While advocating rule by ‘the best,’ Aristotle admitted that combining aristocracy with democracy would probably produce the desired results, an idea that still appeals to some political thinkers. In fact, the ancient Romans actually did combine these two government forms with a measure of success. “Politics [in Rome] was everyone’s affair,” says The Collins Atlas of World History. Nevertheless, at the same time, “the richest citizens and those who were fortunate enough to be high born formed an oligarchy which shared out among itself the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest.”

The imperfection of aristocratic rule is easily illustrated. In early Rome, only persons of high birth, known as patricians, were eligible for membership in the Roman Senate. The common people, known as plebeians, were not. But far from being men of “ability and moral excellence,” as Confucius had demanded of rulers, members of the Senate became increasingly corrupt and oppressive. Civil strife was the result.

Despite recurring periods of reform, the senatorial oligarchy persisted, at least until Julius Caesar established a dictatorship a few years before his assassination in 44 B.C.E. After his death, aristocratic government was revived, but by 29 B.C.E. it had once again been replaced. Collier’s Encyclopedia explains: “With the growing power, wealth, and geographic extent of Rome, the aristocracy had become a corrupt oligarchy, and its loss of civic spirit was reflected in a loss of public respect. Its collapse ushered in an absolute monarchy.”