The denigration of Cicero at Inu. Cic. 5 is not just indebted to Rutilius Lupus’ translation of a fragment of Lycurgus (Rhet. Lat. Min. page 11 Halm); it also modifies a second model, Sall. Cat. 14.2, in a way that cleverly puns on that modification. This is an additional argument for a date of composition after Bellum Catilinae (and thus against its authenticity), while offering further evidence of its polysemous play; and the comparison with the second epistula further suggests the latter’s dependence upon the invective, while missing its subtler point.
