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)^[1] is a political treatise of the Spanish Golden Age by Tomás Fernández de Medrano, a Basque-Castilian nobleman, philosopher, royal counselor, and Lord of Valdeosera. Published in Madrid on the royal press in 1602 by decree of King Philip III, it was the first volume of seven treatises Medrano had written, of which only the initial part was published.^[2] Composed in early modern Spanish and Latin, the work provides a doctrine of governance grounded in a mixed republic combining monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy, structured around the foundational precepts of religion, obedience, and justice.^[3] Situated within the mirrors for princes tradition, República Mista examines the moral and juridical responsibilities of rulers, magistrates, and subjects, and is noted for its systematic articulation of delegated authority in early modern political thought.^[4]

The first treatise of the República Mista significantly influenced early seventeenth-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.^[5]

Without explicitly naming him, it aligns with the anti-Machiavellian tradition by rejecting the view that religion functions only as a political instrument. For Medrano, religion is the foundation of moral order and the precondition for legitimate governance.^[6]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's codified doctrine, as outlined in the first treatise of República Mista, emphasizes a system of mixed republic explicitly opposed to absolutism, integrating monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy into a single moral and legal order 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 mixed model, he maintains, offers the most effective system for securing justice, stability, and the common good.^[7]

His República Mista was a written 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.^[3]

The work is structured as a dialogue between King Ptolemy and ambassadors of the classical republics, each presenting three precepts of their polity. In its prologue, Medrano sets out this political doctrine in a style reminiscent of earlier Spanish literature influenced by Arabic traditions, combining narrative with philosophical reflection.^[8]

Tomás, who permitted his son Juan to bring the work to publication, explicitly stated he wrote seven treatises, publishing only the first, and included 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.^[9]

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.^[10]

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.^[10] 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.^[11]

Although composed in the early seventeenth century, the first volume of the República Mista codified a doctrine of natural precepts already present in earlier traditions across various civilizations. Drawing from classical, biblical, philosophical, legal, and royal sources, Tomás Fernández de Medrano codified these doctrines and natural precepts through the scholastic method, historically upheld in Spanish administrative practice and in the historical vocation of the Medrano family. The treatise united these inherited doctrines and precepts into a coherent system of lawful prosperity (medrar), grounded in virtue, service, delegated authority, and bound by natural and divine law. Together, the family generationally shaped dynastic, legal, educational, and cultural structures across the centuries.^[12][13][14]

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.^[15]

The Spanish bibliographer Nicolás Antonio, knight of Santiago, unequivocally attributes the authorship of the Mixed Republic to Tomás Fernández de Medrano.^[16] 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.^[17]

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.^[10]

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).^[18]

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.^[19]

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.^[20] 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.^[8]

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.^[8] He was appointed Secretary of the Holy Chapters and Assemblies of Castile, maintaining a continued role in both religious and political governance.^[20]

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.^[10]

Philip III of Spain (1598–1621), ruler of the Spanish Empire at the height of its power, nevertheless faced challenges in governance.^[21][22] 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 codified doctrine upheld in Spain and focused on the three precepts of religion, obedience, and justice as the foundation of Spanish governance.^[10] Philip III's reign established the Pax Hispanica as a doctrinal enactment of these precepts, expressing the unity of religion, obedience, and justice in foreign and domestic governance. Through this, the monarchy was redefined by aligning Roman Catholicism with Hispanidad.^[23]

Early seventeenth-century Spanish political thought combined republican language, scholastic natural law, and classical classifications of government within monarchical frameworks described using republican and mixed constitutional language.^[24] As analyzed by Rubiés, this convergence produced persistent uncertainty over how unified royal authority related to plural structures of governance, including councils, magistracies, and representative institutions, in the absence of a settled account of their relation to sovereign power.^[24] The República Mista (1602) of Tomás Fernández de Medrano provides a doctrinal resolution of this problem. Medrano defines the Spanish polity as a mixed Republic ordered to the common good and governed through sound doctrines and natural precepts, treating monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy as enduring forms of governance operating within a single moral and legal order.^[4]

Sovereign authority is unified in the prince, while the exercise of government proceeds through councils, offices, and virtuous magistrates selected according to service, merit, and equity.^[25] These institutions regulate the use of power, preserve justice, and maintain political stability without fragmenting sovereignty. The República Mista codified doctrine and precepts already upheld in Spanish governance, transmitted through the reign of Philip II and confirmed in law under Philip III. In the 1595 preamble to the Ordenações Filipinas, Philip II defines kingship as the administration of justice for the preservation of peace within the Republic.^[26]

The Doctrine of Medrano ensured the sacred and judicial legacy of the Spanish Monarchy was preserved and passed on as the definitive model for the largest empire on the planet. While the Ordenações Filipinas provided binding legal precepts of justice, merit, and equity within the Portuguese realm, the República Mista extended these precepts into a comprehensive mixed republic, applicable to the Spanish Monarchy as a whole, clarifying the relationship between unified sovereignty and plural forms of governance.^[4]

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.^[27][28] 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.^[28]

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 (fundamentally opposed to absolutism).
• (2) Subordinate and bound by law, exercised by magistrates for a limited time under royal commission (e.g. a valido).^[3]

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."^[7]

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.^[7]

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.

While many modern historians regard Philip III of Spain as a weak and disengaged monarch,^[29] 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.

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.

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.^[30][31] 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.^[32][33] 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.^[34][35] 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.^[36][37]

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.

In a letter dated around 1607, Tomás Fernández de Medrano reported that Philip III and his ministers were well aware of the services he had rendered by sea and land, in peace and war, and of his political treatise concerning the governance of the Republic.^[38]

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.^[38]

Medrano's República Mista significantly shaped Philip III's approach to kingship.^[39][40][37] His República Mista reinforced Madrid-Rome ties,^[41] and associated a religious foundation with the Spanish monarchy's "greatness" and prestige.^[42]

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.^[43]

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.^[44] 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.^[45]

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?^[46]

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.^[47] 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.^[48]

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.^[49] 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.^[49]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's son presented a spirited defense of the system of the valido that emerged with the rise of Philip III.^[5] 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.^[6]

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").^[10]

Juan's dedication uses metaphor and political allegory to elevate the Duke of Lerma as the divinely chosen steward of the monarchy.^[50]

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.^[51]

Each Republic and its corresponding three precepts represents one of the seven complete treatises Medrano had already written. Only the first, on religion, obedience, and justice, was published in 1602 as the first volume of the República Mista.^[10]

• 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.^[9]

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.^[10] 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.^[10]

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.^[50]

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?^[10]

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, 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.^[10]

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.^[10]

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.^[10]

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.^[10]

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.

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.^[10]

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.^[52]

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.^[10]

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."^[4] Medrano insists that even the most isolated or undeveloped societies possess "some specific order, arrangement, and agreement... and some awareness of the divine,"^[4] 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."^[53] 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."^[1]

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.^[50]

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."^[4] Ultimately, he argues, religion is not merely personal but foundational to legitimate rule, and any governance that opposes it is destined to fail.

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?^[4]

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.^[10]

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.^[4] 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.^[1]

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.)^[11]

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.^[11]

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.^[11]

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.)^[11]

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.^[11]

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.^[4]

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.^[55]

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.^[11]

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.^[56]

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.^[4]

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.

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.^[57]

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.

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?^[10]

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.^[46]

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.

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.^[50]

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.^[50]

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.

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.^[58]

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.

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.^[10]

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.^[10]

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.^[59]

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.^[50]

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

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."

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.^[1]

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

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.

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.

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.^[60]

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.^[50]

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."^[48]

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.^[10]

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.^[10]

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."

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.^[50]

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.

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.^[50]

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.^[50]

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.^[61]

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.^[61]

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.^[61] 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.^[61]

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.^[61]

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.'^[30]

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.^[30]

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.^[30]

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.^[43]

Despite its title, the treatise did not advocate for a constitutional, absolute, 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 republic was ultimately one of undivided sovereignty with executive functions delegated to a powerful minister (valido) when required. 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.^[43]

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.^[62] 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.^[63][8]

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.^[63]

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.^[64] 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.^[63]

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.^[50]

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.^[64] 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.^[17]

He later became Counselor and Secretary of State and War for the Princes of Savoy, grandchildren of Philip II of Spain.^[8] 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.^[65]

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.^[17] 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.^[8]

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 of Luis Méndez de Haro, and in his Mirror of Princes, where he offered Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias, princely counsel and a doctrinal mirror of legitimacy itself.^[66]

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.^[66] 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.^[67] 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.^[49]

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.^[68]

Tomás and his family originally migrated into Castile from the Kingdom of Navarre. Following Juan Martínez de Medrano's Navarrese regency and legal reforms, 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.^[69][70][71]

Tomas's relative Juan preserved early doctrines through loyalty, service, and prudence in royal duty.^[71] 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.^[72] 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 from regency into household service, diplomacy, and dynastic continuity.^[73]

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.^[74] 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.^[75] Under the Trastámara dynasty, the House of Medrano obtained protection from the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, exemplifying medrar during the Renaissance.^[76]

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 with a crown on top, 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 and Catalina de Medrano, lady-in-waiting to Isabella I of Castile, among many others.^[77]

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.^[77]

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.^[78] 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.^[79] 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.^[7]

The Medrano family sealed 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.^[76] 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.^[80]

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 relatives, 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.^[81]

On 1 September 1552, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, issued a Carta Ejecutoria (executive letter) [es] formally reaffirming the noble status of the Medrano family in favor of Tomás's relatives Bernardino de Medrano, Pedro López de Medrano, and Francisco de Medrano.^[82] The Medranos commissioned richly illuminated and finely bound personal copies, customizing them to preserve both their piety and loyalty to Charles V, as well as their own noble status.^[83] 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.^[82]

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.^[82] 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."^[82]

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.^[84][75]

Medrano's relative Juan de Medrano became 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.^[85][81]

During the reign of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Tomás's relative 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 doctrinal medrar in the sixteenth century.^[86][85] 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).^[86][85]

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 held at Antwerp before Emperor Charles V, Juan (Jehan) de Medrano officiated as one of five heralds at the creation of Rolant Longin as a knight of the order.^[86] 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 serving as Kings of Arms of the King of Castile and England.^[86] His role as officiant situated the Medrano family within the institutional core of Habsburg chivalric legitimacy, as the Golden Fleece represented the highest order of knighthood in Europe. This function is preserved in the illuminated manuscript of the ceremony, written in French secretary hand and later cited by Elias Ashmole in The Order of the Garter (1672).^[86][87][85]

The family's heraldic standing is further attested in the seventeenth-century armorial Armas y Linajes de España, preserved at the Lázaro Galdiano Foundation in Madrid (MS 405).^[88] The manuscript catalogues over 120 Spanish noble families following royal and universal lineages, and folio 195, titled "of the Medranos," contains a later insertion of the Medrano arms in a distinct hand, likely added through family patronage, followed by notes on heraldic colors.^[89] Positioned alongside the arms of the Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, the Medrano entry documents their recognized authority in imperial heraldry and legal doctrine, consistent with Juan de Medrano's office as Rey de Armas and the later codification in the República Mista (1602).^[89][90][91]

The Doctrine of Medrano is a codified legal tradition compiled and harmonized by the Medrano family in laws, statutes, and treatises such as the República Mista (1602).^[4] In it, legitimate power in the Spanish Empire is grounded in legitimate prosperity (medrar) through virtue, merit, and service to society, and binding precepts such as religion, obedience, and justice. Rooted in monarchy, aristocracy, and timocracy, the doctrine rejects abstract principles or ideology in favor of natural precepts drawn from theology, royal service, various civilizations, and tradition.^[4] It combines classical philosophy, Christian humanism, practical royal administration, and numerous fields, including theology, jurisprudence, law, political and military science, education, mathematics, the arts, architecture, civics, ethics, and etymology into a single doctrine of order and prosperity. Derived from the verb and etymological root medrar, the doctrine defines advancement and virtuous prosperity through a timocratic order of lawful delegated authority.^[92][93]

Transmitted through treatises, royal counsel, and education, it was embodied by monarchs^[66] and the nobility, incorporated into royal academies^[94] and reformed military orders such as the Order of Santiago.^[95] According to the República Mista, kingship in the Spanish Monarchy was understood as an office ordered toward the well-being and prosperity (medrar) of the community, exercised as justice through the person of the king rather than for his private advantage.^[50]

The doctrines and precepts compiled and codified in the República Mista was actively practiced within the Royal Councils, including Castile, the Indies, Justice, and His Majesty's Chamber by high-ranking Crown officials, guiding institutional reforms across Spain and its monarchy.^[7][96] The Doctrine of Medrano was implemented through the actions of governors, councilors, jurists, and administrators embedded in the kingdom's most powerful judicial bodies, including the Real Audiencia y Chancillería de Valladolid, where successive members of the Medrano family served as oidores, fiscales, and magistrates.^[97][98]

The doctrine contained within the República Mista 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.^[11][82] According to a 2025 publication from Cambridge University, the precept that service to the Crown constituted a generational duty, rather than an individual accomplishment, was embedded in early modern royal administration.^[25] This precept 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.^[91]

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.^[25] 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.^[25] 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.^[98][99]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano places religion at the absolute foundation of political legitimacy. In República Mista (1602), he teaches that God is both the origin and end of all things, and that no lawful order can exist without recognition of the Supreme Majesty to whom rulers themselves are subject. Religion is presented as a universal precept of society, present in all peoples and necessary for the establishment of law, justice, and civil order.^[100]

Medrano argues that throughout nature there exists an inherent hierarchy of command and obedience, from the heavens to human communities, and that political authority mirrors this divine structure. For this reason, he identifies religion as the principal foundation of republics, of obedience to laws and magistrates, of respect for rulers, and of justice itself, from which all legitimate governance and lawful advancement must proceed.^[100]

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.^[3]

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 precepts as right and worthy, it would be fitting for us, as Catholics and Christians, not to ignore them."^[4]

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.^[3]

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.^[7]

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.^[3]

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; the doctrine will serve as theoretical instruction for those who have already learned it through practice and as guidance for those unaware of it.^[3]

Tomás presents the República Mista as a codification of an enduring doctrine already lived by Spanish society, 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.^[3]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano served as Counselor and Secretary of State and War to the Princes of Savoy, grandchildren of Philip II of Spain.^[8] 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.^[101]

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.^[101] 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.^[101] 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.^[66] 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."^[8]

Through his service, Tomás Fernández de Medrano linked Savoyard inheritance to Spanish institutions and gave administrative reality to dynastic theology.^[8] 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.^[66]

A parallel appears in the Americas with Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo de Medrano, son of the conquistador Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo.^[102] His descendants in Guatemala used the Medrano surname in official records, establishing it as a hereditary marker.^[103] Cabrillo de Medrano's grandson, Esteban de Medrano y Solórzano, identified himself as Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo's legitimate heir and served as regidor and royal chancellor of the Real Audiencia of Santiago de Guatemala in 1670.^[103][104] As Philibert was incorporated "of Austria" through dynastic mediation, Cabrillo's heirs became "of Medrano" through hereditary legitimacy and colonial office.^[103]

The transmission of religious instruction and political formation in the Spanish monarchy preceded its codification in princely treatises. Medieval ecclesiastical instruction in Castile combined study at the Studium of Palencia with cathedral service. After completing his theological formation at Palencia, Saint Dominic entered the cathedral chapter of Osma, which at the time was governed by Martín de Baztán y Medrano, son of María Ramírez de Medrano, who held the episcopal see as Bishop of Osma from 1188 to 1201.^[105] Under Martín’s episcopate, the chapter of Osma functioned as a center of reform, clerical discipline and instruction that shaped Dominic's early ecclesiastical career.^[105]

In the sixteenth century, royal education followed a comparable ecclesiastical framework established under Charles V and Philip II of Spain, including the appointment of García Loaysa y Girón [es], royal preceptor to Prince Philip, the future Philip III of Spain. Garcia was the nephew of García de Loaysa, Bishop of Osma, Archbishop of Seville, Cardinal, and Master General of the Dominican Order. These cases illustrate the continuity of ecclesiastical instruction and dynastic formation within the Spanish monarchy.^[21]

Writing of the Spanish monarchy in his own time, during the reign of Philip III of Spain, Tomás Fernández de Medrano states:

The Majesty that we now have counts among its councils the most  learned and exemplary prelates and religious leaders, following the  guidance of Charles V, who would say that such men belonged there, as  they represented the ecclesiastical state, which is the foundation of all republics, and because, by the presence of prelates in the councils of princes, what was discussed in these councils would be in service to God.^[1]

Upon the accession of Philip III of Spain, members of the House of Medrano held positions within the royal court and ecclesiastical administration.^[8] Tomás's nephew, Diego Fernández de Medrano, from Logroño and father of Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, relocated to the royal court in 1607 and served as chaplain of honor, judge of the royal chapel, administrator and deputy of the Royal Hospital of the Court, and testamentary executor to Queen Margaret of Austria. These offices placed him within the king's immediate religious and domestic institutions during the early years of the reign.^[8]

Tomas's great-nephew, Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros, lord of Valdeosera and Sojuela, continued to write treatises with the approval of the monarchs. Diego dedicated his doctrinal treatise Espejo de Príncipes: Crisol de sus Virtudes, Asombro de sus lealdades; Alma de su govierno y govierno de su Alma ("Mirror of Princes: Crucible of his virtues, wonder of his loyalties; soul of his government and government of his soul") (1657–1661) to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias and the son of Philip IV of Spain.^[66]

In his Mirror of Princes, Diego Fernández de Medrano addresses Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias and affirms the sound doctrines and natural precepts that formed governance in the Spanish Monarchy, which was fundamentally opposed to absolutism and grounded instead in lawful delegation, counsel, and moral instruction:

My Lord, Academies have at all times been the Courts of Princes, where the science of governing and the art of directing Empires have always been exercised and refined, and with greater credit than those who merely came to hold power, unless a heroic subject represented them. The Spanish Monarchy has always been known as outstanding above all others, for priding itself on using a form of government composed in proper balance of natural precepts, giving first place to Catholic laws over political ones; being, and having always been, a firm column that has continually sustained its Catholic truths, intact and defended with letters and with arms, and applauded with religious veneration.

And when, from fragments of the greatest doctrines, precepts could be assembled that might be harmonized, they were always the Spanish Reflections of the Austrias and the Philips, from the first who came to give Spain an untiring Caesar and an invincible Charles; who gave to Castile and León a second Philip, whose fame would have confirmed him as another such, had Heaven not granted Your Highness to us, for the joy of our Spain, as a reward for the sanctity, valor, and pious goodness of the King our Lord; granting him one who, as a true imitator of his forebears, might gain successes by his own steps, and in measured order continue the renown of his name through the ages, and above all the Princes of the world.^[66]

Diego's 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.^[66]

Diego presents his mirror of princes to Philip Próspero, Prince of Asturias:

It would greatly exceed my daring to presume to place at Your August Feet this which I call a mirror, were it not that my spirit is moved by the occasion to make use, for so great a matter, of the Most Illustrious Person of Your Highness, whose person is so outstanding that, upon coming to look into it, all the Princes of our age and those yet to come will find proofs to imitate and praises to venerate. I sing as a swan, my Lord, in order to die; make Yourself then a phoenix, so as to fly while presiding over the ages, living through them and granting them space for my affections. While the age, still having but few plants, awaits from Heaven those that continue onward; for the stirrings of mortals, fame promises immortality.^[66]

Addressed to Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias and heir to Philip IV, Diego appears as the swan, offering his final song as a teacher, while the phoenix represents the prince, born through doctrine to embody renewal and lawful kingship. The work continues the tradition of the House of Medrano in transmitting princely education, dynastic instruction, and political theology to the royal line.^[66]

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.^[25]

According to Cambridge University, knowledge in Spain 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.^[25]

Diego, in his Mirror of Princes, clarifies his intentions in an address to the reader:

To the Reader: I do not expect that the intention with which I form these acts should be judged lightly. I do not pretend that through flattery truths should be made fairer. For a mirror that is crystal-clear, yet broken, is a mirror of deceit, not of crystal, and of deception is such a mirror. Truth is the mirror of Princes, not flattery. Virtue is the mirror of Kings, and Princes must be mirrors of Virtue. There is no greater reason than that which is seen clearly in the mirror of reason. There is no greater mirror than that which is experimented with the lights of reason. Although it is also a mirror that shows reason to those who are deceived. The mirror that shows a Prince as he is, is a mirror of disillusion; but the one that shows how he ought to be is the mirror of reason. This I propose with due reverence, although I know how difficult it is to show with certainty. If at times I attribute blame, let it be said that it is deserved; for it is not difficult to find confusion among so many mirrors.^[66]

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.^[26][66]

In this established doctrine, prosperity 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.^[65]

Together, the House of Medrano and the Spanish Empire codified sound doctrines and natural precepts in multiple forms:

• 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.^[61]

• 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.

• Codified through cultural authority, institutional censorship, and poetic doctrine by Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, chief chaplain in Madrid, founder and president of the Medrano Academy of Madrid (1616–1622), official censor of comedias in the Inquisition, Protonotary Apostolic, Apostolic Judge, chaplain and treasurer to Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, III Duke of Feria, and author of Favores de las Musas (1631) and Caridad y Misericordia (1652).

• Codified through princely pedagogy and international diplomacy 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 and doctrinal panegyric to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV, and reaffirmed the core precepts of República Mista through their shared diplomatic role at the Treaty of the Pyrenees.^[49][66]

• Institutionalized and codified in the educational royal reform of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso (1666), the Colegio de San Eugenio, the Colegio de Santa Catalina de los Medrano, and numerous other colegios led and united by Dr. García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos.

• Militarily and educationally codified through the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels (1675), founded and directed by Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, General Prefect to the King, Captain and Maestre de Campo of the Spanish Tercio, General of Artillery, Chief Artillery Engineer of the Kingdom, and Royal Master of Mathematics in the States of Flanders.
• Exemplary through poetry and philosophy in La Silva Curiosa (1583) by Julián Íñiguez de Medrano, courtier, Navarrese knight, and early literary architect of the doctrine.

• Extended into the Americas by Juan de Espinosa Medrano (El Lunarejo), Indigenous nobleman and chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV. He addressed Haro in the dedication of the Apologético (1662) and later wrote the Philosophia Thomistica (1688).

18th and 19th century codifications of the doctrine:

• Architecturally and educationally codified by Giovanni Antonio Medrano (1703–1760), architect, engineer, and tutor to Kings Charles III, Ferdinand VI and their princely brothers.^[106][13]

• Encoded in sacralized mathematics in Quadrados Mágicos (1744) by Phelipe Medrano, dedicated to Queen Elisabeth Farnese.

• Codified and refined into civic doctrine and public institutions by Diego de Medrano y Treviño, Minister of the Interior of Spain, in his Consideraciones (1843), which affirmed medrar (lawful prosperity and improvement) as a civic and moral foundation for constitutional Spain.

The House of Medrano transmitted and enacted doctrines and natural precepts through royal counsel and advisery roles, chaplaincies, diplomacy, military service, the arts, education, and good governance with delegated authority. Far from mere ideology, these codifications served as a complete doctrine designed for practical and theoretical application. It was lived by the regents of the Kingdom of Navarre (1328–1705): Juan Martínez, García, and Pedro Antonio de Medrano.^[107] It extended through ecclesiastical and juridical offices in the real audiencias, including inquisitors like Juan Antonio and Alonso Molina de Medrano.^[108]

In the Americas, it was enacted by Juan de Medrano y Mesía, Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zapata, Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano. In the Royal Council's, it was enacted by ministers such as García de Medrano, 1st Count of Torrubia, and Baltasar Álvarez de Medrano.^[109] During the Bourbon era, it was defended and preserved by those close to the Princes of Austurias, such as Jaime Vélaz de Medrano and his son Fernando Vélaz de Medrano, entrusted with the conscience and counsel of princes.^[110][111]

The surname Medrano derives from the Spanish verb medrar, meaning:

"to improve," "to advance," or "to prosper."^[112][90]

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 during the reign of Sancho II of Pamplona, earned the trust and royal favor of his successor King Garcia of Pamplona.^[91] He established the Palace of Vélaz de Medrano and the hereditary lordship of Igúzquiza for his descendants.^{[91][113][78]}

His descendant and heir Juan Vélaz de Medrano, lord of Igúzquiza, became royal chamberlain to Kings Charles III of Navarre and John II of Aragon.^[114] A ricohombre of Navarre, he held the lordships of Igúzquiza, Arguiñano, Arzoz, Artazu, Zabal, and Orendáin, and served as alcaide of Monjardín and Viana.^[115] In 1437 he created the mayorazgo of Vélaz de Medrano, the oldest documented in Viana, demonstrating hereditary improvement as a defining family principle.^[73]

In his 1492 Latin-Spanish dictionary, Antonio de Nebrija defined medrar as Proficio: "to make progress."^[90] 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.^[116] Ramón Menéndez Pidal identified Medrano as a surname historically linked to noble service and legitimate ascent.^[117]

From the 11th century onward, Medranos consistently appear in prominent roles such as ricoshombres, royal chamberlains, royal educators and guardians, mayordomo mayors, clergy, diplomats, lawyers, professors, rectors, royal treasurers, lords, knights tied to military orders, merinos, alcaides, governors, regents, and judges of the cortes in early Navarre.^[118] 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.^[119] The appearance of medranza alongside these records confirms that hereditary improvement was both practiced and named as a principle of noble legitimacy.^[116]

This etymology shows that hereditary improvement formed the linguistic and genealogical basis for medrar as a doctrine transmitted across dynasties and institutions.^[116] The Medrano surname therefore operated as a grammar of lawful ascent.^[120] 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.^[116]

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.^[12] The triad "to medrar, to live, to die" summarized the rhythm of courtly life and reputation.^[12]

More than ambition (medro), medrar signified ordered ascent grounded in divine law, virtue, obedience, legitimacy, and delegated royal authority.^[121] The Medrano lineage embodied this principle through continuous service as counselors, high stewards, treasurers, tutors, jurists, governors, and magistrates.^[66] By the seventeenth century they had codified the doctrine formally, extending it into military, academic, and princely instruction.^[1][66] The grammar of medrar became part of the legal and institutional structure governing the Spanish world.^{[95][12][66][92]}

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.^[122] Her rise reflected deliberate intellectual formation from childhood, a core Medrano principle later codified in República Mista.^[1]

Praised by Lucio Marineo Siculo for surpassing male contemporaries,^[76] she held the Chair of Poetry and Grammar in 1508, lecturing in Latin and succeeding Antonio de Nebrija, the very grammarian who defined medrar.^[123][90]

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.^[124]

In Phelipe Medrano's Quadrados mágicos (1744), the doctrine reached a synthesis of mathematics, theology, and hereditary governance.^[12] Joseph Cañizares dedicated a sonnet to the work, writing:

If it began to medrar, it is because of MEDRANO.^[125]

Others, including Ignacio de Loyola y Oyanguren and the Marquess of La Olmeda, praised Phelipe's contribution to truth and Christian arithmetic.^[92]

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.^[92] Pedro's career in the Secretary of State for Italy under Charles II exemplified the administrative foundation on which Phelipe built his doctrinal synthesis.^[92]

Olmeda concluded that Phelipe's knowledge was so effective:

That, once acquired, your knowledge becomes inherited.^[92]

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.^[4]

Philip II, known as Philip the Prudent in Spain, was King of Spain from 1556 until his death in 1598. 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.^[81][126] 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.^[127] 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.^[81]

Diego López de Medrano, as alcaide of Aranjuez, became 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.^[128] 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.^[129] 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.^[130][129] By royal decree and the direct Apostolic authority of Philip III of Spain, Diego's first cousin, García de Medrano y Castejón, born in El Burgo de Osma (1550), reformed the statutes and laws of the Order of Santiago, codifying medrar into the Order's legal statutes and governing laws that was later compiled and confirmed by Philip III in 1605.^[81][95]

The House of Medrano in Soria and its province are knights of great antiquity and nobility.^[131] Diego Fernández de Medrano, born in Hinojosa del Campo, in the Province of Soria, was the brother of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, author of República Mista. He was a Knight of Santiago, 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.^[132]

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.^[133]

By securing the beachhead, landing the tercios, and holding the coastal approaches, Diego de Medrano assured Spain's victory and paved the way for Portugal's final incorporation under Philip II, known as the Iberian Union.^[134]

Jorge Manrique commended Medrano's 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.^[135]

In the sixteenth and seventeenth century, the King's of Spain rewarded actions that benefited the broader public.^[25] Within the Spanish Empire, nobility was understood as a familial enterprise, where lineages could present their own service and merit to the crown, including their ancestors as a form of hereditary continuity in service and virtue.^[25]

After the failed crossing of 1582, Captain Diego de Medrano rebuilt the galleys by raising their bulwarks and redesigning their rigging with three masts, the two principal ones fitted with square sails. These modifications enabled a successful Atlantic passage to São Miguel, marking the first time this type of vessel crossed the ocean.^[136] The improved ships played a decisive role in securing the surrender of Terceira and later Faial. In reward for this service, the king granted him the habit of Santiago and appointed him to command the four galleys assigned to the Spanish Armada.^[136]

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.^[132] 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.^[132]

Diego Fernández 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 medrar and a model for Spanish society in facing challenges that seemed insurmountable.^[132] 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.^[132]

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.^[132] 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.^[132]

Medrar, embodied in Captain Diego de Medrano's military service and rewarded through royal favor, would soon be enshrined at the highest level of governance. In 1595, Philip II codified these very precepts of merit, justice, and rightful reward in the Ordenações Filipinas, reaffirming Spain as the largest empire on earth in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.^[26] 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."^[26]

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 mirrored 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.^[26] 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.^[26] Philip II's preamble affirms that kings must reward merit over birth and uphold justice as the highest royal virtue.^[26]

On 5 June 1595, King Philip II of Spain upheld the precept of justice and mirrored Medrano's words of punishing the wicked and rewarding the good, declaring in the preamble of 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.^[26]

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.^[26]

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.^[25] 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.^[26]

Declaring justice to be "the principal virtue, and above all others the most excellent," Philip II of Spain 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.^[26]

Tomás mirrors Philip II in the 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."^[1]

In their shared vision of kingship, justice, merit, and divine service are inseparable, revealing a 16th century royal codification of the Doctrine of Medrano seven years before the República Mista.^[26] The Ordenações Filipinas, along with the República Mista offer explicit details of the philosophical and political system operating in the Spanish Empire.^[90][92]

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.^[7]

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.^[7]

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.^[7]

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)^[7]

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.^[1]

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.^[7]

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

Latin: "Post tantam rerum experientiam, diu dominationis convulsus, commutatus, postremo in scelera simul ac dedecora prorupuit"

English: After so much experience of things, disturbed by the long exercise of rule, he fell at last into crimes and disgrace. (Tacitus)^[7]

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.^[7]

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."^[7] The example of faith set by rulers becomes a law and model for their subjects, fostering a society rooted in love and charity.^[7] Medrano affirmed this as the surest path to preserving and fortifying their kingdoms and empires.^[7]

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.^[50]

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.^[137][138]

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.^[7]

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.^[81]

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.^[17]

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.^[17] 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.^[139] 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.^[140] Scholars have suggested that this canvas, like others, may have been reused for Philip II's own esequie.^[141]

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.^[17]

After the death of Philip II of Spain, his son Philip III was King of Spain and Portugal (as Philip II) reigning from 1598 until his death in 1621. As the court developed into a centralized system of delegated rule under Philip III, the rise of his valido, Francisco Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas, provided one of the clearest political settings in which the doctrine codified in República Mista (dedicated to the valido) was enacted.^[50] By the late sixteenth century, the Medrano family and the etymological root medrar had become embedded within the royal court as a recognized code of ascent, identifying proximity to power earned through service, virtue, and delegated authority.^[142] 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).^[142]

In early modern Spain, status and influence increasingly depended on proximity to the sovereign, court patronage, and administrative office rather than territorial rule.^[143] As Ángel Campos-Perales observes, medrar became the operative verb of court society, shaping both careers and life cycles through visibility, favor, and proximity.^[12] 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.^[95]

Notable Knights of Santiago upheld his reforms, including his son García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano y Hurtado de Mendoza, Pedro Vélaz de Medrano, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, and many others from the Medrano lineage. 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.^[108]

Medrano's relative Alonso Molina de Medrano 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.^[144] 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.^[145][146] 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.^[147] 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.^[108]

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 and theological defense of the Battle of Clavijo and of the origin of the lordship and divisa of Valdeosera, authored by Licenciado Salinas.^[148]

Juan Fernández de Medrano y Sandoval was a monk of the Order of Saint Bernard of the Cistercians at the Monastery of San Prudencio de Monte Laturce in Clavijo. In his dedication, he affirmed the royal, apostolic, and ancestral foundations of Spanish sovereignty and identified the monarchy as the divine source of 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.^[148]

The prologue to the same work, written by Licenciado Salinas after consultation of the Valdeosera archives, confirmed the Medrano descent from the commander of Clavijo and identified Tomás Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Valdeosera, as the living representative of that 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 [Sancho Fernández de Tejada] the field master and captain general of King Ramiro the 1st of León, and who now represents his same person in dignity.^[148]

These legal and genealogical affirmations preceded the publication of Tomás Fernández de Medrano's República Mista in 1602. In that work, he reaffirmed the sanctity of Clavijo as a foundational event of Spanish sovereignty and warned against historical revisionism:

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.^[7]

He concluded with a directive concerning scholarly responsibility toward tradition:

Handle traditions, sacred or profane, with respect, so as not to appear impious or cynical in a misguided show of curiosity or erudition.^[10]

The vow of Clavijo, the hereditary lordship and divisa of Valdeosera, and the reform of the Order of Santiago were treated as a unified and sanctified structure of Christian sovereignty.^[95]

García de Medrano y Castejón, jurist and knight of the Order of Santiago, served as Alcalde del Crimen in the Chancery of Granada, councilor of the Royal Council of Castile, member of the Royal Council of Justice, and Minister of the Council of Orders. In these roles, he carried forward the Doctrine of Medrano through the reform of the statutes and laws governing Spain's principal military order.^[95]

As administrator of the legal history, governance, and admissions of the royal military orders, García de Medrano contributed to the codification of noble service and the regulation of royal favor and delegated authority.^[149]

By order of Philip III of Spain, García de Medrano authored two foundational legal works: 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 reissued in Madrid in 1627;^[150] 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 posthumously in 1605 in Madrid.^[99]

The latter work systematized the statutes, privileges, ceremonies, and disciplinary structure of the Order of Santiago, following the legal framework of the earlier compilation by Fernández de la Gama.^[150]

In 1605, Philip III compiled and published García de Medrano's Compilation of the Chapter Laws of the Order of Knighthood of Santiago of the Sword, printed in Valladolid by Luys Sánchez. This publication formed part of a broader reform program between 1603 and 1609 updating the legal codes of Santiago, Calatrava, and Alcántara.^[151]

García de Medrano preserved the spiritual and temporal legal titles of the Order, omitting only statutes concerning religious minorities that had been legally abolished. The compilation incorporated statutes approved from the Chapter of Mérida (1387) through Écija-Seville (1501–1502), unifying centuries of law under a codified doctrine of governance.^[150]

In compliance with the Chapter's mandate, García de Medrano reviewed and revised the laws of the Order:

...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.^[95]

Philip III ratified the reform as royal law and explained its purpose:

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...^[95]

The decree ordered the observance of the corrected Leyes Capitulares throughout the kingdom and was issued in Valladolid on 15 January 1605, authenticated by Francisco González de Heredia and verified by Gregorio de Tapia on 4 February.^[95]

With Apostolic authority, Philip III concluded:

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.^[95]

The reforms elevated medrar into statutory law, integrating religion, justice, merit, and virtue into the institutional governance of the Order of Santiago and reinforcing the República Mista and delegated royal authority within the Spanish monarchy.^[95]

In 1605, Tomás Fernández de Medrano, under direct papal authority, reaffirmed the legal and spiritual foundations of the Orders of St. John. Tomás, granted the habit of St. John by Pope Clement VIII in 1593, was commissioned by Pope Paul V to produce a legal brief confirming the Order of Saint John's privileges. Printed in Rome in 1605 and praised by King Philip III,^[152] the brief formed part of a broader effort to align the governance of military orders with a legal conception of advancement rooted in service for the common good, merit, and virtue.^[95] Military orders acted as intermediaries in disputes among European powers, using their religious authority and political neutrality to facilitate negotiations and promote peace.^[153]

Tomás's commission occurred during the escalating conflict between Paul V and the Republic of Venice, whose laws restricting ecclesiastical property and jurisdiction provoked a major diplomatic crisis. After Venice imprisoned two clerics and refused to yield them to Church courts, Paul V viewed this as a direct violation of canon law. His interdict on Venice in 1606 drew Spain and France into the dispute, and the privileges of religious orders became a central point of contention.^[154] Mediation by Henry IV of France resolved the crisis in 1607, reaffirming that no citizen was exempt from ordinary legal process while preserving the essential rights of the military orders.^[154][155]

The Knights of St. John (Knights Hospitaller), in particular, held large estates throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, deriving income from agriculture, commerce, and rents.^[153] 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.^[153] Military orders such as the Order of St. John and the Order of Santiago played an important role in shaping the medieval European economy.^[153] 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. Through land grants, donations, and alliances with monarchs and noble families, these institutions accumulated extensive wealth and property.^[153]

One of the most significant cultural expressions of the Doctrone of Medrano was the Medrano Academy of Poetry in Madrid (1616–1622).^[156][157] Founded and presided over by Medrano's relative 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.^[156]

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."^[156]

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.^[156]

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.^[156]

Operating from Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's residence on Leganitos Street in Madrid, the academy hosted poetry contests, public lampoons, and royal visits.^[157] 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.^[158]

Celebrated by contemporaries, he was hailed by Alonso de Castillo Solórzano as "the prince of the most renowned Academy Madrid ever had."^[156]

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.^[156]

His spiritual authority extended further as chief chaplain, chief almoner, and priest of San Pedro el Real in Madrid.^[156] He later advanced to the positions of Protonotary Apostolic for the Pope, Apostolic Judge, and treasurer for Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, 3rd Duke of Feria, as well as his chaplain.^[156] Through the Duke of Feria, his erudition, devotion, example and the Doctrine of Medrano extended across the Spanish Monarchy, reaching the Viceroyalties of Valencia, Catalonia, the governorship of Milan, the council of state, and diplomatic missions to Rome and France.^[156][159]

Solórzano further described Sebastián Francisco de Medrano:

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.^[156]

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano 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.^[156]

Sebastián'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.^[160]

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.^[160]

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano 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.^[156] 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.^[156]

Sebastián Francisco de Medrano, as commissioner of the Spanish Inquisition, official censor of comedias,^[156] became the official regulator of a theatrical genre largely created and defined by Lope de Vega.^[161]

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.^[162][163] Plays were written in verse, divided into three jornadas, moved rapidly across time and place, and included music, dance, and comic interludes.^[162]

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.^[164]

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.^[162] 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.^[162]

The comedia relied on realism, intuitive dramatic construction, and intricate plots designed to entertain mixed audiences, making it both popular and culturally formative.^[164] This broad reach meant that the stage functioned as a public arena where issues of class, gender, religion, and authority were displayed and interpreted.^[162] Within this environment, Sebastián Francisco de Medrano's role as official censor determined which comedias could circulate.^[156]

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.^[156] This oversight allowed theatrical companies to perform officially approved comedias across Spain in the seventeenth century.^[165]

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.^[166] 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.^[167] His troupe appeared in Corpus Christi celebrations sixteen times from 1604 onward across Seville, Madrid, Toledo, Medina de Rioseco and Valencia, performing in major urban centres.^[168]

By 1603 his company was already linked to the royal household, performing private comedias for Margaret of Austria, Queen of Spain, in Valladolid.^[169] 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.^[170] 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, marking its decline.^[171] 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.^[165]

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.^[165][156]

The Apologético a favor de don Luis de Góngora (1662) by Juan de Espinosa Medrano was the first Apologético written in the Americas and the first transatlantic defense of Luis de Góngora, a member of the Medrano Academy of Poetry in Madrid, as both a literary authority and a symbol of Andean-Spanish nobility, dedicating the work to Luis Méndez de Haro, valido of Philip IV.^[172] In the Apologético, Espinosa Medrano combined scholastic rigor with baroque culture, drawing from classical and modern sources including Tertullian, Apuleius, Saint Jerome, Galileo Galilei, and Justus Lipsius.^[173]

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.^[174] 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. Through literature and theology, Espinosa Medrano became a principal representative of continuity in the Americas.^[173]

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.^[175]
• 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.^[7]
• 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.^[165] 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.^[164][162]

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.^[175] 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.^[176] His kinsman José Velázquez de Medrano furthered its artistic legacy as one of the foremost silversmiths of the age, active in Logroño.^[177]

In the sixteenth and seventeenth-century, the derivative word medro circulated in Spanish society as a debated and distorted idea.^[178] 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.^[179]

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.^[178] 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.^[178]

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."^[180] 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."^[181]

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.^[4]

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.^[178][182] 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.^[178][183]

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.^[184] Pedro's eventual mission is governed by divine law and directed toward the virtuous service (medrar).^[185]

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.^[184][185]

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.^[184]

The Turkish barber describes medro 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.^[184] 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.^[184][4]

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.^[184] This contrast reveals how the universal impulse to advance can take very different forms depending on its moral and institutional foundations.^[184]

Julián Íñiguez de Medrano, Lord of Maumusson, provides a documented historical example of medrar, the etymological root of the Medrano name and doctrine.^[187] A Navarrese knight and court poet, he authored La Silva Curiosa in 1583 at the request of Queen Margaret of Valois, Queen of Navarre and consort of the future Henry IV of France.^[187] He was a contemporary and kinsman of Tomás Fernández de Medrano, author of the República Mista.^[187]

Íñiguez de Medrano earlier served Prince Henry of Navarre as a man-at-arms and later entered the service of Antoine of Navarre.^[188] He was linked to the royal House of Íñiguez and descended from Íñigo Arista, first king of Pamplona.^[189]

In 1531 to 1532, he fought in the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars under Charles V before returning to Navarre.^[190][191] According to Arbizu, he later served as interpreter and guide in Germany and Hungary for Antonio de Peralta y Velasco, 2nd Marquis of Falcés and Count of Santesteban.^[191]

Before composing La Silva Curiosa, Medrano was associated with the court of Marguerite de Navarre, Queen of Navarre and author of the Heptameron.^[189] This court emphasized moral reflection, virtue, and governance through literature.^[189] Archival records from 1548 indicate that, with royal support, arrangements were made for Medrano to marry Sérènne de Montauban, daughter of Bertrand de Montauban, lord of Maumusson and Florès.^[189] 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.^[192][189] The hereditary institution of Valdeosera later included his kinsman Tomás Fernández de Medrano, who became a divisero in 1589 and was appointed mayor, alcalde mayor, and lord of Valdeosera in 1600. Both held entitlement to Valdeosera, reflecting a continuous noble and doctrinal tradition linking Navarre, France, and Castile.^[8][192]

While residing at the courts of Fontainebleau and Saint-Maur, Julián Íñiguez de Medrano composed the Silva under royal commission in 1583.^[187] Written in Spanish and formally dedicated, the work encodes lawful service, restraint, and gratitude toward sovereign order. Originally from Estella in Navarre, Julian likely relocated to France between 1532 and 1542.^[193] La Silva Curiosa functioned as a doctrinal instrument shaped by travel, courtly service, and the cultivation of virtue. Before entering Queen Margaret's household, Julian traveled across Spain, Italy, Sicily, Flanders, Portugal, the Indies, and Africa.^[187] The work was composed for transmission within the royal court and among courtiers.^[187] Its structure combines proverbs, epitaphs, moral narratives, allegories, poetry, and exempla, arranged in the silva genre to support discernment, memory, and moral reasoning.^[187]

Contemporary literary tributes describe Julian Íñiguez de Medrano as a figure of exemplary virtue. Jean Daurat identified him as a new Ulysses, 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]."^[187]

The Hermit of Salamanca compared him to a bee gathering wisdom from many lands.^[187] In 1583, N.L.B. composed an ode affirming Medrano's lineage and virtue:

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.^[187]

These tributes frame the Silva as a work of instruction through exemplarity and cultural form. Its transmission relied on courtly influence rather than formal codification and embedded Medrano doctrine within royal discourse and memory.^[187] Its influence aligns with the later doctrinal formalization in the República Mista by Tomás Fernández de Medrano.^[187]

In La Silva Curiosa, Julian aligns classical imagery with Christian doctrine. One passage states:

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.^[187]

This is followed by a maxim on reform:

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.)^[187]

Julian further states:

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.^[187]

These passages present exemplarity as a method of self-governance and lawful advancement. According to Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros and Julián, the mirror of the soul must reflect the mirror of truth, requiring the embodiment of virtue.^[66] Refusal of this mirror signaled departure from lawful order and exposure to disorder.^[187] Medrano later became Lord of Maumusson in southern France. His descendants held noble titles in Gascony, including the Marquessate of Medrano, continuing the doctrinal legacy through service and noble continuity.^[189]

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.^[98] 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.^[98]

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.^[94] His measures institutionalized and restored order in the kingdom's most prestigious schools.^[96]

As regent of the Kingdom of Seville with delegated sovereign authority, and later as regent of the Kingdom of Navarre from 1645 to 1648,^[98] 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."^[194][195]

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.^[194][195]

Between 1663 and 1668, as Visitador General by royal commission, García unified the colleges of Tuy, Vizcaínos, and Verdes under uniform constitutions.^[196] Acting as heir and patron of their founders, García de Medrano transformed fragmented noble foundations into a centralized system of merit-based fellowships.^[196] This consolidation, approved by the Royal Council of Castile, institutionalized García's 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.^[196]

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.^[94][197] 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.^[198] 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.^[199]

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.^[195] The reform marked a decisive moment in the transmission of medrar as a political-educational doctrine embedded in the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso.^[96] 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.^[198][12]

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.^[198] 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.^[96]

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.^[96][197]

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.^[200] 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.^[200]

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.^[201]

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.^[94]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano shared the Medrano surname with Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, sole director of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels from 1675 to 1705.^[203] 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.^[204]

Established under King Charles II to address Spain's shortage of engineers and artillerymen in the Spanish Tercio, the academy unified mathematical science, military practice, and doctrinal instruction. Its curriculum combined arithmetic, geometry, fortification, artillery, algebra, cosmography, astronomy, navigation, mechanics, and elements of civil architecture.^[204] It is regarded as the first formal project of general military training in Europe and served as the institutional precursor to later royal academies in Barcelona, Ceuta, Oran, and ultimately the Academia General Militar.^[205]

The 9th Duke of Villahermosa reported to Charles II that Sebastián Fernández de Medrano's instruction had advanced Spain's military capacity to the point that foreign engineers were no longer required:

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^[206]

Sebastián Fernández de Medrano described the academy's purpose in his autobiography:

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.^[206]

Graduates of the academy served across Europe and the Empire. Among them, Juan de Ortega was sent to support Johann Hugo von Orsbeck during the siege of Mainz and was killed in action, prompting Charles V, Duke of Lorraine to remark that “a valuable man had been lost.” Other pupils entered service under Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor and King James II of England.^[206]

In 1688, Charles II issued a royal directive guaranteeing Medrano's salary without delay, citing his singular merits and the unmatched utility of the academy.^[206] The decree affirmed that doctrinal service, like military service, required proper reward to preserve peace, education, and continuity within the Republic, thereby enacting in law the precepts articulated in the República Mista.^[4]

Medrano explicitly defined 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.^[206]

He further noted the personal cost of sustaining this work:

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.^[206]

From 1694, Medrano instituted annual gold medals depicting Mars, Pallas, and Charles II, symbolizing the union of royal authority, military discipline, and scientific learning.^[207]

Sebastián Fernández de Medrano authored a coherent pedagogical corpus used at the academy, including Rudimentos geométricos y militares (1677), El práctico artillero (1680), El ingeniero práctico (1696), El perfecto artificial, bombardero y artillero (1699), and later works in geography and military architecture.^[208]

In 1700, Medrano dedicated El architecto perfecto en el arte militar to one of the most powerful men in Spain, Luis Francisco de la Cerda, 9th Duke of Medinaceli, commander of the Order of Santiago; Chamber.man of thr Chamber to Charles II and Philip V; tutor of the Prince of Asturias (future Louis I) (1709).^[93][210] In the dedication, he invoked noble patronage as a guarantor of doctrinal legitimacy:

From the moment I took up the pen, I resolved to expand anew with fresh instructions the doctrine which is the subject of the contents of this volume, which comes to light under the protection of the sacred authority of Your Excellency, so that with such privilege it might run safely from all censure.^[93]

He characterized his work as modest in style and scope, presenting it as the product of limited means and personal labor rather than literary ambition. He expressed confidence that the Duke's magnanimity would accept the offering in the same spirit with which even the humblest gifts had been received by great rulers in the past. Encouraged by this noble protection, he affirmed his intention to continue serving the king to the extent of his abilities, closing the dedication at Brussels on 1 July 1700 with an expression of enduring loyalty to his patron.^[93]

Following the Battle of Ramillies (1706), the academy ceased operations.^[205] Its instructional model nevertheless shaped later royal academies at Barcelona, Oran, and Ceuta, and influenced the early organization of the Corps of Engineers.^[205]

In 1723, Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor granted exclusive publishing rights to las Obras de Medrano in the Spanish Netherlands, explicitly naming Medrano as sole author and affirming the doctrinal authority and continuity of his works across imperial institutions of law, education, and governance.^[211][212]

Regarding Sebastián Fernández de Medrano and the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels, the Spanish military historian Serafín María de Sotto, 3rd Count of Clonard later wrote:

The Spanish can rightly claim the glory of having advanced in the science of war more than the rest of cultured Europe.^[213]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano experienced firsthand the French Wars of Religion from 1591–1598 against Henry IV of France.^[8] 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.^[214]

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.^[215] 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.^[216] 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.^[217] Henry's conversion alienated some Protestant allies but secured the loyalty of most Catholic subjects.^[217]

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.

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 precepts, restoring divine order through justice and exemplary kingship.^[214]

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 precepts: 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.^[218]

Lostal's hierarchy of virtues shows the shared moral language of Castile and Navarre.^[218] 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.^[187]

Lostal cited classical exempla to situate kingship within a universal moral order. Pythagoras was invoked to show that courage merited honor only when bound to lawful victory, while the ruins of Apollo's temple at Delos warned against hubris.^[218] These examples aligned sacred kingship with the obligations emphasized by Philip II and Medrano.^[26] By 1604, Le Soldat Navarros demonstrated that the precepts codified in the República Mista extended beyond Castile into Navarre and France, defining justice, prudence, magnanimity, and temperance as universal principles of rightful Catholic rule.^[26][218]

In the same year, Henry IV applied these principles in foreign policy through the 1604 Traité des Capitulations with the Ottoman Empire, signed with Sultan Ahmed I.^[219] The treaty expressed magnanimity in early modern political theology and corrected medro through lawful medrar, restraining ambition through reason of state under divine order.^[218]

The 1604 Franco-Ottoman treaty, followed by Tomás Fernández de Medrano's 1605 defense of the Order of St. John and García de Medrano y Castejón's codification of the Order of Santiago, enacted the Doctrine of Medrano across diplomacy and law through justice, prudence, temperance, and magnanimity.^{[218][17][95]}

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.

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.^[4]

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.^[4]

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.

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.

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).^[11]

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?^[11]

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.^[1]

"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."^[1]

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.^[1]

"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."^[1]

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

Vendat necesse est, qui emit: "He who buys must inevitably sell."^[11]

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.^[1]

"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."^[1]

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.^[111][110]

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.

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.^[7]

Here, Medrano introduces a social and moral framework in which lawful advancement (medrar) arises from merit. A direct historical example of this precept 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.^[220]

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.^[7]

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.^[7]

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.^[7]

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.^[7]

This precept 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.^[91]

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.^[25] 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.^[221]

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.^[91] 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.^[91] 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.^[25] Antonio presented his family's record of service as a single moral and legal testament.^[91]

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.^[221] 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.^[4]

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.^[91]

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.^[11]

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.^[11]

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."^[11]

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.^[11]

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.^[108] 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.^[99]

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: The benefits I have received from Your Excellency are so numerous that I have never forgotten them... 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.^[222]

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: "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."^[1]

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?^[1]

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.^[50]

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.^[14]

The criteria for royal recognition articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano, namely lineage, virtue, character, and proven service, were applied in practice by the Spanish monarchy, including under King Charles II of Spain.^[14] One of the clearest historical examples was Diego Ros de Medrano, who served as Bishop of the Diocese of Ourense and Governor Captain General of the Kingdom of Galicia:

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.^[14]

Personally selected by Charles II and appointed on 9 October 1686,^[14] Ros de Medrano exercised dual authority as both spiritual and political leader, reflecting the balance of ecclesiastical virtue and royal governance described in the República Mista.^[50][223] Although the Archbishop of Santiago customarily served as interim governor of Galicia, this convention was set aside, indicating the King’s direct confidence in Ros de Medrano.^[223]

In Aclamacion posthuma, immortal fama, panegyrico clarin de virtudes a Diego Ros de Medrano (1714), Jacinto Andres Phelipes described him as:

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.^[14]

As Bishop of Ourense and Governor Captain General of Galicia, Ros de Medrano embodied the virtues associated with the Medrano doctrine, including justice, humility, obedience, piety, royal favor, and moral exemplarity. Praised posthumously as a "new Moses",^[14] his career reflected the synthesis of divine vocation, noble lineage, and delegated royal authority articulated in the República Mista.^[50]

Ros de Medrano held the Chair of Prima in Thomistic theology at the University of Alcalá, was a collegian of the Colegio Mayor of San Ildefonso, and served as Canon of the Magistral Church of St. Justo.^[14] He refused promotions to the bishoprics of León, Plasencia, and Santiago, remaining in the modest diocese of Ourense despite its limited income. During this period, he was also entrusted with oversight of the Royal Chancery of Valladolid during a time of institutional difficulty.^[223]

On 9 October 1686, he assumed office as Governor and Captain General of Galicia, succeeding the Duke of Uceda.^[223] In this role, he governed in accordance with the Medrano grammar of medrar, exercising proximity to the monarch, combined sacred and civil office, and faithful stewardship of delegated authority.^[12]

The doctrine was also reflected in familial and institutional reforms. Ros de Medrano's sister, Mariana Ros de Medrano, married Antonio de Salinas y Erafo, mayordomo of the Colegio Mayor de San Ildefonso.^[224] Following his death, Mariana received a stipend tied to her dowry contract and her family's institutional standing.^[224] This arrangement stemmed from reforms enacted by García de Medrano y Álvarez de los Ríos, who established dowry, educational, and fellowship funds for Medrano noblewomen and students.^[224]

In 1668, García de Medrano incorporated the Verdes College into the College of Santa Catalina de los Medrano, securing permanent fellowships for students from Vizcaya under royal judicial protection.^[224] These measures extended the Doctrine of Medrano into education, marriage, and inheritance, demonstrating how medrar operated as a durable system of lawful advancement across generations.^[224]

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.^[225]

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.^[226]

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.^[227] 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.^[228] 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, counsel, and sacred kingship ensured peace and governance without civil war.^[11]

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.^[49] 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.^[229][230]

In the 17th century, the House of Medrano maintained a political and religious alliance with the House of Haro, reinforced through Andrés Félix Vélaz de Medrano, 2nd Marquess of La Lapilla and lord of Fuenmayor and Almarza. These lordships, formerly held by Diego López de Medrano y Zúñiga, linked the Medrano lineage to the House of Zúñiga and, through them, to Luis Méndez de Haro and the Lordship of Cameros.^[231][232]

Diego López de Medrano y Zúñiga was also the uncle of Diego López de Medrano, Lord of Agoncillo and High Steward of John I of Castile in the fourteenth century. This continuity of lineage, landholding, and high court service connected medieval Medrano stewardship of the Crown to the seventeenth-century Medrano–Haro alliance, forming a durable network of doctrinal and administrative authority during Haro's ministry as valido of Spain.^[231]

Tomás Fernández de Medrano's great-nephew Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, lord and divisero of Valdeosera and Sojuela, served as chaplain and advisor to Luis Méndez de Haro and to Pedro Coloma, Secretary of State.^[49] He authored Mirror of Princes: Crucible of their Virtues, Astonishment of their Failings, Soul of their Government and Government of their Soul, and the panegyric Heroic and Flying Fame of the Most Excellent Señor Don Luis Méndez de Haro (1659–1661), reaffirming the Medrano doctrine and defining the valido as the moral executor of royal authority.^[49][66]

In the panegyric, Diego asserts Haro's superiority over classical counselors:

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.^[49]

Diego presents Haro as embodying medrar through loyalty, justice, prudence, restraint, and charity toward subjects, governing through peace while remaining vigilant in war.^[49]

At the Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659), Diego describes Haro as subordinating ambition to divine justice and the common good:

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.^[49]

The peace between Spain and France is presented as a doctrinal act that relieved Christendom from suffering and restored balance through equity rather than force.^[49]

Diego concludes:

If they deserved such great glory, what crowns do the restorers of the World deserve, and those who remedy its intrinsic damages?^[49]

He affirms Haro's service in theological terms:

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.^[49]

Diego claims doctrinal participation in conceiving the peace:

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.^[49]

The panegyric frames the treaty and the marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Theresa of Spain as acts of providential governance that enacted Medrano doctrine through diplomacy and royal alliance.^[49]

The Doctrine of Medrano extended beyond Europe into the Americas. In the Viceroyalty of Peru, Juan de Espinosa Medrano, Quechua Indigenous nobleman, theologian, and archdeacon of Cuzco, embodied medrar through sacred office, learning, and imperial pedagogy.^[172] Serving as chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro alongside his kinsman Diego Fernández de Medrano y Zenizeros, he demonstrated the transatlantic continuity of the doctrine articulated in the República Mista and enacted through Haro's ministry.^[1]

Espinosa Medrano is regarded as the first major Quechua writer and a foundational figure of Andean baroque theology.^[174] In 1662, he dedicated his Apologético en favor de Don Luis de Góngora to Haro, presenting the valido as a universal emblem of peace, virtue, and imperial restoration, while asserting the legitimacy of American letters within the cultural sphere of the Spanish monarchy.^[173]

He opens the dedication with exalted titles for Haro:

Hercules of the Catholic Firmament, Delight of the Spanish World, Father of the Fatherland, Prince of Peace^[173]

Addressing Haro from the distant Peruvian viceroyalty, Espinosa Medrano emphasizes the global reach of his patron's virtues:

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... flooding new climates with the fragrance of so glorious a name.^[173]

Espinosa Medrano reaffirms the role of the valido under Haro, writing:

Alexander would not be rightly called the Great, if he lacked the sweet confidence of his Hephaestion... nor would Darius have gained so much fame... as from the loyal fidelity of his Zopyrus... to silence all eloquence, it is enough to know that only Royal favor can rightly name such praises.^[173]

As a symbolic act of transatlantic homage, he offers a feather from the Americas:

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.^[173]

He concludes by portraying Haro as having surpassed envy itself through virtue:

You live securely, Excellency, in the serene heights you occupy... Solus hic invidiae fines virtute reliquit, humanumque modum (He alone, by his virtue, left behind the bounds of envy and the limits of human measure)...^[173]

Together with Diego Fernández de Medrano's panegyrics in Europe, Espinosa Medrano's dedication demonstrates a unified political theology in which the valido operates as the lawful executor of royal authority, and medrar governs advancement across continents through virtue, service, and divine order.^[233]

The Treaty of the Pyrenees (7 November 1659), negotiated at Pheasant Island, ended the Franco-Spanish War.^[229] France obtained territorial gains including Artois, Northern Catalonia (Roussillon and French Cerdagne), Montmédy, and parts of Luxembourg and Flanders, while Spain relinquished claims to Catalonia and Portugal. The treaty also arranged the marriage of Louis XIV of France to Maria Theresa of Spain, daughter of Philip IV.^[229]

Maria Theresa renounced her claim to the Spanish crown in exchange for a promised dowry of 500,000 gold écus, which Spain never paid. The unpaid settlement later served as the pretext for the War of Devolution (1667), when Louis XIV invoked Jus Devolutionis to claim the Spanish Netherlands by right of marriage.^[230][229]

In 1668, the Triple Alliance was formed by England, the Dutch Republic and Sweden, while France and Emperor Leopold I secretly concluded a Partition Treaty dividing the Spanish Empire in the event of Charles II's death without heir.^[234] Spain was excluded from these negotiations. The secret treaty included provisions obliging Spain to end its war with Portugal and requiring France to retreat to its 1659 boundaries if hostilities continued.^[235]

Despite these agreements, Louis XIV prepared for the Franco-Dutch War (1672–1678), which expanded into the Third Anglo-Dutch War and the Scanian War. From 1675 to 1705, the Army of Flanders was placed under the instruction of General Sebastián Fernández de Medrano, Maestre de Campo and founder of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels. Supported by successive governors of the Spanish Netherlands, including Carlos de Aragón de Gurrea y de Borja and Francisco Antonio de Agurto Salcedo Medrano Zúñiga, Sebastián fortified imperial borders, strengthened the Spanish Tercio, and maintained institutional continuity amid covert plans for partition.^[204]

At the same time, Antonio Vélaz de Medrano, Sergeant General of Battle and Governor of Nieuwpoort (1671–1678), commanded one of the region's principal fortresses during the Franco-Dutch War.^[236][237] A knight of Santiago and descendant of the Navarrese Medrano line, he embodied the same doctrinal discipline evident in García de Medrano’s legal reforms and Sebastián’s academy.^[208][95]

To prevent the fortress from falling, he ordered the surrounding dikes to be broken, flooding the land to halt the French advance. Though devastating to the local economy, the decision preserved the city's defenses and demonstrated the doctrine's principle that ambition (medro) must yield to justice and divine order.^[110] Nieuwpoort fell in early 1678, coinciding with the signing of the Peace of Nijmegen (1678–1679).^[238]

While France failed to destroy the Dutch Republic or fully conquer the Spanish Netherlands, the Peace of Nijmegen confirmed many of its gains.^[229] The Nine Years' War (1688–1697) followed, marked by French invasions of the Rhineland and devastation in the Palatinate and Baden. England, the Dutch Republic, and German princes formed the Grand Alliance. Financial exhaustion and famine led to the Treaty of Rijswijk (1697), which ended the war without resolving the Spanish succession.^[229]

With Charles II childless, European powers attempted to resolve succession through treaty rather than conquest.^[229] The Treaty of The Hague assigned the Spanish crown to Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria without Spanish consent and sought to empower viceroys and governors to enforce sequestration by force against rival claimants.^[229]

Opposition to the treaty emerged among governors and viceroys who upheld the legitimacy of Charles II, 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.^[239] A cousin of Diego Fernández de Medrano Zenizeros and descendant of the brother of Tomás's brother, Francisco Fernández de Medrano, Lord of Regajal, he represented the same doctrinal lineage as the authors of República Mista and Mirror of Princes.^[20]

The Treaty of the Hague confirmed the warnings expressed by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in República Mista (1602), where he condemned rulers and ministers who violate justice and attempt to exchange kingdoms through 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."^[61]

He further held that clemency must be balanced with rigor in governance and cited 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."^[61]

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 affirmed, was bound to follow their vocation with obedience and dedication appropriate to their office.

Although the Treaty of The Hague (1698) named Joseph Ferdinand as heir, Charles II rejected the treaty and designated him independently through a lawful Spanish will.^[240] On 14 November 1698, Charles II issued his will naming Joseph Ferdinand heir to an independent and undivided Spanish Empire.^[240] His mother, Mariana of Austria, recognized Joseph Ferdinand as rightful heir and actively supported his claim, placing her in opposition to Leopold I and Mariana of Neuburg, who supported the claim of Leopold's son, Archduke Charles.^[241][242]

By 1696, the House of Medrano had already begun preparing the Bavarian prince for kingship, anticipating the will of 1698 and contributing to Charles II's later decision to preserve an undivided succession. Charles II understood that succession required doctrinal education to secure dynastic legitimacy amid competing claims. As part of this formation, Sebastián Fernández de Medrano dedicated El Ingeniero Práctico (1696) to Joseph Ferdinand, transmitting the Doctrine of Medrano as the foundation of his political, military, and intellectual training.^[243]

The allegorical engraving presents Joseph Ferdinand receiving the doctrine from Pallas and Mars, accompanied by a Latin inscription:

"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."^[243]

Sebastián's allegorical sonnet dedication presents the prince as a sovereign in formation and offers the treatise as a legitimate gift to a 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.^[243]

The dedication affirms the doctrine as both symbolic and institutional, uniting wisdom and war as principles of royal education and extending Medrano instruction beyond Spain to the wider Habsburg inheritance.^[243]

Joseph Ferdinand's education under the Doctrine of Medrano represents a formal transmission of the doctrine at the highest level of dynastic succession. He died of smallpox on 6 February 1699 at the age of six, leaving the Spanish succession unresolved.^[244] 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.^[245] The 1696 dedication demonstrates that the Doctrine of Medrano had been transmitted institutionally and dynastically to the House of Wittelsbach two years before Charles II's will and incorporated into the pedagogy of Sebastián's Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels.^[243]

The institutional importance of Sebastián's role as sole director of the Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels was confirmed by Joseph's father, Maximilian II Emanuel, Prince-Elector of Bavaria and Governor of the Spanish Netherlands. In a letter to Charles II dated Brussels, 26 January 1694, Maximilian requested royal recognition of Medrano's service:

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.^[206]

This correspondence confirms that Sebastián Fernández de Medrano's teachings were regarded as institutionally essential, improving military organization, advancing technical instruction, and shaping the education of noble heirs. His academy became a recognized element of European royal pedagogy, extending from Flanders to Bavaria.^[243]

The universality of this system later appeared in Enlightenment discourse. Baron d'Holbach stated:

Education should teach princes to reign, [and] the ruling classes to distinguish themselves by their merit and virtue.^[246]

This principle had already been practiced in Spain through sound doctrines and natural precepts, which united dynastic continuity with instruction in law, science, and moral philosophy.^[13]

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.^[247] Philip V of Spain (r. 1700–1746), grandson of Louis XIV, succeeded Charles II as the first Bourbon monarch following the Habsburg extinction.^[248]

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.^[249][250] Castile supported Philip, while Aragon and Catalonia favored Archduke Charles of Austria.^[251] The conflict, fought across Spain, the Low Countries, and Italy, caused over 400,000 deaths.^[252]

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.^[253] Philip introduced the semi-Salic law to secure male succession.^[253] To enforce centralization, Philip issued the Nueva Planta decrees (1707–1716), abolishing Aragonese and Catalan privileges and imposing the Bourbon model of centralized administration.^[254] Navarre and the Basque provinces, loyal to Philip, retained their fueros, preserving historical jurisdictional balance.^[254]

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.^[253] 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.^[253]

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.^[255][256] 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.^{[13][257][258]} His second reign saw the reconquest of Naples, Sicily, and Oran,^[259] yet Spain's finances collapsed, forcing a 1739 debt suspension.^[260] His later years were marked by severe depression, during which Elisabeth Farnese governed and the singer Farinelli tended to him.^[251]

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.^[251] 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").^[92]

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.^[261] 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.^[262] 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.^[263][262]

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.^[264] 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.^[77] 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.^[68]

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.^[265] 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.^[265] 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.^[261] 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.^[261] 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.^[265]

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.^[95][96][99]

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.^[266] His elevation as first Count of Torrubia in 1694 consolidated the family's position in the final decades of the Habsburg monarchy.^[267]

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.^[266]

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.^[109] 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.^[268]

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.^[109][269]

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.^[261] 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.^[107] 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.^[109][265]

On 9 May 1702 he was appointed regent of the Royal Council of Navarre, succeeding Juan Antonio de Molina.^[265] 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.^[265] Although he did not receive viceregal authority due to the king's absence,^[269] 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.^[98] In 1705 he received the habit of Santiago and entered the Council of Orders, where he served until his death in December 1721.^[265] 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.^[265]

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.^[13] 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.^[13] 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.^[13] 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.^[13]

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.^[13] A year later, Charles became King of Naples and King of Sicily (1735–1759).^[270] Giovanni Antonio Medrano was appointed by Charles as royal architect of the kingdom of Naples.^[13] 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.^[271] 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.^[271]

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.^[272] 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.^[50] 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.^[273]

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.^[272] 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.^[106]

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.^[13] 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.^[106]

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.^{[274][275][276][277]} 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.^[278][279]

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.^[280]

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.^{[13][281][272]}

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.^[282]

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.^[281]

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.^[281] 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.^[13]

Elisabeth Farnese entered the Spanish court in 1715 amid factional conflict and weakened governance caused by Philip V's declining health. She rapidly established a personal network of loyal administrators that displaced traditional noble counsel. Through ministers such as José Patiño and Manuel de Benavides y Aragón, 10th Count of Santiesteban, she consolidated royal authority through secrecy, direct command, and surveillance, transforming the court into an instrument of centralized control.^[273][283]

Despite this consolidation, doctrinal continuity persisted through figures such as Pedro Medrano, Knight of the Order of Santiago, who 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.^[92] His career illustrates the survival of the Doctrine of Medrano within a multigenerational network of rectors, magistrates, and ministers whose influence extended into Giovanni Antonio Medrano’s princely instruction of Charles and Ferdinand.^[13] This juridical and administrative presence preserved doctrinal equilibrium within the Italian and military institutions increasingly subjected to central control.^[92]

Following the death of Duke Antonio of Parma in 1731, Elisabeth secured her dynastic program by arranging for her son Charles to inherit Parma and later Naples. She personally designed his household, appointing the Duke of Tursi as sumiller de corps, Bartolomeo Corsini as caballerizo mayor, and the Count of Santiesteban as mayordomo mayor, effectively placing governance of the new court under her authority from Italy.^[273] Under her direction, traditional household offices retained their titles but were transformed into mechanisms of surveillance, logistical control, and factional loyalty rather than mediators of noble counsel, altering their function and political meaning as codified under the Habsburgs and described in the República Mista.^[273]

When Charles entered Naples in 1734, the court operated as a disciplined administrative structure modeled on Spanish ceremony. Santiesteban oversaw finance, ceremony, and household organization, while honorary distinctions were extended to local elites without granting political influence. Prestige was separated from power, and loyalty was secured through controlled inclusion.^[273]

By 1738, Charles's marriage to Maria Amalia of Saxony altered this arrangement. Santiesteban fell from favor and returned to Spain, replaced by administrators such as José Joaquín de Montealegre. The Neapolitan court increasingly assumed a bureaucratic character, marking a departure from its earlier moral and educational aspirations. In this context, the contrast between medrar and medro became evident, although the chivalric discipline of the Order of Santiago endured as a remnant of moral order within an expanding administrative state.^[92]

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."^[4]

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."^[61]

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."^[61]

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."^[110]

A relative of Tomas Fernandez de Medrano, Jaime Vélaz de Medrano y Barros, III Marquess of Tabuérniga, lieutenant of the Spanish Royal Guards and a close associate of Infante Ferdinand, composed the Representacion al Principe Don Fernando in October 1730 during the prince's formal education under Giovanni Antonio Medrano (1729–1734). Written in Seville and seized before delivery, the memorandum appealed to Ferdinand's moral and juridical formation and sought the restoration of lawful order within the Spanish monarchy.

Jaime opened by portraying Spain as a moral body in collapse, addressing the prince directly:

Spain, Sire, venerable patrimony and most beloved fatherland of Your Highness, groans silently in her misfortune; and, like a living corpse, she lives in her agonies, but lives dying.

He attributed this decay to the abandonment of virtue by those entrusted with authority, describing the exploitation of subjects by unchecked ambition:

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.

Turning to Ferdinand as the lawful image of divine kingship, Jaime urged him to act as restorer of justice and order, concluding with a declaration of loyalty grounded in merit and service:

All our hopes rest in Your Highness. The satisfaction of my King, the good of my country, and the glory of Your Highness will be my cause while I live, ready to shed my blood willingly, aspiring to no other reward than the noble interest of merit.

Before the memorandum could be delivered, Jaime was arrested while leaving Seville Cathedral and imprisoned without formal charges. According to Medrano, Herrera acted as "defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge" in a single role. The failure of the intervention consolidated the authority of Queen Elisabeth Farnese, intensified court surveillance, and contributed to the prolonged isolation imposed on Prince Ferdinand following the completion of his education in 1734. 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.

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.^[270] 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!)^[284]

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.^[13][285]

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.^[285]

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.^[285]

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.^[285]

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.^[284]

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.

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 the king. 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 from 1729 to 1734.^[285]

Philip V and Elisabeth's consolidation of power fulfilled the transformation foreseen by Jaime Vélaz de Medrano, 3rd Marquess of Tabuérniga.^[110] The Bourbon government achieved temporary unity through command but lost the counsel and conscience that sustain a kingdom.^[283] 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.

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.

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.

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."^[10]

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")^[11]

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."^[11]

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?")^[286][11]

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.^[283]

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.^[111] 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.^[110][111] 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.^[111] 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.^[111]

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.^[111] 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.^[111]

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.^[287][111]

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.^[111] 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.^[111] 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.^[111]

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.^[111]

The Bourbon Reforms of the late eighteenth century replaced a system of governance based on moral counsel with one centered on administrative command. Under José de Gálvez, the Spanish Empire adopted fiscal and centralization policies that expanded royal authority and transformed offices once grounded in lineage, merit, and virtue into revenue-oriented administrative posts, conflicting with the Doctrine of Medrano.^[283]

Between 1760 and 1785, imperial revenue doubled. Monopolies on tobacco, alcohol, and playing cards produced more than one-third of total income.^[283] The intendancy system divided the empire into more than thirty districts governed by officials appointed from Madrid and paid six thousand pesos annually, five times the pay of the traditional corregidor. Corregidors were abolished and replaced by subdelegates paid through commissions on tax collection, binding the colonial administration to the treasury and displacing advisory governance with fiscal dependence as described in the República Mista.^[283]

Gálvez described the reforms as measures against corruption, though the Ordinance of Intendants of 1782 replaced discretionary judgment with numerical regulation and measured honor through revenue and efficiency.^[283]

The paper and tobacco monopolies provoked unrest in Quito in 1765, the New Granada in 1781, and the Andes during the rebellion of Túpac Amaru II from 1780 to 1783.^[283] Fernando Vélaz de Medrano, then aide-de-camp to Viceroy Vértiz, documented corruption among officials and warned that these measures violated divine justice. His exile followed these criticisms.^[111]

Although revenue per capita rose by more than half, colonial welfare declined. Intendants drawn largely from peninsular Spain displaced Creole officials and local magistrates, while long-standing advisory councils were reduced to ceremonial roles.^[283]

Comparable transitions occurred internationally. Systems grounded in hereditary service and moral counsel were replaced by centralized bureaucracies focused on fiscal extraction and administrative command in Japan under the Meiji government, in Europe after the French Revolution, and in the Russian Empire under Peter the Great.^{[288][289][290]}

Modern political science attributes these changes to centralization processes that concentrate political, economic, and administrative authority in capital cities and weaken local institutions.^[291] This framework situates the reform efforts of the Marquesses of Fontellas, Diego de Medrano y Treviño, and Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano within broader attempts to preserve lawful improvement and public virtue.^[292]

After the Tumult of Aranjuez in March 1808, Ferdinand VII forced the abdication of Charles IV. Both monarchs were summoned to Bayonne and compelled by Napoleon to abdicate in April and May 1808. Napoleon installed his brother Joseph Bonaparte as king, triggering the Peninsular War and the Bayonne Statute.^[293]

French occupation of major cities led to sustained resistance. Ferdinand VII returned in December 1813 after Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Leipzig and annulled the Constitution of Cádiz. The war ended in 1814 with Napoleon's abdication.^[294]

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, author of República Mista, he embodied both the genealogical and doctrinal continuity of the Medrano line.^[20]

His mother, Eulalia Fernández de Medrano y Jiménez de Tejada, was the daughter of Enrique Fernández de Medrano y Vicuña, and the great-niece of Fray Francisco Jiménez de Tejada, Grand Master of the Order of Malta.^[295] His mother is also related to the Jiménez de Tejada line through Pedro Gregorio Ximénez de Tejada y Eslava (1708–1794) and his wife, Joaquina de Argaiz y Vélaz de Medrano (Peralta, b. 1711), whose son Joaquín Antonio Ximénez de Tejada y Argáiz y Vélaz de Medrano, 2nd Marquess of Ximénez de Tejada, carried the Medrano lineage into the marquessate.^[296] Joaquina de Argáiz y Vélaz de Medrano was the granddaughter of José Vélaz de Medrano y Navarra, 4th Viscount of Azpa, a descendant of the Kings of Navarre and direct ancestor of José Joaquín Vélaz de Medrano, 1st Marquess of Fontellas and 1st Viscount of Amaláin.^[297] Through this noble lineage, Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano inherited doctrine and familial duty to reconcile faith and governance through religion, obedience, and justice.^[295]

Born during the reign of Ferdinand VI 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 on lawful order.^[295]

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.^[295]

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.^[295]

By 1792 he was admitted as a Knight of the Order of Malta, reaffirming the religious and military ideals central to his lineage.^[295] Gabino upheld the precepts expressed by his ancestor Tomás Fernández de Medrano in República Mista: that no kingdom endures without justice and that the sword is legitimate only when wielded in defense of divine order.^[4]

His career advanced (medrar) 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.^[295] 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.^[295][111]

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.^[295]

Immediately after the restoration of the Spanish Monarchy, Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano was decorated with the Cross of the Royal and Military Order of San Hermenegildo by King Ferdinand VII on 28 November 1814 at the conclusion of the Peninsular War. He emerged as a trusted Bourbon officer whose career exemplified the Medrano doctrine of chivalric honor, loyalty to lawful monarchy, and disciplined administrative service.^[298]

After a brief trial and acquittal in 1816, Gaínza Fernández de Medrano 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 Fernández de Medrano 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 centuries of Medrano service and the beginning of a new era of lawful independence.

The restoration of the Constitution of Cádiz in 1820 allowed reform through law rather than violence. Gaínza Fernández de Medrano's government reflected this ideal, combining religion, justice, and order.^[298]

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.^[298] In June, he issued a general pardon, releasing prisoners and restoring exiles. When independence became inevitable, Gaínza Fernández de Medrano ensured that it proceeded through law, not bloodshed.^[295]

The Plan Pacífico of 1821 represents the culmination of the Doctrine of Medrano as peace achieved through lawful order. Drafted under Gaínza Fernández de Medrano'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.^[299]

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.^[100] 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).^[49]

Article 1 elects Gabino Gaínza Fernández de Medrano as Jefe Superior Político (Superior Political Chief) by "the free will and general consent of the people," affirming that authority arises through virtue and consent.^[299]

Article 2 orders a Junta Generalísima to deliberate and vote in secret for or against independence, ensuring that liberty emerged through conscience and law.^[299] Articles 3–4 create a Junta Provisional of provincial representatives sworn under divine law, sanctifying governance through faith and justice.^[299] Article 5 mandates formal notice to all civil and ecclesiastical authorities, preserving institutional continuity.^[299] Article 6 establishes a National Congress to define the new laws.^[299] Article 7 forbids arbitrary changes in office, confirming that independence was reform, not destruction.^[299] Articles 8–11 declare Central America an ally of Spain and a confederate of other American nations, protecting Spaniards and affirming equality and peace.^[299]

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.^[299]

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.^[299]

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.^[295] 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.^[299]

The Bourbon era opened a new chapter for the House of Medrano as its members translated ancestral doctrine into the emerging political, military, and civic institutions of modern Spain. The line of the Marquesses of Fontellas, relatives of the Marquesses of Tabuérniga, and descended from the Viscounts of Azpa and the royal houses of Navarre, became the principal custodians of this continuity.^[261]

José Joaquín Vélaz de Medrano y Gante, 1st Marquess of Fontellas (1761 to 1826), served 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.^[300] A knight of the Order of Malta, he became 1st Marquess of Fontellas and 1st Viscount of Amaláin by royal decree on 10 April 1793.^[301] Born to Joaquín Antonio Vélaz de Medrano y Álava, 6th Viscount of Azpa, and Antonia Francisca de Gante, Lady of Fontellas, he embodied the formal Bourbon recognition of a lineage already bound to counsel, service, and religious knighthood. He died without issue, and his titles passed to his nephew Fernando.^[302]

As 2nd Marquess of Fontellas, Fernando Vélaz de Medrano y Álava administered estates in Navarre and Castile, served as Diputado Foral, and represented Tudela in the Spanish Parliament across three legislative sessions.^[302] His parliamentary efforts on territorial administration, border law, and especially the Tudela to Bilbao railway, expressed the doctrine that public works manifest virtue in material form. Though his elections were sometimes controversial, he remained an influential political figure until his death without issue in 1858.^[302]

Fernando's brother Ramón Vélaz de Medrano y Álava inherited the marquessate, managed the estates, and left much of his fortune to hospitals and charitable institutions.^[302] Through the Fontellas line, descendants of Joan II of Navarre and Philip of Évreux, the doctrine endured through dynastic crisis, liberal reform, and regional conflict, aligned with the legal and moral architecture codified in the República Mista.^[261]

The Napoleonic invasion fractured the Bourbon monarchy, forcing Spain into a struggle over sovereignty. Within this crisis, and born during the doctrinal reign of Charles III of Spain, Diego de Medrano y Treviño and his brother Lorenzo de Medrano y Treviño became principal transmitters of the doctrine in the nineteenth century.^[303][304]

Lorenzo, educated at the Engineering Academy of Alcalá de Henares, inherited the mathematical and doctrinal curriculum descending from Sebastián Fernández de Medrano's Royal Military and Mathematics Academy of Brussels.^[205] During the Peninsular War he fortified Valencia and Cuenca, refused orders to disarm, declaring he and his men would perish rather than surrender, and defended Sagunto in 1811 as captain and chief engineer.

Diego entered the Artillery Corps in 1808 and served in the campaigns of Ocaña, Chiclana, and Burgos.^[292] As deputy to the Cortes and Minister of the Interior during the Trienio Liberal, he worked to balance liberty with lawful governance and applied the principle of medrar as virtuous advancement through reason, service, and ordered freedom.^[292]

After the restoration of the Spanish Monarchy, Diego undertook civic reconstruction to prevent the vices of absolutism. Between 1834 and 1835 he founded the Royal Basque Economic Societies of Friends of the Country and the Savings Banks of Spain, institutions meant to align private interest with public good.^[292]

In his role as Minister of the Interior in 1835, he established the Spanish Civil Engineers Corps and inaugurated schools for Mining, Geographical, and Forestry Engineers. Additionally, he implemented various measures to remove constraints on trade and industry freedom, along with abolishing privileges in new settlements in Sierra Morena, all aimed at attaining legal equality across the kingdom's population.^[303]

His Considerations on the Economic, Moral, and Political State of the Province of Ciudad Real (1843) defined prosperity as moral order expressed through stable institutions. He argued that progress arises not from coercion or ideology but from education, prudence, and structures grounded in virtue and ordered improvement (medrar).^[292]

Medrano's Considerations on the economic, moral, and political state of the province of Ciudad Real (1843) was dedicated to the Royal Basque Economic Societies of Friends of the Country.^[292] On 30 April 1841, Diego writes:

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. To promote the development of material interests with activity and skill, such is the distinctive character of an Economic Society. Encouraged by these or similar reflections and motivated by the burning desire to contribute to the well-being as much as I am able, I dare to present to this worthy Society the following: Considerations on the economic, moral, and political state of the province of Ciudad Real, and indication of some of the improvements it is susceptible to for its development and prosperity [medrar].^[292]

Through Diego's establishment of the Royal Basque Economic Societies of Friends, public works, engineering corps, technical schools, and savings banks became modern expressions of the same doctrinal precepts that once governed military orders, universities, and royal councils in the Spanish Empire.^[292]

Medrano argues that such societies, focused on promoting material interests with diligence and skill, are worthy of admiration and affection rather than envy or flattery. Drawing from historical examples like the Moorish irrigation systems in Valencia and Granada and the Roman bridge of Alcántara, Medrano writes:

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 utilizing, preserving, and transmitting them.^[292]

He acknowledges the value of virtuous projects that benefit society.^[292] Diego asserts that endeavors contributing to human welfare and increasing the means of subsistence withstand the test of time, transcending political differences and societal upheavals. Diego affirms that the pursuit of such initiatives is essential for improvement or prosperity (medrar), as they provide a stable foundation for societal advancement irrespective of prevailing political opinions or systems.^[292]

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."^[292]

These words reflect the Medrano worldview. It found expression in just institutions that served the common good. Through Diego's reforms, The law of medrar formed the foundation of his administration.^[292]

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.^[11]

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.^[7] 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.

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.

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 instituted and 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 codified 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 prosperity flow.^[1]

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.

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.^[11]

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.

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.^[3]

Historical examples of divine kingship such as those presented by the University College London^[305] 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.^[306]

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.^[307]

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.^[307]

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.^[61]

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.

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.

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").

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.^[309] 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.^[309] Two main traditions describe their origin.^[310] 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.^[310]

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.^[309] 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.^[310]

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.^[310] 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.^[309][310]

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.^[113][311] 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.^[309][310] 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.^[312]

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.^[312]

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.^[312]

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.^[312]

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.^[310]

In the sixteenth century, Spanish authorities reinterpreted ritual objects from the Americas within a Catholic and Counter-Reformation paradigm.^[313] 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.^[313] 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.^[313] Under Philip II, such artifacts began to appear in royal collections, upheld as efficacious and holy through a Catholic lens.^[313]

Colonial sources show how these jades, once politically and spiritually tied to Aztec and Maya rulers, were assimilated.^[313] 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.^[1] 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.^[313]

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.^[92] 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.^[92] 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.^[92] 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.

Juan de Espinosa Medrano, chaplain to Luis Méndez de Haro, Priest of Cuzco, valido of Philip IV, upheld the role of the valido in the Americas. Although often mislabeled as criollo, he was a nobleman of Indigenous heritage educated and ordained in Cuzco.^[174][314] He advanced the Ibero-American intellectual tradition in both political doctrine and literary theology.^[315] A playwright and polyglot, Juan de Espinosa Medrano translated Virgil into Quechua.^[174] 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.^[315]

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.^[316]

Responding to Justus Lipsius, he cited Jerónimo de Valera:

God is so powerful that He can raise children of Abraham from Peruvian stones.^[317]

This positioned Andean learning within the universal system of the Doctrine of Medrano, applicable in both Spain and the New World.^[315]

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.^[318] His polemic against Manuel de Faria e Sousa engaged the ideological split after the 1640 separation of the Iberian crowns.^[314] Rather than adopt anti-Spanish rhetoric, he defended Castilian baroque literature, and upheld the intellectual participation of the Andes within the Spanish monarchy.^[173]

In 1744, Phelipe Medrano published Quadrados mágicos, a mathematical treatise that redefined traditional "magic squares" as Christian instruments of order and virtue. 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:

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.^[92]

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.^[92]

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.^[319] 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."^[319]

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.^[92]

Other poetic tributes emphasized his triumph over superstition and his elevation of arithmetic to sacred form.^[92] 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.^[319][13] Together, the works of Phelipe and Giovanni Medrano extended the Doctrine of Medrano from jurisprudence and theology into the realms of architecture and arithmetic.^[92]

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.^{[8][320][321]} 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.^[321]

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.^[321] These fortresses guarded routes from Álava and Logroño.^[321] 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.^[321]

This integration of military and spiritual stewardship was formally articulated by Tomás Fernández de Medrano in his 1602 treatise República Mista. He advanced the natural precept 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 a fundamental statement:

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.

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.^[320] 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.^[320]

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.^[322] 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.^[322]

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.^[17][322]

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.^[323] 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.^[323] 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.^[321]

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.^[8] 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...^[8]

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.^[8]

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.^[231]

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.^[324][325]

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.^[326]

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.^[327]

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.^[327]

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.^[327]

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.^[329]

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.^[330][231] Its reappearance signified continuity of arms and the transmission of sovereign authority from battlefield to regency.^[328] The cross later appeared on Tomás Fernández de Medrano's coat of arms in the República Mista, affirming its enduring heraldic use.^[4] 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.^[120] Their affiliation with the Orders of Saint John, Calatrava and Santiago formed a durable network of institutional stewardship.^[8]

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.^[328] He governed with the consent of towns, knights, and barons, and used the Medrano family seal as a sovereign representation of the kingdom.^[328]

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.^[328] 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.^[11]

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.^[328] He imposed loyalty oaths, confirmed succession, restructured judicial posts, reformed taxation, and represented Navarre diplomatically in negotiations with France and Rome.^[329][331] His regency anticipated the eight royal prerogatives of regalia later codified by Tomás in his República Mista (1602).^[50]

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.^[332] These acts anticipated by nearly three centuries the doctrine later systematized by Tomás Fernández de Medrano.^[333] As judge of the Cortes, Juan Martínez de 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.^[334] 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.^[334][231]

Juan Martínez de Medrano's descendants virtuously prospered (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.^[335] He married Bona de Almoravid, daughter of a ricohombre, and was the father of Alvar Díaz de Medrano y Almoravid, Lord of Igúzquiza.^[330] 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.^[336][330]

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.^[330] 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.^[321][337]

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 Joan II and Philip of Évreux, was recognized as the eldest among the nobility and was therefore summoned to the Noble Estate of the Courts of Navarre.^[338]

• 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

• 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.

• 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.