The Oedipus complex stands as one of the most contested and generative terms in the entire depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a clinical hypothesis, a mythological reading, a developmental schema, and a cultural diagnosis. Freud’s foundational formulations — elaborated across the Introductory Lectures, The Interpretation of Dreams, and The Ego and the Id — establish the complex as the nuclear conflict of psychosexual development: the child’s triangulated desires toward the parent of the opposite sex and rivalrous hostility toward the parent of the same sex, with castration anxiety and its resolution producing the superego and inaugurating the latency period. Klein radically revises the chronology, locating oedipal stirrings in the first year of life and embedding them within the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions; her 1957 formulations insist that the complex is neither simply sexual nor dyadic but traversed by envy, ambivalence, and early object relations. Jung accepts the phenomenology while reinterpreting its energic substrate: libido in the Oedipal configuration is not primarily sexual but represents the intensity of childish affect more broadly, and the incest motif carries symbolic rather than merely literal significance. Hillman’s archetypal revisioning treats the entire psychoanalytic enterprise as living inside the Oedipal myth, subject to its imaginative constraints, while Neumann reads the hero-myth’s incest motif as a cosmogonic drama of consciousness separating from the Great Mother. Rank, Greene, and Campbell each extend or displace the complex toward birth trauma, astrological fate, and universal mythological pattern respectively.