The major rebellions in Roman history are well-known, like Spartacus and the slave revolts, the Jewish rebellions, and Boudica's uprising.
After reading about James Scott's work on "everyday resistance" (sabotage, arson, desertion, smuggling, slander, etc.), I've become more interested in the less obvious manifestations of resistance in the Roman Empire. Has anyone written on this?
For clarification, are you talking about the Roman Empire proper, that is what scholars frequently call the Principate, or simply the Roman state as a political entity generally? Your examples mix events of the Republic and Principate with each other, and given the changed political structure of the Roman world between the two we should not necessarily expect equivalent patterns of dissent.
Ramsey MacMullen's Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire remains the sole study of political dissent in the Principate. It is certainly still the broadest treatment in its scope, attempting to touch on as many elements of "internal" dissent (intentionally ignoring revolts and other external, military acts of dissent) in the Principate as it can. Localized treatments of particular types of dissent probably exist--I don't work on the Principate much, so I couldn't necessarily say where they are--but I haven't heard yet of anyone superseding MacMullen's book in its entirety. It's quite readable and not very long.
If you mean to include the Republic the issue becomes less a problem of where to look and more of how to think about the Republic as a political structure. For a very long time the dominant model was of an "apolitical" Republic. This is the so-called "frozen waste" theory, in which it was postulated that Republican politics was solely the interest of a tiny aristocratic elite who did not have clearly conceptualized ideologies and who did not fight over particular political issues but simply as a vehicle for aristocratic competition. In the past forty years or so this has increasingly been challenged, to the point that many scholars have discarded it completely and even those who still stick to a form of it have so systematically modified it as to render the influence of their model unrecognizable. If Republican politics was about issues, then we are presented with a very different understanding of the political structure of the state and, importantly, the expression of dissent. Are we to understand, then, the function of the voting assemblies when they resist senatorial opposition as expressions of popular dissent? The exercise of popular sovereignty? Something else entirely? It's an open question, and one for which there is a wealth of material, but I get the feeling that's not what you're looking for