The Debating interpretation of Oedipus Rex

The Debating interpretation of Oedipus Rex

The Debating Interpretations of Oedipus Rex
Oedipus Rex, the great Greek tragedy written by Sophocles, is probably one of the masterpieces reviewed by critics of all eras and it draws all kinds of interpretations; some of the arguments even counter each other. So here I attempt to contrast different commentaries of Oedipus Rex, to see how abundant possibilities for this masterpiece are and on what ground, rational or not, the critics establish their theories. In the series of debates, the latter always seems more abundant than the former, yet it is at your will to judge which one is the best.
The most essential question may be, when reading Oedipus Rex, why Oedipus falls so horribly? Let’s begin with Aristotle’s The Poetics. In his view, the best sort of hero is a man highly esteemed and prosperous but falls into misfortune because of some mistake (hamartia), not through vice and depravity, thus the tragedy draws pity and fear. Aristotle did not make it explicit whether the word hamartia refers to false moral judgments or purely intellectual errors, but it is a prevailing theory that Victorian critics used to probe Oedipus’s moral flaws and thus proves that Oedipus deserves the horrible fate; this is now the predominate opinion towards Oedipus (Dodds 219).  
The Victorian critics condemn Oedipus because he is proud and over-confident; he harbors unjustified suspicions against Teiresias and Creon; and in spite of having heard the oracle, he kills an old man and marries an elderly woman, which is criminal negligence. Thus he is sinned, and the gods rightfully punish Oedipus, the Victorian critics say. However, as J. T. Sheppard argues: no Athenian jury would find him guilty on such grounds and assess such punishment for such offences. For the killing thus committed as an act of defense, an Athenian justice would have pronounced him innocent. After a ceremonial purification he would have been no further troubled by the affair (194). Obvious it is not...