Colosseum from the Oppian Hill, photo by Thomas Strunk
The holding of high political office under the Roman Principate has often been regarded as evidence for collaboration with, or at least acceptance of, the imperial regime. Thus, Pliny and Tacitus are generally viewed as accepting the legitimacy of the Principate and its principes, both good and bad, because they held high political office and furthered their careers under the Flavians, Nerva, and Trajan. Conversely, the refusal to hold high political office or to seek to advance one’s political career has been interpreted as a mark of defiance and autonomy. In this paper, I challenge these assumptions in two ways: by examining the careers of the disloyal opposition, many of whom held high offices under the emperors they opposed, and the careers of the collaborators, many of whom despite their high offices eventually ran afoul of the regime, and by exploring how the opposition could actively use the cursus honorum as a means of opposition.
In summary, the fact that one held or did not hold high political office cannot be used as evidence of collaboration or dissent. Political opinions were often divorced from the political offices individuals held. This is of primary importance for determining the political views of writers like Pliny and Tacitus, whose political careers have inordinately influenced scholars in interpreting the political nature of their written works.
