By Frank R. Stockton
In the very olden time there lived a semi-barbaric king，whose ideas， though somewhat polished and sharpened by theprogressiveness of distant Latin neighbors， were still large，florid， and untrammeled， as became the half of him which wasbarbaric. He was a man of exuberant fancy， and， withal， of anauthority so irresistible that， at his will， he turned his variedfancies into facts. He was greatly given to self-communing，and， when he and himself agreed upon anything， the thingwas done. When every member of his domestic and politicalsystems moved smoothly in its appointed course， his naturewas bland and genial； but， whenever there was a little hitch，and some of his orbs got out of their orbits， he was blander andmore genial still， for nothing pleased him so much as to makethe crooked straight and crush down uneven places.
Among the borrowed notions by which his barbarism hadbecome semified was that of the public arena， in which，by exhibitions of manly and beastly valor， the minds of hissubjects were refined and cultured.
But even here the exuberant and barbaric fancy asserteditself The arena of the king was built， not to give the people anopportunity of hearing the rhapsodies of dying gladiators， norto enable them to view the inevitable conclusion of a conflictbetween religious opinions and hungry jaws， but for purposesfar better adapted to widen and develop the mental energiesof the people. This vast amphitheater， with its encirclinggalleries， its mysterious vaults， and its unseen passages， was anagent of poetic justice， in which crime was punished， or virtuerewarded， by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptiblechance.
When a subject was accused of a crime of sufficientimportance to interest the king， public notice was given thaton an appointed day the fate of the accused person would bedecided in the king’s arena， a structure which well deserved itsname， for， although its form and plan were borrowed from afar，its purpose emanated solely from the brain of this man， who，every barleycorn a king， knew no tradition to which he owedmore allegiance than pleased his fancy， and who ingraftedon every adopted form of human thought and action the richgrowth of his barbaric idealism.
When all the people had assembled in the galleries， andthe king， surrounded by his court， sat high up on his throneof royal state on one side of the arena， he gave a signal， adoor beneath him opened， and the accused subject steppedout into the amphitheater. Directly opposite him， on the otherside of the inclosed space， were two doors， exactly alike andside by side. It was the duty and the privilege of the personon trial to walk directly to these doors and open one of them.
He could open either door he pleased； he was subject to noguidance or influence but that of the aforementioned impartialand incorruptible chance. If he opened the one， there cameout of it a hungry tiger， the fiercest and most cruel that couldbe procured， which immediately sprang upon him and torehim to pieces as a punishment for his guilt. The moment thatthe case of the criminal was thus decided， doleful iron bellswere clanged， great wails went up from the hired mournersposted on the outer rim of the arena， and the vast audience，with bowed heads and downcast hearts， wended slowly theirhomeward way， mourning greatly that one so young and fair，or so old and respected， should have merited so dire a fate.
But， if the accused person opened the other door， therecame forth from it a lady， the most suitable to his years andstation that his majesty could select among his fair subjects，and to this lady he was immediately married， as a reward ofhis innocence. It mattered not that he might already possessa wife and family， or that his affections might be engagedupon an object of his own selection； the king allowed no suchsubordinate arrangements to interfere with his great scheme ofretribution and reward. The exercises， as in the other instance，took place immediately， and in the arena. Another dooropened beneath the king， and a priest， followed by a band ofchoristers， and dancing maidens blowing joyous airs on goldenhorns and treading an epithalamic measure， advanced to wherethe pair stood， side by side， and the wedding was promptly andcheerily solemnized. Then the gay brass bells rang forth theirmerry peals， the people shouted glad hurrahs， and the innocentman， preceded by children strewing flowers on his path， led hisbride to his home.
This was the king’s semi-barbaric method of administeringjustice. Its perfect fairness is obvious. The criminal couldnot know out of which door would come the lady； he openedeither he pleased， without having the slightest idea whether， inthe next instant， he was to be devoured or married. On someoccasions the tiger came out of one door， and on some out ofthe other. The decisions of this tribunal were not only fair， theywere positively determinate： the accused person was instantlypunished if he found himself guilty， and， if innocent， he wasrewarded on the spot， whether he liked it or not. There was noescape from the judgments of the king’s arena.
The institution was a very popular one. When the peoplegathered together on one of the great trial days， they neverknew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter ora hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent aninterest to the occasion which it could not otherwise haveattained. Thus， the masses were entertained and pleased， andthe thinking part of the community could bring no charge ofunfairness against this plan， for did not the accused personhave the whole matter in his own hands？