Frequently no trouble is taken to find a suitable name， this being either Chrysale， Orgon， Damis， Dorante， or Valère. The name designates only a simple quality， that of a father， a youth， a valet， a grumbler， a gallant， and， like an ordinary cloak， fitting indifferently all forms alike， as it passes from the wardrobe of Molière to that of Regnard， Destouche， Lesage or Marivaux.[34] The character lacks the personal badge， the unique， authentic appellation serving as the primary stamp of an individual. All these details and circumstances， all these aids and accompaniments of a man， remain outside of the classic theory. To secure the admission of some of them required the genius of Molière， the fullness of his conception， the wealth of his observation， the extreme freedom of his pen. It is equally true again that he often omits them， and that， in other cases， he introduces only a small number of them， because he avoids giving to these general characters a richness and complexity that might interfere with the story. The simpler the theme the clearer its development， the first duty of the author throughout this literature being to clearly develop the restricted theme of which he makes a selection.
There is， accordingly， a radical defect in the classic spirit， the defect of its qualities， and which， at first kept within proper bounds， contributes towards the production of its purest master-pieces， but which， in accordance with the universal law， goes on increasing and turns into a vice through the natural effect of age， use， and success. Contracted at the start， it is to become yet more so. In the eighteenth century the description of real life， of a specific person， just as he is in nature and in history， that is to say， an undefined unit， a rich plexus， a complete organism of peculiarities and traits， superposed， entangled and co-ordinated， is improper. The capacity to receive and contain all these is wanting.