Machiavelli's "The Prince" is essentially about the qualities the best type of prince possesses. What he lacks is a definition of what the ideal prince is. Machiavelli sticks to describing what the actions and characteristics are that have allowed a prince to best rule a society. It is a weak spot that he doesn't cover but is obviously done intentionally. This is a pattern that he uses throughout the book, an example is Machiavelli doesn't say how to take over other lands, but gives pieces of uncommon advice for a ruler to obtain and maintain their power. He uses examples rather than definitions in his explanations. These are gaps that he leaves in his explanation of what a good prince should be. By leaving these gaps he leaves it up to us to come to our own conclusions on what the ideal prince really is. He hopes his examples and lessons will work for the prince to better himself and his society. I think it shows that he believes that if he has to come right out and list the characteristics of a great prince it wouldn't induce thinking, which is what Machiavelli sets out to do as well as making the story one that has been able to last for so many years. This is why "The Prince" has lasted for so long, Machiavelli leaves such a large hole in his story but gives the reader a different way of thinking which lets them draw their own conclusions and eventually filling in those holes with their own knowledge that they took from Machiavelli. .