The starting point of our thesis is the critical discussion of a concept taken for granted by literary and ancient philosophy scholars. This is the cynic-stoic diatribe, so named because cynical themes would coexist with Stoic ones. Our first step is assessing the accuracy of the widely accepted definition, which makes the connection between the diatribe and a tradition of topics relating to moral popular philosophy. Then we explain our choice to accept and to try to integrate recent scientific acknowledgments which accept the diatribe as a literary genre relating to the spiritual guidance method of the Socratic philosophical schools, with a particularly attentive focus on the relationship between master and disciple. Starting from this controversial genre of Greek origin, we analyze the transition to the Roman period, by first examining the terminological aspect and then the philosophical framing. Among the methods, defined as diatribic, we focus on the only feature which does not appear to be challenged and that for this exact reason could be the basis of the existence of the genre itself: dialogism and the presence of a fictitious interlocutor. We then focus our attention on Seneca's work, and particularly on Letters to Lucilius, where the attempt to create a master-disciple relationship is intensely visible, and in which the presence of a fictitious interlocutor is structurally related to the development of this relationship. Then we discuss the diatribic forms of Roman satire, to reach Lucilius', Horace's and Persius' cases. A brief presentation is finally devoted to the analysis of relations between the diatribe, the Second Sophistic and the religious preaching.

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.