King Arthur

     I came home with yet another re-telling of the Arthurian legends the other day, in which Arthur is described as a "just king".  I have read these stories before, and am a bit surprised at this description of Arthur. Arthur didn't have anything like a modern notion of "justice".  In Arthur's world view, the crown on his head made him "right", because God had put it there. Whatever he did must be "right", because he was the king. The knights of the round table were a part of this, and definitely believed that "might makes right". According to the ancient stories, England was beset by knights who would kill for personal gain or for sport, of a kind. Arthur and his knights were going to use their might to defeat these knights, and to make them a part of the round table, if possible. They had no notion of justice to back this up. Defeating the knights would make them "right", and the knights would go along with this idea to the extent that they shared the "might makes right" philosophy.
    In the days of Arthur and the knights of the round table, an "ordeal by combat" was considered a trial. The winner of the combat ( fight ) was "right". The side the winner was fighting for won its case when he won the combat. The people believed that God had helped the "right" person to win, so this was also a matter of faith. The crime didn't really matter. If a knight killed someone, and then won a trial by combat, he was deemed innocent of murder, because God had taken his side. If a knight stole, and then won a trial by combat, he was deemed innocent of theft.
      "Might makes right" is not the same as the rule of law. It may seem reasonable to argue that it was a step in the right direction, but the argument that it was a step in the wrong direction seems just as reasonable, if not more so. Humankind might have reached for a standard of the rule of law much sooner if we hadn't spent 1,000 years believing, as many people still do, that "might makes right".