He was doubtless of good family. Those industrious and microscopic editors who have devoted themselves to his fame have laid great stress upon the names _Aurelius_ and _Clemens_. The _Aurelii_, they say, were distinguished and well-born people. The _Clementes_ were also of notable memory. And there were two _Prudentii_ beside himself who obtained rather more than ordinary distinction. Indeed, there were some five _Prudentii_, early and late, and one of them, _Prudentius Amoenus_, tried, indifferently badly, to climb to fame by an abridgment of his predecessor’s history of the Old and New Testaments. In this he was so successful that the original is now lost, the condensation alone remains, and our Prudentius is often known as _Prudentius Major_, to differentiate him from this troublesome _Minor_, who was a preceptor of Walafrid Strabo. In regard to two other hymns—the _Corde natus_ and the _Vidit anguis_—an element of doubt has been introduced by this same person. Faustinus Arevalus was nothing if not a hymn-tinker (see _Christian Remembrancer_, vol. xlvi., p. 125 _ff._), and it is possible that these by such careless editorship have been incorporated into the text of the true Prudentius from the pages of his namesake and imitator. The hymn _Virgo Dei genitrix_ (of the fifteenth century) is ascribed to another of the five Prudentii. This sort of blunder is by no means unusual. We have an instance in point with reference to the very Consul Salia in whose consulship our poet tells us that he was born. A similarity between _Coss. Salia_ and _Massalia_ misled the learned. They saw in this a proof that Massilia (Marseilles) was his birthplace, and Prudentius was at once claimed for France. But we have now unravelled and disentangled the greater part of this obscure coil. Flavius Philippus and Flavius _Salia_ are known to have served conjointly in the year 348, and hence the industry of Aldus Manutius and Labbeus (Labbèe) has been thrown away and their false conjecture has been abandoned. Prudentius himself tells us nothing about his family, beyond what we derive by inference. The deeper that we plunge into this labyrinth of guesses the further we are from being settled in opinion. The exhaustive—and, let us add, the exhausting—editor of the latest edition finally calls a halt in the middle of his complicated Latin sentences and avows himself utterly at a loss about the truth. There is then some comfort left to us in cutting and untying these knots; for whatever view we may advance has found distinguished and earnest championship already! On the whole, Teoli appears a reliable leader, and him we have mostly followed, as later authors, such as Professors Fiske and Teuffel, seem to have done before us.