E' possibile approfondire la conoscenza del pensiero senecano tenendo conto delle conoscenze mediche del filosofo. L'influenza della scuola medica Pneumatica, di ispirazione stoica, consente di dimostrare che le passioni come l'ira non sono per Seneca solo malattie dell'anima, ma sindromi psicofisiche che coinvolgono tutti i livelli dell'individuo, alla luce di un monismo corpo- anima possibile solo alla luce delle dottrine Pneuamtiche. Malattie come la mania e la melancolia, inoltre, hanno un decorso particolare che oltre ad influenzare la visione senecana dell'ira, permette anche di comprendere il carattere apparentemente incoerente di alcuni personaggi delle tragedie (Clitennestra, Atreo, Fedra e Medea), che possono essere considerati traduzioni drammaturgiche di sindromi maniaco- depressive. / It's possible to deepen our knowledge of Senecan thought by considering his medical knowledge. The influence of the Pneumatic school, inspired by Stoic philosophy, makes possible to show that passions like anger are for Seneca not only soul diseases, but also a kind of psycho- physical syndrome that concerns every aspect of the individual in the light of a psycho- physical monism that is possible to understand only through the Pneumatic doctrines. Diseases like mania and melancholy, moreover, have a peculiar development which, influencing Senecan view of anger, let us understand the apparently incoherent features of some characters of the tragedies (Clitaemestra, Atreus, Phaedra, Medea) who can be considered dramatic translations of manic- depressive syndromes

This research aims to answer three questions: why do we study an ancient reception of a text, in the 21st century? Why do texts change their meanings throughout time? How does this occur in our case study, Marius’ life? The methodologic approach is based on Jauss’ hermeneutic; Gramsci’s cultural hegemony; László’s construction of cultural identity; Hardwick’s classical reception studies; Lausberg’s literary communities. Moreover, I propose to define cultural communities. These communities reuse texts according to their own perception (voluntarily or involuntarily). So, I have selected a corpus of authors, linked to Plutarch and Marius, that have been catalogued by different cultural groups. The results show that under the Antonine dynasty Marius’ existence is almost forgotten, but the moral message of Life is systematically reused. The 3rd century exalts the authoritarian Marius, according to the political program of the Severan dynasty and military emperors. The 4th and 5th centuries reused Marius’ life in two ways: Christians describe a bad man, while pagans portray a hero, because the former want to condemn, and the latter want to glorify Roman tradition. These results have already answered the third question, on how meanings change. They allow us to answer the second question: why? Because of the change of political aims. Finally, I can answer the first one: why is this important for us? Because contemporary cultural communities reuse classical texts in the same ways as the ancient ones. So, this analysis of the past can explain the present too.