Did Oedipus harm his parents because he knew they rejected him?

A follow up to "This is the Son of Kings," an earlier post on Oedipus:

"Nor is that other point to be passed over, that the Sphinx was subdued by a lame man with club feet …" - Sir Francis Bacon

This is a blog about disability. The disability most targeted, most subject to denial, and most vulnerable to blaming the victim, is birth defect (John 9:2 “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born thus?” shows that this sort of thinking has existed for millennia.).

Two thousand years of mainstream literary criticism has accommodated Sophocles’ mystifying premise: Fate, Oracle, foreordained by the gods, in which Swollen Foot’s attempt to escape the injustice of “the way things are” is maligned as “hubris.”

Oedipus had the pride of royal blood. The central moral fact of Sophocles’ play, missed by two millennia of straight critics, is that the reason Swollen Foot does not know who he is, is that his own parents tried to kill him when he was a helpless baby.

The straightforward version of the plot, before Sophocles skipped over the possibility that it was about the fury of a disabled royal who effected retribution for attempted murder, is that Oedipus knew. His agency in the catastrophes which befell his “mother” and “father” arose from the righteous wrath of a prince against parents who denied him his heritage.

Bacon saw through Sophocles’ sleight of hand, describing Oedipus’ condition as “club feet,” unmistakably a birth defect, and not maiming, as some say Sophocles would have it.

A reasonable translation of "Oidipous Tyrannos," following Bacon’s interpretation, is "Clubfoot the Ruler." When a drama has a name of this form, as with "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" or even "Beauty and the Beast," there is a certain hint as to how the plot will go.