the young man for loving his daughter seems, of itself, cruel, selfish, and barbaric.  In addition, "there was no escape from the judgments of the king's arena."  This arena allows no freedom even after the accused is supposedly "freed" since even if the accused is not killed by the tiger, he must marry someone other than the one he has chosen. Such an arrangement is clearly barbaric and cruel. 

So much can be read into the fact that the king is "semi-barbaric".  He does know right from wrong, but he chooses to ignore it and go with with whatever he fancies.  In a sense, this makes him, perhaps, the worse kind of character.  He does, in fact, know that his ways are evil and subject to incorrect chance, but he does not care.  He sees his method as a perfect fifty percent to fifty percent, so according to him, it is fair. 

Still, he has to know that this is a less than perfect system--in fact, it is a complete fallacy.

When we think about it, this may make him the most despicable and contemptible of characters.  He goes against whatever conscience he may have.

Bluntly stated, the king in Frank Stockton's short story "The Lady or the Tiger" is a dictator. He appears to make all the important decisions for his subjects without consulting any advisors or the people. Stockton writes:

He was greatly given to self-communing, and, when he and himself agreed upon anything, the thing was done.

The king believes that he alone knows what is best and that he can solve any problem. He is initially described as "semi-barbaric" and his idea of the arena is savage (men can be torn to pieces by a ferocious beast by choosing poorly). He is also a man who believes the world can be explained simply; it is either black or white. An accused subject is either guilty, if he opens the door of the tiger, or innocent, if he opens the door of the lady. The institution of the arena also reveals his idealism. The ideal of the justness of the arena is worth the fact that innocent men could meet their death. He's not ultimately worried about things being fair as long as the ideal of justice is met.

Stockton never reveals his opinion of the king. He simply describes how the king arrived at the concept of the arena. He does not editorialize about the equity of the king's justice, nor does he either praise or criticize the king's methods. Stockton does say the arena was a "popular" institution and that subjects came from far and near to witness the spectacle. Of course, it's difficult to say that sheer popularity makes the king a good leader.

The king's daughter is described as having a soul that is as "fervent" and "imperious" as her father's spirit, which indicates that she is also a domineering, intense person. While the narrator does not physically describe the king's daughter, he does mention that she is highly loved and respected by all of humanity. The king's daughter is also depicted as a determined, passionate woman, who is willing to carry on an affair with a handsome courtier despite her father's opinion. After her father punishes her lover by sending him into the arena, where he will be either killed by a ferocious tiger or married to a beautiful maiden, the king's daughter reveals her perseverance and determination by discovering the hidden truth behind each door in the arena. The information regarding what awaits the courtier behind each door is top secret, so the fact that she discovered it illustrates the king's daughter's passion and resolve. The king's daughter is also described as being extremely jealous and is capable of barbaric acts like her father, which makes her decision during the ceremony mysterious and uncertain. The reader is unsure of whether she decides to kill or save her lover at the end of the story.

The story in "The Lady or the Tiger" does not state much about the princess’s physical attributes but her other characteristics can be deduced from the story. The princess is rebellious especially against her father. She understands the ruthless nature of her father but still goes ahead and falls in love with the courtier. This, according to the King, is an affront to the royal family because a lower class citizen should not have the opportunity to be intimate with the princess. The princess is jealous and shows this in her hatred toward a lady of the court, who she presumes to be flirting with her lover. The lady is also one of the most beautiful maidens of the court and because of this the princess views her as a threat. The princess can also be described as determined and relentless. This is seen when she employs a myriad of tactics to obtain information about what lies behind the doors, information that was deemed top secret.

Frank Stockton's short story "The Lady or the Tiger" is based on a simple premise. Justice, in the realm of a "semi-barbaric" king, is determined in a public arena. The accused walks into the middle of a "vast amphitheater" and has the choice of two doors. Behind one door is a "hungry tiger" which immediately tears the man to pieces as punishment for his guilt. If he chooses the other door he is greeted by "a lady, the most suitable to his years and station that his majesty could select among his fair subjects," and, as a reward for his innocence, is immediately married to that lady.

Obviously, this means of justice relies heavily on luck. It is difficult, however, to ascertain the relationship of the king to his subjects, other than the fact that the public trials were popular and well attended:

"The institution was a very popular one. When the people gathered together on one of the great trial days, they never knew whether they were to witness a bloody slaughter or a hilarious wedding. This element of uncertainty lent an interest to the occasion which it could not otherwise have attained. Thus, the masses were entertained and pleased, and the thinking part of the community could bring no charge of unfairness against this plan, for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?"

Much like the Roman gladiatorial games, NFL football or auto racing, people are drawn to potential violence. Imagine if this were a network television show, much like "Survivor" or "American Idol?" A certain segment of the population would undoubtedly watch with intense interest. Certainly in a kingdom with a "semi-barbaric" ruler the multitude relished the trials. If the accused was guilty they witnessed a brutal slaying and if proved innocent they were in attendance of a beautiful wedding.

Of course, the family of an accused man who chose poorly might view the king's arena with less ardor, especially if the family absolutely knew the accused to be innocent. On the other hand, the typical subject who was never accused of a crime must have considered the trial of the two doors as perfectly fair. After all, the accused held his fate totally in his own hands. So, for some subjects the king was a brutal despot, and for others he was much beloved for devising such a perfect system of justice.

The king in Frank R. Stockton's short story "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is considered "semi-barbaric." Usually the king also represents the type of people who live in the kingdom. He's a typical dictator, though, so his subjects must play the game his way or they suffer the consequences. For example the king is described in the following way:

"When every member of his domestic and political systems moved smoothly in its appointed course, his nature was bland and genial; but whenever there was a little hitch, . . . he was blander and more genial still."

So it would seem that the king treats his subjects fairly well as long as they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. However, the "semi-barbaric" part surfaces when it's time to convict someone of a crime.

"Among the borrowed notions by which his barbarism had become semified was that of the public arena, in which, by exhibitions of manly and beastly valor, the minds of his subjects were refined and cultured."

Another way to say this is that his subjects were conditioned to accept the arena as the official judicial procedure for convictions. This is fine until one day a subject is publicly notified for his own appointment in the arena. The king chooses anyone he feels should be placed in the arena to go at a moment's notice. This part can't be very popular among the king's subjects. For the most part, though, a subject won't get called to the arena unless he has done something to offend the king, one might never know when or how he has offended the king. For the audience, who consists of the king's subjects, it seems like a big game for them, as follows:

"The moment that the case of the criminal was thus decided, doleful iron bells were clanged, great wails went up from the hired mourners posted on the outer rim of the arena, and the vast audience, with bowed heads downcast hearts, wended slowly their homeward way. . ."

Therefore, the king's relationship with his subjects seems to be good except for one little part of his administration which is extreme and "semi-barbaric." Since his subjects are made from the same cloth as the king, they accept him and his arena.

The author shows the king is semi-barbaric by describing his system of "justice." Rather than using facts and evidence to determine whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime, the king uses a superstitious method that is akin to having a person walk on hot coals. In this case, the person accused of a crime has to choose between two doors. If he chooses the door with the beautiful maiden behind it (the story assumes the accused will be male), he is believed innocent. If he chooses the door with the tiger behind it, he is devoured and assumed guilty.

A death penalty that involves being killed and eaten by a hungry tiger in front of a huge crowd of people is more than a little "semi-barbaric." What makes it worse is that the king finds this a good way to entertain his subjects while at the same administering what he sees as "justice."

The king is a tyrant who does not quite live in reality. We know he does not live entirely in reality from the statement that he was "a man of exuberant fancy."

Meaning he was given to flights of imagination or delusion. We learn, too, that "he turned his varied fancies into facts." This reveals he is a tyrant who won't listen to reason. Everything has to be his way, whether it makes sense or not.

The narrator describes the king as "bland and genial," meaning he is not prone to show his emotions but is, instead, pleasant and friendly to people. Nevertheless, the narrator makes clear that this surface gentleness hides the heart of a tyrant: "nothing pleased him so much as to make the crooked straight and crush down uneven places." In other words, he uses his power to crush and punish anyone who opposes him.

The king is a dangerous man. He has too much power, he is too prone to use it to crush opponents, and he believes his warped version of reality is truth. For example, he thinks that in his way of determining whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime, "its perfect fairness is obvious."

In "The Lady or the Tiger," the Stockton employs irony in his character description of the king:

• He is a man of "exuberant fancy"
• He possesses an authority so irresistible that, at his will, he turned his varied fancies into facts.
• He is greatly given to "self communing; and when he and himself agreed upon anything, the thing was done"
• He is "bland and genial" when everything moved "smoothly," but whenever "there was a little hitch,"
• He is "blander and more genial still," for
• He is never more pleased than when he makes "the crooked straight, and crushes down uneven places."

His amphitheater is an "agent of poetic justice, in which crime is punished, or virtue rewarded, by the decrees of an impartial and incorruptible chance."

The verbal irony is apparent here in the use of words that, obviously, mean the opposite of what they suggest.  For example, the king is anything but "bland/mild" and "genial."  Placing someone in an arena to be eaten by a tiger--"the fierces and most cruel that can be procured"--is hardly an example of "an exuberant fancy," either.  Nor does it resemble anything just or "impartial."  That he is "semibarbaric" is also ironic.  Only a barbarous tyrannt would simply commune with himself.

This use of irony forces the reader to realize how bad the king really is. 

The story "The Lady and the Tiger" is set in late antiquity. The King is portrayed as semi-barbaric, meaning that he belongs to a culture that is not part of the Roman Empire but instead lives in one of the areas that has contact with Latin culture, speaks a vernacular language in everyday life, but considers Latin culture a "prestige" or "civilized" culture. It is implied that the King lacks the sort of education, culture, and self-restraint he might have achieved in a more civilized environment. 

The King is portrayed initially as a relatively benign autocrat, albeit somewhat self-centered. His main fault is that having absolute power means that rather than consulting the wishes or ideas of other people, he simply acts on his own whims. As one reads through the paragraph, one is led to doubt the accuracy of the King's self-image. The narrator's ironic tone suggests that the King's self-image as a genial fixer who solves problems according to his innate benevolence differs from how others might view him. Other people might well view the king as a capricious autocrat.