Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus

[72] δρῶν ἢ ... φωνῶν: there is no definite contrast between doing and bidding others to do: rather “deed” and “word” represent the two chief forms of agency, the phrase being equivalent to “in what possible way.” Cp. Aesch. PB 659 “θεοπρόπους ἴαλλεν, ὡς μάθοι τί χρὴ ι δρῶντ᾽ ἢ λέγοντα δαίμοσιν πράσσειν φίλα.”

ῥυσαίμην （L's reading） is right: ῥυσοίμην is grammatically possible, but less fitting. The direct deliberative form is τί δρῶν ῥύσωμαι; the indirect, πυνθάνομαι ὅ τι （or τί） δρῶν ῥύσωμαι, ἐπυθόμην ὅ τι （or τί） δρῶν ῥυσαίμην. This indirect deliberative occurs, not only with verbs of “doubting” （ Xen. Hell. 7.4.39 “ἠπόρει ὅ τι χρήσαιτο τῷ πράγματι）,” but also with verbs of “asking”: Thuc. 1.25 “τὸν θεὸν ἐπήροντο, εἰ παραδοῖεν ... τὴν πόλιν” （oblique of παραδῶμεν τὴν πόλιν）. Kennedy wrongly says that ῥυσαίμην here could be only the oblique of ἐρρυσάμην （as if, in Thuc. 1.25, παραδοῖεν could be only the oblique of παρέδοσαν）; and that, for the sense, it would require ἄν. This would also be right, but in a different constr., viz., as oblique of τί δρῶν ῥυσαίμην ἄν; Cp. Soph. Trach. 991 “οὐ γὰρ ἔχω πῶς ἂν ι στέρξαιμι,” and Soph. Ant. 270 ff. n. In Soph. El. 33 “ὡς μάθοιμ᾽, ὅτῳ τρόπῳ πατρὶ ι δίκας ἀροίμην,” the opt. is that of ἠρόμην, being oblique for ἄρωμαι, rather than of ἀροῦμαι. ῥυσοίμην would be oblique of τί δρῶν ῥύσομαι; ῥυσοίμην （oblique for ῥύσομαι） would imply that he was confident of a successful result, and doubtful only concerning the means; it is therefore less suitable.