Fernando Alvia de Castro, the true Reason of State

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

Abstract

This paper analyses the figure of Fernando Alvia de Castro and his treatise Verdadera razón de Estado, placing it within the context of Spanish political thought in the 16th and 17th centuries. Through a commentary on various passages from the work, it examines his anti-Machiavellian stance and its connection with Tacitism, a school of thought that accepts political realism inspired by Tacitus but seeks to reconcile it with Christian morality and the principles of natural law. The text highlights the tension between theory and practice in the exercise of government, as well as Alvia de Castro’s critique of a conception of power geared exclusively towards the prince’s utility or convenience. In contrast to the pragmatism attributed to Machiavelli, the author defends a raison d’état founded on honesty, justice, equity and religion. This analysis enables us to link the debates within the Spanish Monarchy on political prudence, virtue and morality with contemporary discussions concerning the ethical foundations of power, moral scepticism and the normative limits of political action.

Keywords: reason of state, anti-Machiavellianism, Tacitism, political ethics

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.15

Fernando Alvia de Castro was born in Logroño, La Rioja, in 1572 and died in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1653. He held various posts within the Spanish Crown’s administration, mainly in the Kingdom of Portugal.

In addition to his administrative role, Alvia de Castro was the author of a short political treatise, The true Reason of State, in which he adopts an anti-Machiavellian stance, albeit one tempered by his humanist education (Peña Echevarría, n.d.). He belonged to the Tacitist movement, which emerged during the Renaissance and drew admiration and inspiration from Tacitus. This school of thought engages in dialogue with Machiavelli and accepts his realist approach to politics, while seeking to reconcile it with morality (Virtual Library of La Rioja, n.d.).

Below, I discuss excerpts from The true Reason of State by Fernando Alvia de Castro in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“Jerónimo Franchetta states that discipline, principle and knowledge—derived from the teaching of others, from reading historians and political writers, from one’s own understanding, and from experience of worldly affairs—enable the prince and his ministers to govern in whatever way best serves the prince’s comfort and benefit. In the first point he speaks the truth, but in the last he erred greatly, for he sets the prince’s comfort as the ultimate end, whereas it ought to be nothing other than the outcome arising from honesty, reason, fairness and justice” (Alvia de Castro, 1998, 135).

The first part of this reflection is entirely justified, as it addresses the key issue of the relationship between theory and practice in politics. It is important to be aware of the sources of science and philosophy, as well as the views of experts, combined with the specific lessons drawn from experience and practice. Alvia de Castro’s criticism of governing for the comfort and personal gain of the ruler alludes to the temptations inherent in the exercise of power. That the aim of government should be the ‘comfort and personal gain’ of those in power does not seem justified either politically or morally, as it must be based on ‘honesty, reason, fairness and justice’.

“I return to the definition of the affairs of state and conclude by saying that, in the case of a good Christian prince, it is a wise discourse, a course of action and execution in accordance with divine law and natural reason, whereby, to the extent of human knowledge, matters are arranged so as to bring about favourable, yet just, outcomes for the prince and his states. For, as Aristotle teaches, the prudent person must wisely determine the end of his actions” (Alvia de Castro, 1998, 139–140).

This approach may be read as an expression of natural law, as a theory of law, and of flexible monism, as a way of understanding the relationship between politics and ethics. From this perspective, morality and politics overlap: politics must remain subject to moral criteria. In the history of ideas, there is controversy over what the principles or rules of morality—normative ethics—should be, and over what their foundations—meta-ethics—are. As can be inferred from Alvia de Castro’s text, in his day the foundations of morality were sought in classical sources, such as Aristotle, and in Christian authors, such as Augustine of Hippo. Indeed, an influential political interpretation of his religious work The City of God gave rise to the ‘two swords’ theory: the sceptre, representing secular power, was to be subordinate to the crozier, representing religious power. This was the prevailing political doctrine in the West during the Middle Ages, and there is some debate as to whether it still holds true today in various contexts.

“I also cease to call it prudence because, according to Pontano, it is not a virtue; and if reason and the virtue of what is just, lawful and good are lacking in matters of state, such prudence will be erroneous, false and open to criticism, given that the term ‘prudence’ is also applied to vices and evil things” (Alvia de Castro, 1998, 140).

Two models of prudence are contrasted here in terms of political rationality. On the one hand, Machiavelli’s political realism leads to a form of pragmatism according to which, if the prince achieves his objectives, the means he employs will be praised. On the other hand, the doctrine of true raison d’état—of which there are several versions—generally maintains that political objectives must remain compatible with morality, in line with natural law and flexible monism.

“And, with regard to this aspect of true religion and moral virtues—which is the main theme of my discourse and the true substance of statecraft—it is necessary to point out how wrongly and falsely certain bad politicians spoke of him, and in particular the perverse, impious and ignorant Machiavelli” (Alvia de Castro, 1998, 147).

The interpretation of the ‘Machiavellian’ Machiavelli is presented here as synonymous with immorality and contrary to religion. There are other interpretations of this figure which view him as a patriot from the perspective of the ‘republican’ Machiavelli. The key point is that theories of the true raison d’état criticise the Machiavellian perspective on the basis of morality or religion, with some nuances. It is noteworthy that, as Abellán points out in his work History of Spanish Thought, anti-Machiavellian activity was to prove pivotal in the history of Spain and was likely to constitute one of the fundamental reasons for Spanish ‘dissent’ from the rest of Europe (Abellán, 1996, 231).

“He argues, then, that a Christian prince should possess such a command of the virtues that he knows how and is able to change his ways and act contrary to them; and that, in order to preserve his kingdom, he will be obliged to act against faith, charity, humanity and religion as it suits him (…) And, in essence, he sets out and constructs the image of a hypocritical, false, dissembling and insincere prince. And, although this proposition is so manifestly erroneous, blasphemous and false, let us nevertheless refute it with reason and doctrine” (Alvia de Castro, 1998, 147).

During the period in which Alvia de Castro lived, conceptions regarding the foundations of ethics and normative ethics were strongly influenced by references to Classical Antiquity and by Christian authors. In the West today, metaethical positions advocating moral scepticism have gained considerable prominence; according to these, there are no intersubjective moral values, which can lead to the postmodern ‘anything goes’ attitude. The key issue is how to ground ethics so that it serves as a sound guide for those in power and provides a basis for judging their actions.

References

Abellán, José Luis (1996), Historia del pensamiento español. De Séneca a nuestros días, Espasa, Madrid.

Alvia de Castro, Fernando (1998), “Verdadera razón de Estado”, en Castillo Vegas, Jesús et al. (eds.), La razón de Estado en España. Siglos XVI-XVII (Antología de textos), Tecnos, Madrid, pp. 131–148.

Peña Echevarría, Javier (n. d.), “Fernando Alvia de Castro”, Real Academia de la Historia, available:

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/2077-fernando-alvia-de-castro

(accessed: 23 July 2026).

“Alvia de Castro, Fernando, 1572-1653”, Biblioteca Virtual de La Rioja. Available:

https://bibliotecavirtual.larioja.org/bvrioja/es/consulta_aut/registro.do?id=227

(accessed: 23 July 2026).