CGCG sec. 52.41 translates this as “The barbarian returned to Greece in order to enslave it.”
But I can’t get my head around why the future middle-passive participle δουλωσόμενος is in the nominative case. Doesn’t that mean it modifes the subject βάρβαρος instead of the object τὴν Ἑλλάδα? i.e. “The barbarian returned to Greece in order to become enslaved”?
And I’m on my second shot of espresso this morning, argh. What am I missing? Somthing obvious, I suspect…thanks.
I don’t think you’re missing anything, except that the middle of δουλόω means enslave. The use of the middle rather than the active means that the subject benefits from the action, so in this case he wants to enslave Greece for himself, make it his slave, so to speak… but frequently attempting to translate this nuance leads to unnatural English, which sounds complex even when the Greek is simple, so translators often ignore it
Yes, future middle participle: “Again the barbarian came against Greece to enslave it.” Not “the enslaving barbarians”! (That would have the participle in attributive position, following the article, and it would not be future.)
The reference is to Xerxes’ invasion of Greece, ten years after the Persians’ first invasion.
Cf. what Creon says of Polynices in Sophocles’ Antigone: ναοὺς πυρώσων ἦλθε (286), “he came to set fire to temples.”