Law and arbitrary rule in classical drama

Today, I signed the agreement to publish my article, "Love And Solipsism: Law And Arbitrary Rule in Classical Drama" in the Alabama Law Review.

This article began as part of my article "In Defense of Substantive Due Process," but I decided that focusing so much on literature was distracting, so I cut these sections out and they evolved into a stand-alone article about the distinction between law and arbitrariness as represented in Aeschylus' Oresteia, Shakespeare's Richard III, and the Antigones of Sophocles and Jean Anouilh. I conclude that law is the submission of force to the realm of reason, as dramatized in the Oresteia, while lawlessness is essentially solipsism: the attempt to make the world conform to the ruler's dictates, and ultimately, to coerce love. It is precisely because love cannot be coerced that tyranny is ultimately doomed (although "ultimately" can be a long time). One of the more controversial arguments I make is that in his Antigone, we should understand Sophocles to be pointing an accusing finger at the audience.