"The king was small in body, but very clever and daring, with a lively gaze and such persuasive eloquence that he influenced others at will; he was skilled in the art of making himself loved and, for that reason, very loved by the people,"
says the monk of Saint-Denis ( Grandes Chroniques de France ).
"He has all the good qualities that a bad character makes harmful: energy, eloquence, boldness, wit, liberality,"
adds Mercier ( Portraits des rois de France ). Simeon Luce ( B. Du Guesclin et son poque , Paris, 1888, p. 240), like a good nineteenth century, loads the inks:
"a little man with feline gestures, bright eyes, a ubiquitous gaze, and inexhaustible eloquence (who) shared the nature of the snake and the tiger."
French historians called him "The Bad", contrasting him, in a very French way, with their own sovereign whom they called "The Good", although there are those who think (Duverge) that the nickname is relatively modern, being due to the resentful pen of Avalos de la Piscina. In any case, Moret is right when he comments that in this nickname "the hatred of others played as much a part as his own defects". It has been wanted to see in Charles II the male equivalent of the famous Locustra; but, French historiography forgets that the XIth and XVth centuries there was a real proliferation of works dedicated to poisons (e.g. Maimonides), which s that poisoning was a frequent practice, especially among those who could afford a good poisoner. There will be few Shakespeare's dramas -which reconstruct periods before the poet's- in which this insidious instrument of death does not appear. Without going any further, how did the Prince of Viana, Lope García de Salazar, Dona Blanca de Navarra, Francisco Febo, etc. die?
"His reputation for using poison as a weapon - apparently proven in some cases - led to imaginary crimes being attributed to him. On the other hand, a long official historiography, totally adverse, contributed to giving as true what was only the fruit of intelligent propaganda.
(Lacarra: Political history of... , p. 151).
In short, the powerful called him bad because he did not allow himself to be "nobly" despoiled and because he did not have a treasury rich enough to feed a few mercenaries of the pen, eager for official protection. But what did the nobles of Upper and Lower Navarre, Guipuzcoa, Alava and Gascon who served him faithfully at all times think of him? What about the clergy who provided him with material help motu proprio in 1357 and the people who did so in 1359? What about those who benefited from his testament of 1361, and the convents and churches blessed by his magnificent gifts, and the farmers whose taxes he forgave out of compassion for their poverty (in 1368 all those in the kingdom, in 1386 those in the valley of Allan, in 1362 all, in 1376 the Muslims of Tudela...)? Without falling into sanctimonious criticism, it would be possible to say with Castro:
"It is not fair to personalize in the Navarrese all the vices, violence, disloyalties and perjuries that characterized the era in which he lived"
( Charles II "The Noble", King of Navarre . Pamplona, 1967, p. 15).