The Republic is considered Plato´s magnum opus, I partially agree with that because, despite being the first time that the Theory of Forms is presented in a better shape, the dialectic method and the depth of it are shown in later dialogues. In his elderly years, Plato was set to put his theory to the test in, what I think would have been his real masterpiece, a trilogy of dialectic-hide-and-seek: The Sophist, The Statesman, and The Philosopher. As probably you suspect by now, it is not complete, ironically, The Philosopher is lost.

A very pleasant work, which I might consider somewhat of a convenient bridge between Plato's 'Republic' and Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics,' 'Politics,' and/or 'Rhetoric.' As is somewhat typical for Plato, the work starts slowly by carefully combing through assorted divisions of the arts or classes, but picks up towards the end in comparing the nature of various governments and the role of the Statesman, politics, and rhetoric.

To be fair I did read the first part of the book late at night, so I may want to revisit this later, perhaps after reading some more Aristotle.

worst translation available

The Statesman forms an unmissable cornerstone in the political triad of Plato, next to the Republic and the Laws. Its elaboration of the "ship of state" metaphor improves upon the Republic. It continues the discussion around the philosophy of concepts started in the Sophist. The two essays are thematically and historically connected, for the Statesman supposedly takes place immediately after the Sophist. The Statesman combines conceptual analysis with political philosophy.

Here, Plato makes a forceful case for monarchical rule as a type of "epistocracy" where the wisest rule even under conditions of radical uncertainty. The argumentative style of Plato's project is as fascinating as its conceptual clarity and argumentative rigour are impressive. Its complex examination of the nature of good governance under less-than-ideal assumptions is essential Plato, and it manages to partially answer the objection of some to the Republic that Platonic rule of the philosopher king is too idealistic and therefore rare/unworkable in practice. In many ways, the late Plato is less of an ideal theorist than the late Plato, although not wholly so. At any rate, his defence of the ideal model of the philosopher king remains as firm - and perhaps as convincing - as ever. For these reasons, the essay is an absolutely essential piece in the Platonic puzzle. It can easily be read, for example in a school course, as an optional companion piece to the Republic.

This is a somewhat odd member of the Platonic corpus. The myth of the reversal of the cosmos isn’t Plato’s most compelling and doesn’t seem deeply relevant, or at least not completely integral to the book. And the Visitor’s lengthy exposition of the “method of division” doesn’t seem to have enough importance to justify its length. But when the book finally gets to political philosophy it’s substantial and interesting, not least in its relationship with Republic and Laws. I rarely see Statesman mentioned in discussions of those works, which is unfortunate. The political section is almost a first draft outline of Aristotle’s Politics, which alone should get it more attention. And as I mentioned in a review of Sophist, there are other proto-Aristotelian elements – notably, something like a prototype of Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean. There’s even a slight hint of Aristotle’s causality.

The Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman trilogy doesn’t seem to get as much consideration as it deserves, at least from non-specialists and in works on Plato for a general audience. It’s certainly not as fun as Plato’s early works, or as grand as his middle period ones. But the substance is there, and the developments in comparison with earlier works strike me as pretty much essential if you want to have a reasonable handle on Plato’s thought as a whole. Perhaps it’s only for the dedicated student of Plato, amateur or otherwise. But throw in the proto-Aristotelian elements, fascinating in considering Aristotle’s origins and his difficult relationship with Plato’s thought; and take the developmental aspects of both Plato’s thought and his art, with the questions of what’s changed and why – and the greater oddity seems to be this trilogy’s relative neglect. After all, it’s not like we’re talking about the Parmenides.

I see this as a good companion read to Plato's Republic.

3rd favourite dialogue! method of division stuff at the front was weird but the second half on the forms of political rule, the law, weaving (and of course the classic socratic eugenics programme) etc. was really really interesting

Ο Πλάτων στην Πολιτεία εκθέτει τις απόψεις του για την πολιτική, ενώ στον Πολιτικό προσεγγίζει το θέμα από την πλευρά των πολιτών.

Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, and Eric Salem's translation of Plato's Statesman is a very useful resource that I highly recommend to all serious students of Plato. The same trio collaborated on Plato's n  Phaedon, which is also very fine. The translation itself is very good: it is clear, and fairly literal—an absolute necessity for the proper interpretation of whom Nietzsche called "the most beautiful growth of antiquity" (Beyond Good and Evil, "Preface"). No translation is perfect, however, and so I recommend using this one in conjunction with an even more literal one, that of Seth Benardete. In addition to the translation, this edition by Brann, Kalkavage and Salem includes a very useful introduction, glossary, essay and two appendices (a brief—but instructive—illustration of the art of weaving, and a longer discussion of the many divisions from the dialogue). Of these additional features, the essay in particular has many illuminating observations.

Il manuale di filosofia mi aveva avvisata che era un testo difficile, ma non pensavo di dover mettere a matita i punti di domanda una pagina sì e l'altra pure lol

Basically, political science is an art, but more importantly, a science.

The Visitor is still really bad at dialogues, but this is a lot more interesting than Sophist. One, the backwards spinning myth about the inevitable golden age was an interesting interpretation. Two, there was a nice discussion of government forms, which actually reminded me a lot of Cicero's On the Republic (I suppose it should really be the other way around). And three, the categorization, boring though it may be, and the more interesting discussion of ethics and moderation were sort of Aristotelian - since this is a later dialogue, maybe Plato and and his students were starting to lean that way (or at least Plato was experimenting with it) and Aristotle ran with it later on.