic negotiations.

That year, Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle, Britain's Southern Secretary and chief architect of foreign policy, formally approached the 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga with a secret proposal. Medrano accepted and traveled to Lisbon to meet Spain's First Secretary of State, Sebastián de la Cuadra Medrano y Llarena, 1st Marquess of Villarías.

In Lisbon, Jaime Vélaz de Medrano presented the British peace terms. Cuadra Medrano received them with favor. Spain, under the new king Ferdinand VI, raised in Medrano doctrine, was prepared to negotiate. However, the talks ultimately stalled over unresolved issues concerning Naples and the Italian territories. Despite the breakdown, the encounter laid the groundwork for future diplomacy.

The Lisbon negotiations stand as one of the clearest enactments of the Doctrine of Medrano within the prime ministerial sphere. The eventual peace efforts of Sir Benjamin Keene, who later formalized negotiations, were made possible by this doctrinal encounter. Though Jaime was offered, but ultimately never obtained, the post of First Secretary of State, his role in the 1746 mission confirms his stature as a doctrinal statesman. He served as a bridge between courts, negotiated directly with the First Secretary of State, and advanced a model of diplomacy rooted in moral governance and principled statecraft.

Far from an act of rebellion, Jaime's initiative and Ferdinand's enforced courtly isolation reflected a broader struggle within the court, one which historian Pedro Luis Lorenzo Cadarso describes as "a series of conflicts that pitted different sectors of the ruling elite, both political and economic, among themselves or against the superior authority."

French Absolutism in Spain and Italy and the Loss of Counsel under Philip V and Elisabeth Farnese

Philip V and Elisabeth's consolidation of power fulfilled the transformation foreseen by Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, Marquess of Tabuérniga. The Bourbon government achieved temporary unity through command but lost the counsel and conscience that sustain a kingdom. In the República Mista, Tomás Fernández de Medrano warned that such unity is illusory, for it lacks the moral equilibrium between ruler and subject that defines true order.

The theater of ancient Sparta, where civic unity was celebrated through ritual and assembly. Tomás Fernández de Medrano used Sparta as an example of unity sustained by lawful obedience.

He wrote of the example of Sparta:

Someone once asked why Sparta prospered. Was it because the kings knew how to rule? 'No,' came the reply, 'but because the citizens knew how to obey.'

For Tomás, the prosperity of a state depends not on the authority of the ruler alone but on the harmony of all its parts under divine and rational law:

Unity in all things sustains a kingdom, and this unity is what has allowed our own to prosper to this day, with honors, public positions, and benefits usually distributed according to each person's status, and each safeguarded with their privileges and preeminence. All due diligence is taken to prevent any one group from excessively dominating another: that the nobility does not trample the common people, nor drive them to despair, and that the people, through their arts, trades, and the positions they hold, do not enrich themselves in ways that harm the nobles.

In this teaching, obedience is lawful concord rather than submission. Power and obedience become reciprocal virtues; authority is just only when bounded by moral proportion. Tomás defined justice as the divine law that binds humanity to God and one another:

Justice reveals the distinction between the good and the bad. It is a divine law and the bond of human society; without it, nothing but confusion can result. To reward the wicked in place of the good, or to afflict the good and leave the wicked unpunished, is to confuse vice with virtue. No monarchy, kingdom, or republic can be properly ruled, governed, or preserved in peace without justice, the counsel of the experienced, and the favor of divine wisdom, for it is through wisdom that we know God and revere Him.

Plato's Academy mosaic in Pompeii, symbolizing the union of wisdom, justice, and reason later embodied in the Medrano doctrine of lawful counsel.

Tomás presented Plato as the exemplar of political theology:

The Philosopher calls justice a general virtue, because one who fully possesses it may be said to hold all other virtues as well. Without prudence, one cannot distinguish between justice and injustice... nor fulfill the most divine duty of justice, which is to help the afflicted and oppressed with all one's strength. Faith, the foundation of justice, exists because of justice; if faith were not upheld by justice, who would not deem it legitimate to seize power by any means necessary and to treat dominion as a prize for whomever can take it? If we seek to exercise justice perfectly, as Plato advises, we should make no distinction among men for friendship, kinship, wealth, or dignity. This virtue requires that we set aside private benefit for the public good, even to our own detriment.

Image of Lactantius Firmianus. Medrano quotes him, saying "Only the fear of God preserves harmony among men."

Medrano quotes Lactantius to affirm that justice is not possible without reverence for God:

"Only the fear of God preserves harmony among men. For those who wield weapons, force, and power would often seek to dominate and oppress others… if religion did not restrain such inclinations."

Obedience is the second precept. It unites the polity under lawful hierarchy. Medrano uses Augustine's maxim to highlight its necessity:

Melius est ut pereat unus quam unitas pereat ("It is better for one to perish than for unity to be lost")... Quae simulata sunt, diuturna esse non possunt ("Things feigned cannot last long")

Justice is the measure of all political legitimacy. Medrano quotes Cicero:

"A law is the rule of justice, and justice is the purpose of the law. Cicero says the law is the soul of the republic, the blood that gives it life, and the rule that sustains the state. A republic is close to ruin when those condemned by law are pardoned, and judgments are reversed. When the wicked are favored and the virtuous cast aside, hope for prosperity [medrar] fades."

Medrano presents religion as the end of law, obedience as its form, and justice as its fulfillment. Each precept reinforces the others to create divine political order. He cites Augustine of Hippo:

Sine iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? ("Without justice, what are kingdoms but great robberies?")

Through this synthesis, Tomás transformed ancient philosophy into political theology, presenting justice as the divine architecture of the state and the law by which both heaven and society are bound. As the Bourbon monarchy centralized governance, Philip V and Elisabeth Farnese gradually curtailed the roles of local councils, the nobility, and communal institutions in a broader consolidation of authority influenced by French absolutist models.

Fernando Vélaz de Medrano and the Defense of Medrar (1776–1791)

Apex of the Spanish Empire in 1790 under the Bourbon dynasty.

Fernando Vélaz de Medrano y Bracamonte, 4th Marquess of Tabuérniga, 15th Marquess of Cañete, 6th Marquess of Fuente el Sol, 8th Marquess of Navamorcuende, and 15th Lord of Montalbo, Grandee of Spain, Knight of the Order of Malta, son of Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga, represented a defense of medrar and the Doctrine of Medrano within a monarchy transformed by the Bourbon Reforms, even to his own detriment. Vélaz de Medrano played a notable role in the Seven Years' War, particularly during the siege of Almeida in 1762. He later served as Aide-de-camp to both Governor Pedro de Cevallos and Viceroy Juan José de Vértiz y Salcedo, becoming a trusted confidant to both. While José de Gálvez and his ministers expanded corrupt monopolies and the intendancy system in pursuit of fiscal modernization, Fernando regarded these same measures as the moral cause of unrest and decline.

Portrait of Túpac Amaru II

Fernando's correspondence to the Prince from the Río de la Plata and the Andes described the destructive effects of the tobacco and playing-card monopolies, the exploitation of indigenous communities, the Tupac Amaru uprising, and the rise of officials who governed for private gain rather than public justice and divine order. For informing Prince Charles of corruption and injustice in the Americas by crown officials, Minister Gálvez exiled Medrano to the Philippines. In 1781 he was arrested, moved across the empire from Montevideo to Lima, Acapulco, and finally Manila, and held in isolation without trial.

In letters to "his very dear classmate, the Prince, later Carlos IV, at the behest of Viceroy Juan José de Vértiz," Fernando Vélaz de Medrano appealed to the lawful conscience of the Prince, warning that peace could not be sustained through coercion or through ministers who had reduced the empire to a system of extraction:

He was imprisoned for having informed Prince Don Carlos IV about the Tupac Amaru uprising in 1780. Indeed, he was arrested due to intrigues that led to the dispatch of two regiments, from Extremadura, through Caracas and the Californias, to suppress the Tupamaro uprising. This report he provided personally to his very dear classmate, the Prince, later Carlos IV, at the behest of Viceroy Juan José de Vértiz. Minister Don José de Gálvez, reprimanded by the King, exiled the marquess to Lima and the Californias with unheard-of cruelty.

Fernando's exile revealed the complete transformation of governance under the Bourbons. The Doctrine of Medrar, defined as advancement through divine order, virtue and service, had been displaced by medro, defined as corrupt advancement through compliance and profit.

In his silence, the moral order sustained by counsel gave way to a bureaucracy governed only by fear. His life marked the moment when efficiency replaced justice and the empire, though greater in wealth, became diminished in spirit. It was only after the accession of Charles IV that Fernando was finally pardoned in 1791. However, the pardon came with the stipulation that he was forbidden from entering Madrid or any royal residences. Fernando’s pardon in 1791 restored his innocence but not the political order he had defended. The Bourbon monarchy had shifted fully from counsel to coercion, and his return to Spain began only when the conditions that exiled him finally collapsed.

Campoy's testimony records the last stage of this journey. Unable to find passage on a Spanish ship during wartime, Fernando boarded a Portuguese vessel that wrecked in the Jolo Strait, then reached Madras in declining health. Still determined to obey the pardon, he took the English packet ship Swallow, believing it would land in Lisbon and allow him to continue home. On 22 November 1791, near the Cape of Good Hope, he died at sea, never reaching the Spain he had served.

From Magnanimity to Bureaucracy: The Bourbon Reforms and the Eclipse of Medrar

Portrait of José de Gálvez, 1785, Minister of the Indies, whose fiscal and administrative reforms contributed to uprisings in the Americas, including the rebellion of Túpac Amaru II in the late eighteenth century.

The Bourbon Reforms of the late eighteenth century marked the definitive transition from the moral order of counsel to the administrative order of command. Under the leadership of José de Gálvez, Minister of the Indies, the Spanish Empire underwent a process of fiscal-centralization that expanded the reach of royal authority while extinguishing its doctrinal soul. Offices once defined by lineage, merit, and virtue became engines of extraction and instruments of control, commanding obedience through fear and vice. The Doctrine of Medrano, which had guided the monarchy through law, clemency, virtue, theology, and education, was in direct conflict with a system in which advancement (medro) depended on profit and submission rather than on service or reason during the 18th century.

Between 1760 and 1785, the fiscal revenue of the Spanish Empire doubled. Royal monopolies on tobacco, alcohol, and playing cards became the empire's most profitable institutions, accounting for more than one-third of its total income. The new intendancy system divided the empire into over thirty administrative districts governed by intendants directly appointed by Madrid. Each was paid six thousand pesos per year, five times the salary of the traditional corregidor, who was abolished and replaced by subdelegates paid by commission on tax receipts. These measures tethered the colonial bureaucracy to the treasury, creating a vertical hierarchy of obedience from the Crown to the lowest official. This administrative structure displaced moral counsel with fiscal subservience, contravening the foundational precepts articulated in the República Mista.

Gálvez defended these reforms as a campaign against corruption, yet their structure institutionalized it. The Ordinance of Intendants of 1782, a document of 276 articles, replaced moral discretion with numerical regulation. Honor was measured by revenue; merit by efficiency. The minister's rhetoric of "order and discipline" masked an empire governed by quotas and monopolies. Under the earlier Doctrine of Medrano, the minister was bound to counsel the prince; under the new order, he was bound only to collect.

Depiction of Túpac Amaru II's army at the Battle of Sangarará (1780), a major uprising against Bourbon fiscal reforms. The rebellion fulfilled warnings issued by Fernando Vélaz de Medrano, who had documented growing unrest and corruption tied to the tobacco and playing card monopolies.

The results were immediate. The paper monopoly and tobacco monopoly provoked uprisings in Quito (1765), New Granada (1781), and most dramatically in the Andes with the rebellion of Túpac Amaru II (1780–1783). Fernando Vélaz de Medrano provided detailed accounts of the rebellion and condemned widespread corruption among royal officials, particularly regarding the administration of tobacco and playing card monopolies established by Minister José de Gálvez. Fernando Vélaz de Medrano, then aide-de-camp to Viceroy Vértiz, had warned that these monopolies and taxes violated divine justice and would bring disorder. His exile confirmed that truth. As the crown enriched itself, its subjects rose against it, and the moral covenant between ruler and realm dissolved.

The Bourbon Reforms achieved what their architects called "modernization without reform." Revenue per capita rose by more than half, while the welfare of the colonies declined. Intendants, almost all peninsular Spaniards, replaced Creole officials and local magistrates, alienating the elites who had once mediated between crown and community. Councils that had advised the monarch for centuries were reduced to ceremonial roles. The counselor was replaced by the accountant, and conscience by calculation.

The empire had abandoned medrar for medro. The first governed through virtue and reciprocity; the second through fear and gain. The reforms produced efficiency without legitimacy, expansion without unity, and power without justice. By the close of the eighteenth century, Spain possessed a centralized empire but no moral center. The collapse that followed was not a failure of policy but the inevitable consequence of a system that sought to perfect obedience while forgetting virtue.

The crisis produced by the Bourbon Reforms formed part of a wider global transformation in which traditional orders based on counsel, lineage, and moral service were replaced by centralized bureaucratic states. In Japan, the Meiji government abolished the samurai as a hereditary class, reclassified them as shizoku, dissolved their stipends, and replaced their military and administrative roles with conscript armies and modern ministries, causing widespread rebellion. Similar transitions occurred in France with the abolition of aristocratic privilege after the French Revolution in 1789 and in Russia with the restructuring of the noble estate under Peter the Great. In each case, older systems of virtuous advancement were displaced by regimes that relied on fiscal extraction, aristocratic domination, administrative command, and uniform regulation.

Modern political science offers a structural explanation for these transformations. Recent models of centralization and decentralization argue that when political, economic, and administrative authority accumulate in a capital city, residual power becomes concentrated in a small group whose interests are served by weakening local institutions. This process, identified across many regions and historical periods, produces systems of fiscal extraction, administrative command, and uniform regulation that replace older forms of advancement grounded in service, law, and virtue. Attempts at decentralization often produce limited results because central actors retain effective control over resources and decision-making, reinforcing the pressures that reshaped Japan, France, Russia, and Spain during the early modern and modern periods. This global context clarifies the significance of the reforms undertaken by the Marquesses of Fontellas and Diego de Medrano y Treviño, who worked to restore lawful improvement, public virtue, and institutional harmony within a society facing the same pressures that transformed other early modern states.

Marquesses of Fontellas: Custodians of Doctrine in the Bourbon Monarchy

Heraldic Shield of the House of Medrano in Navarre (1212)

José Joaquín Vélaz de Medrano y Gante, 1st Marquess of Fontellas (1761–1826), served under Charles III and Charles IV as Lieutenant of the Royal Spanish Guards, magistrate of Pamplona, and representative to the Cortes of Navarre and the General Courts for the military branch. A knight of the Order of Malta, Philip IV made him the 1st Marquess of Fontellas and 1st Viscount of Amaláin by royal decree on 10 April 1793. Jose was born in Pamplona to Joaquín Antonio Vélaz de Medrano y Álava, 6th Viscount of Azpa, and Antonia Francisca de Gante, Lady of Fontellas. Through this union, the Fontellas and Azpa estates merged into one line, reinforcing the family's territorial and judicial authority in Navarre. His life marked the formal establishment of a new Medrano title under Bourbon recognition while upholding traditional obligations of service, counsel, and religious knighthood. He died without direct heirs, and his titles passed to his nephew Fernando.

Nephew and successor to José Joaquín, Fernando Vélaz de Medrano y Álava inherited the title of 2nd Marquess of Fontellas and 2nd Viscount of Amaláin. He managed extensive estates across Navarre and Castile and held high political office during the reigns of Ferdinand VII and Isabella II. He served as Diputado Foral of Navarre and represented Tudela in the Spanish Parliament across three legislative sessions. His parliamentary contributions included work on infrastructure development, territorial administration, and the Spain-France border law. Fernando helped to modernize Navarre's infrastructure. His work on the Tudela-Bilbao railway project exemplified his efforts to integrate Navarre with Spain's broader economic network, fostering trade, industry, and regional connectivity. This railway, which began in 1857 and completed in 1863, played a crucial role in Navarre's economic development.

His tenure reflected a continuation of the Medrano principle that doctrinal values could guide modern economic and political development. Though his elections were not without controversy, he remained an influential regional figure until his death without issue in 1858. Brother and successor of Fernando, Ramón Vélaz de Medrano inherited the marquessate and continued the management of the family estates. He died unmarried and without heirs, distributing much of his fortune to hospitals and charitable institutions across Navarre and northern Spain.

The Marquesses of Fontellas, as descendants of Joan II of Navarre and Philip of Évreux, carried forward the Doctrine of Medrano through a period of dynastic crisis, liberal reform, and civil war. Their actions demonstrate how institutional memory, inherited authority, and public service were maintained through disciplined adaptation rather than ideological rupture, aligning with the ancient doctrine and precepts codified in the República Mista.

Minister Diego de Medrano y Treviño: The Restoration of Medrar and the Civic Reforms of Spain

Diego de Medrano y Treviño, Minister of the Interior of Spain, doctrinal restorer, liberal reformer, and founder of the first Royal Basque Economic Societies of Friends of the Country (1834) and the Savings Banks of Spain (1835)

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Spain entered a period of profound upheaval that tested the foundations of its monarchy, faith, and political order. The Napoleonic invasion of 1808 broke the unity of the crown, dividing the nation between submission and resistance. Amid this collapse, members of the House of Medrano carried forward the tradition of lawful service and moral discipline that had sustained the doctrine for centuries.

Diego de Medrano y Treviño, born in 1784, entered the Royal Corps of Artillery as a cadet in 1808 and rose through the campaigns of Ocaña, Chiclana, and Burgos. His brother, Lorenzo de Medrano y Treviño, educated at the Engineering Academy of Alcalá de Henares, joined the Corps of Engineers in 1803. He became the sole representative of the Spanish Military Corps of Engineers, artilleryman, and brigade sergeant major of the coast of Granada.

The Academy's curriculum descended directly from Sebastián Fernández de Medrano's Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels, uniting mathematical order with moral purpose. Lorenzo embodied the living continuation of Sebastián's teachings on geometry, proportion, and virtue as foundations of governance.

During the early years of the Peninsular War, Lorenzo commanded sappers and engineers who fortified cities across Valencia and Cuenca. When ordered to disarm in 1808, he refused, declaring that he and his men would "perish a thousand times rather than surrender their arms." His defense of Sagunto Castle in 1811, where he served as captain and chief engineer, exemplified the doctrine of medrar through steadfastness, duty, and disciplined reason. In his fortifications, the geometry of law became the architecture of resistance.

Together, the brothers personified the dual aspects of the doctrine. Lorenzo represented its mathematical and structural intelligence; Diego represented its moral and political conscience. Both acted according to the same law of virtuous advancement, maintaining loyalty to Spain’s lawful order even as the empire disintegrated around them.

The Cádiz Constitution and the Doctrine of Lawful Liberty (1812–1820)

The Constitution of Cádiz of 1812, drafted amid war, proclaimed the sovereignty of the nation and sought to reconcile liberty with law. This treaty resembles the ancient harmony of reason and justice that defined medrar, yet its abstraction lacked the spiritual unity that once bound crown and counsel. The years that followed exposed this fracture. Ferdinand VII's return in 1814 restored absolutism and extinguished constitutional reform.

The Trienio Liberal and Institutional Reform (1820–1823)

Full Ornamented Royal Coat of Arms of Spain (1761–1868 and 1874–1931), adorned with the cross of the Order of Santiago, reflecting the union of royal and chivalric authority during the Bourbon constitutional period.

In 1820, when the liberal uprising of Rafael del Riego inaugurated the Trienio Liberal, Diego de Medrano emerged as deputy to the Cortes and Minister of the Interior under Francisco Martínez de la Rosa. He worked to balance the demands of liberty with the discipline of lawful governance, translating the Doctrine of Medrar into civic form. His political moderation reflected the same principle and precepts that had guided his brother in battle: reason before passion, virtue before ambition.

Civic Doctrine and Economic Regeneration (1834–1835)

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Doctrine of Medrano reemerged in civic form through Diego de Medrano y Treviño, Minister of the Interior of Spain, liberal reformer, and founder of the first Royal Basque Economic Societies of Friends of the Country (1834) and the Savings Banks of Spain (1835). Diego translated the ancient Doctrine of Medrano, defined as advancement through virtue, service, and lawful order, into a guiding framework for modern governance. His Considerations on the Economic, Moral, and Political State of the Province of Ciudad Real (1843) stands as the clearest expression of this transformation within constitutional Spain. Where José de Gálvez had turned reform into fiscal extraction, Diego redefined reform as reconstruction grounded in education, conscience, and the alignment of private interest with the public good.

Considerations on Ciudad Real: Moral Economy and Public Virtue (1843)

Diego de Medrano's "Considerations on the economic, moral, and political state of the province of Ciudad Real" (1843).

He opened his Considerations by addressing the Economic Society of Friends of the Country, affirming that only institutions animated by virtue could create prosperity (medrar) that endures through political change:

"An enlightened and industrious corporation, peaceful and averse to harmful parties, harmless in every way, without means or faculties for harm, and with a vast field in which to deploy its beneficial influence, cannot be the target of envy or base flattery, but solely and exclusively of veneration and the most sincere affection."

This vision of social improvement continued the Medrano principle that virtue must be institutionalized. Diego argued that genuine progress required stable systems that reconciled self-interest (medro) with justice:

"The most powerful spring to obtain certain and constant results is to make the action of individual interest free, secure, and productive of positive advantages."

For Diego, liberty and interest were not in conflict. Guided by prudence and benevolence, they became instruments of public improvement. His reforms included the creation of savings banks and technical schools.

He illustrated this through examples from Spanish history. Reflecting on the irrigation systems of Valencia and Moorish Granada and the Roman bridge of Alcántara, he emphasized that the greatness of a people is shown in the permanence of its works:

"Neither the passage of centuries nor the upheavals of the most turbulent times have been sufficient to destroy these and many other enduring monuments of palpable utility. Generations have succeeded, conquerors or subdued, enlightened or barbarous, all have had the same interest in using, preserving, and transmitting them."

In Diego's vision, the bridge and the canal are signs of virtue and continuity expressed in public utility. This understanding resonates with the early hydraulic conduit constructed by the Vélaz de Medrano family at their castle-palace in Igúzquiza, which carried spring water from Montejurra to the castle and the Hospitaller hospital nearby. The same law that once built churches now constructed aqueducts, schools, and banks.

Education was central to this order:

"Education is the singular cornerstone of civilization, of morality, of well-being, and in sum of all that is good."

He saw education as a duty through which social order could be preserved. Ignorance bred disorder, while instruction produced capable, conscientious citizens. In this way, his educational reforms carried a spiritual intent.

Diego translated the metaphysical triad of the Doctrine of Medrano, virtue, service, and divine order, into the civic language of his time. His Considerations replaced scholastic theology with moral economy but retained the same purpose: advancing society through law, reason, and justice. His Considerations included citizens, preserving the core precepts of the República Mista.

Institutions of Enlightened Governance (1835–1843)

Emblem of the Royal Basque Society of Friends of the Country with the motto "Irurac bat" ("The three, one").

As Minister of the Interior, Diego implemented this vision. In 1835 he established the Spanish Civil Engineers Corps and inaugurated the Schools of Mining, Geography, and Forestry, presenting them as instruments of national improvement. That same year, he signed the Royal Order founding the Savings Banks of Spain, with the aim of protecting the poor from usury and encouraging financial discipline through saving.

Diego's Considerations, dedicated to the Royal Basque Society of Friends of the Country, concluded with a clear affirmation of the doctrine's continuity:

"What is essentially good, useful, and conducive to the moral and material improvement of mankind resists transient evils and is compatible with any form of government."

These words reflect the maturity of the Medrano worldview. For Diego, truth and virtue were independent of political structures. They found expression in just institutions that served the common good. Through Diego's reforms, The law of medrar emerged as a foundation of modern liberal society.

Doctrinal Continuity and Post-Absolutist Spain

Historically, Diego's work bridged the collapse of the Bourbon system and the rise of new sovereignties in the Americas. His Considerations demonstrated how the Doctrine of Medrano survived absolutism, exile, and war by transforming into civic enlightenment. The canal, the school, and the savings bank became the new instruments of public virtue, expressing in civic form what the court, palace, and treasury once upheld. In each, medrar endured as lawful advancement for the virtuous improvement of society. Through Diego de Medrano y Treviño and other crown officials, the Doctrine of Medrano entered the late modern period.

His kin and contemporary Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano declared Central American independence and carried the same commitment to lawful liberty and civic responsibility. Neither Diego de Medrano nor Gaínza embraced the revolutionary ideologies common to the nineteenth century. Their reforms did not arise from Jacobinism, classical radicalism, or any movements of rupture. Instead, they advanced an ancient doctrine of continuity grounded in lawful delegation of authority, virtue, service, and divine order. Rather than seeking to overturn institutions through ideology or violence, both men worked to preserve and refine the state, translating medrar into civic and constitutional forms. Their efforts reaffirmed that just and virtuous governance rests upon counsel, legal tradition, accumulated experience, and doctrinal integrity.

Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano and the rise of an Independent and United Central American Republic (1753–1829)

Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano, the first ruler of an independent Central America on 15 September 1821 after declaring the Act of Independence of Central America.

Gabino Crispín Gaínza Fernández de Medrano (1753–1829) was a Spanish-Navarrese nobleman, military officer, and statesman whose life bridged the last generation of imperial service and the first lawful independence in the Americas. Descended from Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zapata, governor of Carrión in 1693, and Francisco Fernández de Medrano, brother of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, he embodied both the genealogical and doctrinal continuity of the Medrano line. His mother, Eulalia Fernández de Medrano y Jiménez de Tejada, was great-niece of Fray Francisco Jiménez de Tejada, Grand Master of the Order of Malta. Through this lineage, Gaínza inherited the Medrano duty to reconcile faith and governance through religion, obedience, and justice.

Born in Pamplona on 25 October 1753, he entered the Regiment of Soria as a cadet at sixteen. His early training reflected the military humanism of the Bourbon era and the scholastic discipline of his lineage. Serving first in Orán and later during the Great Siege of Gibraltar (1780), he learned that sovereignty depends not on force but on lawful order.

Panoramic view of Gibraltar under siege from Spanish fleet and land positions.

After Gibraltar, Gabino joined General Victorio de Navia’s fleet in North America, taking part in campaigns in Florida and the Bahamas during the final years of the American War of Independence. At Pensacola, he held out for twelve days under siege and later served in Havana and the Caribbean, where he learned the complexities of colonial governance and maritime law.

In 1787 he became aide-de-camp to Brigadier Carlos del Corral in Peru, arriving in Lima in 1788 and entering the viceroyal bureaucracy after the suppression of the Túpac Amaru II revolt. His time in the Andes exposed him to Indigenous suffering and strengthened his commitment to justice in administration.

By 1792 he was admitted as a Knight of the Order of Malta, reaffirming the religious and military ideals central to his lineage. These were the same precepts expressed by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in the República Mista, that no kingdom endures without justice and that the sword is legitimate only when wielded in defense of divine order.

His career advanced in the Viceroyalty of Peru: Commander General of Trujillo (1796), Royal Judge and Military Chief of Chancay (1805), and pacifier of revolts in Lambayeque (1804). His correspondence shows concern for the public good over coercion. In 1809, as revolts spread, he warned Viceroy José Fernando de Abascal y Sousa that overcentralization would provoke rebellion, an echo of Fernando Vélaz de Medrano's earlier condemnation of corruption under José de Gálvez.

Appointed Captain General and Governor of Chile in 1813, he signed the Treaty of Lircay (1814) with Bernardo O'Higgins and Juan Mackenna, affirming loyalty to the monarchy while recognizing local assemblies. Although later annulled, it embodied the Medrano precept that obedience must serve justice rather than tyranny.

The Last Captain General and Governor of the Kingdom of Guatemala (1820–1821)

National Palace of Guatemala.

After a brief trial and acquittal in 1816, Gaínza returned to duty and in 1820 became Subinspector General of the Troops of Guatemala. When Captain General Carlos Luis de Urrutia suffered a stroke, Gaínza was appointed interim President, Governor, and Captain General of the Kingdom of Guatemala, presiding over territories that included modern Central America. His appointment marked the culmination of three centuries of Medrano service and the beginning of a new era of lawful independence.

Decorated with the Cross of the Royal and Military Order of San Hermenegildo (1814), Gaínza embodied the Medrano synthesis of chivalric honor and administrative discipline. The restoration of the Constitution of Cádiz in 1820 allowed reform through law rather than violence. Gaínza’s government reflected this ideal, combining religion, justice, and order.

Upon taking office in March 1821, he swore before the Gospels to defend the mystery of the Immaculate Conception and uphold the Constitution of the Spanish Monarchy. In June, he issued a general pardon, releasing prisoners and restoring exiles in accordance with the Medrano doctrine of mercy. When independence became inevitable, Gaínza ensured that it proceeded through law, not bloodshed.

Plan Pacífico and the Birth of an Independent and United Central American Republic (15 September 1821)

Act of Independence of Central America signed in 1821.

The Plan Pacífico of 1821 represents the culmination of the Doctrine of Medrano as peace achieved through lawful order. Drafted under Gaínza’s provisional government, it defined independence as restoration through counsel, justice, and divine law. Written at the residence of the Aycinena family by leading Creole jurists, it provided a framework for a peaceful transition from Spanish sovereignty to Central American self-rule.

It begins with an invocation of God:

In the name of the Supreme Being.

This echoed the República Mista, where Tomás Fernández de Medrano wrote that religion "binds us with the bond of piety, uniting us with God," affirming that no polity can endure without justice grounded in divine worship. Religion formed the foundation of sovereignty, linking divine law to human governance and aligning the Plan Pacífico with the Medrano legacy of peace through counsel, as seen in the regency of 1328, the Treaty of Bayonne (1388), and the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659).

Article 1 elects Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano as Jefe Superior Político by "the free will and general consent of the people," affirming that authority arises through virtue and consent.

Painting of the Signing of the Act of Independence (1821) by Rafael Beltranena. Gaínza is depicted on the right, holding a sword beside José Matías Delgado.

Article 2 orders a Junta Generalísima to deliberate and vote in secret for or against independence, ensuring that liberty emerged through conscience and law. Articles 3–4 create a Junta Provisional of provincial representatives sworn under divine law, sanctifying governance through faith and justice. Article 5 mandates formal notice to all civil and ecclesiastical authorities, preserving institutional continuity. Article 6 establishes a National Congress to define the new laws. Article 7 forbids arbitrary changes in office, confirming that independence was reform, not destruction. Articles 8–11 declare Central America an ally of Spain and a confederate of other American nations, protecting Spaniards and affirming equality and peace.

The plan concludes with thanksgiving as Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano and the Junta proceed to the cathedral to offer prayers "to the Most High," uniting faith and sovereignty in a single act of harmony. The independence council mirrored the República Mista by including the archbishop, prelates, military commanders, auditors, and leading citizens.

The transition was doctrinal and orderly, not revolutionary. Militias were placed on alert, the public informed, and Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano proclaimed "Long live independence" from the balcony as the crowd answered with acclamation. The Crown's representative became the lawful voice of the people, transforming royal legitimacy into civic legitimacy through peace.

The Plan Pacífico accomplished what few declarations of independence achieved: it transformed the dissolution of empire into the foundation of a lawful republic, preserving unity through doctrine, justice and faith rather than through ideology, violence or war. In this act, the Doctrine of Medrano reached fulfillment in the Americas, religion as foundation, obedience as structure, and justice as living law. Through Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano, the Medrano lineage once more secured peace through counsel, proving that true advancement (medrar) perfects order through virtue and divine reason.

See also

• Favorite
• Tomás Fernández de Medrano
• Philip III of Spain
• Philip II of Spain
• Habsburg Spain
• House of Bourbon
• Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, Lord of Valdeosera
• Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels
• Medrano Academy
• Royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso
• Medrano

Further reading

• Cifelli, Mario (2013). "Del privado al ministro: modelos y estrategias de legitimación del poder en la corte de Felipe III". La Perinola. 17: 47–78.
• Fernández de Medrano, Juan (1602). República Mista (in Spanish). Imprenta Real.
• Fernández de Medrano, Juan (1602). "República mista, dirigida a D. Francisco de Sandoval Duque de Lerma... Parte primera". Biblioteca del Banco de España (in Spanish).
• Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, Diego (2024-09-01). "Heroic and Flying Fame of Don Luis Méndez de Haro, Count-Duke of Olivares". Archived from the original on 2024-09-01. Retrieved 2025-03-26.
• Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, Diego. "Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul". Mirror of Princes.
• Fernández Albaladejo, Pablo (2020). "El debate sobre el privado en la monarquía hispánica (1598–1621): formas de la crítica política en la temprana Edad Moderna". Magallánica: Revista de Historia Moderna. 6 (11): 67–98.
• Guadagnin, Erika (2022). "Capitolo IV. Philosophia Rationalis Naturalis Moralis". La Philosophia nella Grande Galleria (in Italian). Ledizioni. pp. 179–501. ISBN 978-88-5526-928-5.
• "Historia Hispánica - Juan Martínez de Medrano". Retrieved 2025-04-07.
• HI Iberia Ingeniería y Proyectos. "Historia Hispánica - Diego Ros de Medrano" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2025-04-11.
• Pinillos Lafuente, Luis (2021). "Tomás Fernández de Medrano, consejero y secretario de Estado y Guerra de los Duques de Saboya, divisero del Solar de Valdeosera" (PDF). Cuadernos de Ayala (87).
• "Inventarios y Bibliotecas del Siglo de Oro - Ficha de edición". Retrieved 2025-03-19.
• "Republica Mista". Retrieved 2025-03-19.
• Loira, Javier Patiño (2017). ""Meddling with Royal Hearts": Interiority and Privanza (1598-1643)". Culture & History Digital Journal.
• López-Asiain, María (2020). "El Palacio Real de Valladolid: Escenario de la Corte de Felipe III". Dossier Ciudades (6).
• Mrozek Eliszezynski, Giuseppe (2018). "The Figure of the Royal Favourite in Spanish Political Treatises of the Early 17th Century" (PDF). Mediterranea: Ricerche Storiche: 397–423.
• Salazar, Fray Juan de (1997). Herrero García, Miguel (ed.). Política española. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
• Tellez, Diego (2015). "Tomás y Juan Fernández de Medrano: una saga camerana a fines del s. XVI y comienzos del s. XVII". Berceo.
• "Tomás Fernández Medrano". dbe.rah.es. Retrieved 2025-03-19.
• Van Gelderen, Martin (2002). Skinner, Quentin (ed.). Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage (PDF). Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. pp. 268, 281.
• Fortún Pérez de Ciriza, Francisco Javier (2007). "Perfiles del vasallaje en la Navarra bajomedieval". Príncipe de Viana. 68 (250): 469–502. Retrieved 19 May 2025.

External links

• República Mista by Tomás Fernández de Medrano (1602), published in Madrid.
• Heroic and soaring fame of the Most Excellent Lord Don Luis Méndez de Haro by Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros.
• Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul by Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, Lord of Valdeosera and Sojuela.