[67] It is extremely difficult to say whether ‘fatis’ is the dat., as Burm. thinks, or the abl., as Peerlkamp and Forb. contend. Either expression would be Virgilian (comp. 7. 120, “fatis mihi debita tellus,” with 11. 759 “fatis debitus Arruns”), and either would yield an appropriate sense, as the fates may be represented either as satisfying the requirements of others, or as having their own requirements satisfied (comp. the passages where the fates are said ‘poscere,’ 4. 614 &c.). Where the fates are identified with an individual, as here by the possessive pronoun ‘meis,’ they assume as it were a subordinate position (comp. 7. 293, “fatis contraria nostris Fata Phrygum”), and so may be regarded not as causing events, but as demanding their fulfilment from some other power. The question then is whether the Sibyl is here regarded as the person through whom a demand is made on destiny, or on whom the destinies of private persons make their demand. On the whole I think it must be left open, as there seems nothing in the context, in the nature of the case, or in parallel passages to incline the scale either way, though Val. F. 5. 508 (quoted by Forb.), “Non aliena peto terrisve indebita nostris,” looks as if that author understood ‘fatis’ as dative. ‘Considere’ 4. 349, where as here the names of Italy and the Trojans are contrasted by way of emphasis. Rom. has ‘consistere.’
