In the kingdom of the semi-barbaric king, justice is served with the unlocking of a door. In a public arena, the guilty is forced to choose between two doors, behind one a tiger, behind the other, a lady. Based solely upon luck, a man is deemed guilty and devoured by a tiger, or free to go, married to a beautiful lady. More than just revealing innocence, or lack thereof, however, this “arena of the king” brings up questions if impartial and fair consequences even exists.
In the king’s arena, justice is impartial; it is regulated by “the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance.” After all, luck isn’t something that can be bribed. Nevertheless, this form of justice isn’t just at all. A criminal worthy of death could easily choose the door to the lady, and a blameless person could just as easily swing open the door barring a hungry tiger from its meal. Despite being unbiased, the consequences in the king’s arena are not justly imparted.
Unlike luck, humans are very vulnerable to bias. In this story, the princess is to pass judgement on her lover. She, being the princess, knows what lies behind the two doors. But there is no way she can be impartial, as she loves the guilty man in question. The princess is in a tight bind, losing if she gestures towards the door containing the tiger, still losing if she points towards the lady. On one hand, she loathes the thought of her lover dying a gruesome death, but on the other, she is filled with jealousy when thinking of him marrying another, hating “the woman who blushed and trembled behind that silent door.” Clearly, the princess also unfit for passing justice, for she has too many emotions and memories tying her to the guilty man.
The king’s arena chooses impartiality over fairness, while the princess is unable to stay unbiased. Both complete disinterest and amorous love jeopardize true justice, leading back to the question if justice can exist. Ultimately, even the author doesn’t pass judgement, instead choosing to leave it in hazy ambiguities.