ediovis (Fast. i. 293-294: Iuppiter in parte est: cepit locus unus
utrumque / iunctaque sunt magno templa nepotis (sc. Aesculapii) avo);
and another assumption that the entries in the Calendar (Fast. Praen.
ad Kal. Ian., CIL i. p. 231: [Aescu]lapio Vediovi in insula; Fast. Ant.
ap. NS 1921, 83: Aesculap(io) Co[ns]o Vediove) refer necessarily to a
temple of Vediovis. In the same way another passage in Livy (xxxi.
21. 12), where he is speaking of L. Furius Purpurio at the battle of Cremona
in 200 B.C., may be made to refer to the same temple by reading: aedemque Vediovi (for the MSS. deo Iovi) vovit si eo die hostes fudisset. These
emendations, and therefore the existence of the temple, near that of
Aesculapius, are accepted by most scholars (cf. HJ 635: WR 236;
Jord. Comm. in honor. Mommsen 359-362; Gilb. iii. 82-84; Mommsen,
CIL 12. p. 305), but not by Besnier (249-272), who refuses to accept
the identification of Vediovis and Iuppiter and explains the reference in
the calendar by a sa