In his article (CP 71 (1976), 97–105) R. Reneham rightly classes Sail. Cat.20.9 as a conscious imitation of Cic.Cat.1.1, but adopts the unsatisfactory explanation of parody. Such parody is, as he notes, without parallel in Sallust and ineptly distracts attention from the vigorous development of Catiline's rhetoric. Elsewhere mimesis is regularly a compliment to the author imitated, often closely functional by reinforcing a point from the parallel of a similar context (e.g. Sail. Cat.4.1 ~ Pl. Ep.324 b). Similarly I suggest that here Sallust recalls Cicero's words to illustrate that perversion of vocabulary which is the keynote of Catiline's speech: just as he misuses, for example, the terms virtus fidesque at the beginning of his speech, in stark contrast to Sallust's own definition, so he perverts the famous words of the attack which revealed his true villainy in similar savage indignatio.

nihil autem uetabat et componi materias in hoc idoneas, ut controuersiae permixtis salibus fingerentur, uel res proponi singulas ad iuuenum talem exercitationem. quin illae ipsae (dicta sunt ac uocantur), quas certis diebus festae licentiae dicere solebamus, si paulum adhibita ratione fingerentur, aut aliquid in his serium quoque esset admixtum, plurimum poterant utilitatis adferre; quae nunc iuuenum uel sibi ludentium exercitatio est.

Ergo saepta pudicitia agunt, nuliis spectaculorum inlecebris, nullis conviviorum inritationibus corruptae. litterarum secreta viri pariter ac feminae ignorant, paucissima in tarn numerosa gente adulteria, quorum poena praesens et mantis permissa: adcisis crinibus nudatam coram propinquis expellit domo maritus ac per omnem vicum verbere agit. publicatae enim pudicitiae nulla venia: non forma, non aetate, non opibus maritum invenerit. nemo enim illic vitia ridet, nee corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur.