Character is defined as "the qualities that distinguish one person from another." Nietzsche warns us "a man is seldom characterized by a single action," (WP 235) because occasionally, as he describes in BGE 282, "a mild, moderate, reticent person suddenly goes into a rage." Does this transform that person from mild to raging? For the moment, yes, but it is a single act of anger amongst many acts that are contradictory. That person, after that act, may walk away and isolate himself, shamed for his actions. For now, I will term this "type 1." Note that Nietzsche does not approve of this shame - why regret your action? No amount of shame, regret, or guilt can undo the act, nor any forgiveness or atonement. The fact is, it is done and cannot be undone, so what good do those feelings do anyone? Instead, he supports the view that all actions are equal, and even actions which we might, in a weaker moment, regret can become - or be considered - favorable situations. This character I will call "type 2." Throughout The Gay Science Nietzsche describes these two types of character, using imagery that usually involves some kind of construction. I think "constructing" is a great metaphor for character, as we can never really be one "character" - it is always a sum total of our exceptional actions ("One should never measure an artist by the standard of his works", WP 235).
In relation to one another, "type 1" and "type 2" are in direct opposition. Nietzsche calls it "a great and rare art" (GS 290) to be able to shape one's character. The "type 2" character lives by this art, making even his flaws seem as strengths - a process which requires great introspective thought and self-control. "Type 1" characters feel it unnecessary to sculpt themselves into form, instead allowing the environment ("free nature", GS 290) to shape them. They even go so far as to disdain the "constraints" of style as a form of slavery! In place of style, the world shapes them to its own will as they perceive it does to everything else. After all, who would want to "enslave" themselves?
"Type 1" characters, naturally, tend to consistency in their lives. As long as the environment is still doing its "wild, arbitrary, fantastic, disorderly and surprising" (GS 290) dance which etches their characters, they are satisfied. It would be reasonable to say that the chaos of the environment is enough for them, and so they allow their lives to become stable, almost as a counterbalance. However, the opposing schema doesn't care about the environment; it shapes itself. It follows that any constancy in actions would not permit it to continue shaping itself - how can one keep shaping a stone if one doesn't alter his motion? Eventually, the tool will no longer be removing stone, instead just moving air about it. A variety of methods and motions must go into the continual shaping of one's character, and the "type 2" character welcomes the passing of old technique even as the inevitable new technique is arrived at.
In GS 291, Nietzsche makes the first of two specific connections between character type and an actual historical figure. In this section, it is Christopher Columbus, who "refused to recognize any boundaries in distant lands and, thirsting for what is new, placed a new world beside the old one". He is described as a "type 2" character, having this desire for conquest, in the sense of taking all that exists and "ultimately make [it] their possession by making it part of their plan," (GS 291) even if it is but for a moment. It is this same desire for conquest that creates the buildings which he sees that were "built and adorned to last for centuries and not for a fleeting hour." (GS 291) This section, entitled "Genoa," makes me want to see these buildings he saw (presumably, they still exist - were they not built for centuries?) that inspired such an idea. The creativity and artisanship that the builders invested in their homes and buildings is a perfect example of the "type 2" character's desire to shape; now not only himself but his world as well, in essence making himself a part of the landscape. In some other city, though, "people posited themselves as equal and subordinated themselves." (GS 291) This positing is reflected in a kind of "city planning" that is reasonably ordered and held as "law," in a concerted effort to keep the people equal and subordinated. Where does this order come from? Nature... the environment... shaping the interior and exterior of the "type 1" character.
GS 22 takes the building of a city to its next logical step. The "type 1" personality is referred to here as a "poet." However, he is not necessarily referring to all poets (after all, a true poet is an artisan of words as a musician is an artisan of sound), but to the "typical" poet, who writes on such standard themes that "his poems are better than the poet." (GS 22) This produces creative output forever condemned to be equivalent and interchangeable to that of his peers, contemporaries, and past and future generations - definitely not the kind of attitude befitting an artisan! In this respect, the poet is a powerless subject, whereas the king ("type 2") has so much power that words - and, eventually, the course of his days - are fitted to him. He has styled himself. He has so much going on around him and for him (receiving guests, information, etc.) that he cannot settle into a constant routine. He has sculpted, as well, his country and lands as per his vision. He is always in thought - all this styling, changing of activity, and sculpting simply demands it. But in the end, he has the power.
In GS 306, Nietzsche describes the Stoic and Epicurian types of character. Stoics are noted for their developed ability to endure all sorts of digestive tortures. They train themselves to survive "whatever the accidents ofexistence might pour into" (GS 306) them, a trait that would do the "type 1" character well. Stoics "rush through life as if [they] were drunk and now and then fall down some staircase. But thanks to your drunkenness [they] never break a limb; [their] muscles are too relaxed and [their] brain too benighted for [them] to find the stones of the stairs as hard as we do." (GS 154) Here, drunkenness is related to the no-thought-necessary, "go with the flow" attitude that is at the heart of the "type 1" strain of character. Nietzsche expresses disdain for the Stoic type; however, he admits that, "for those with whom fate attempts improvisations - those who live in violent ages and depend on sudden and mercurial people - Stoicism may indeed be advisable." (GS 306) "Type 2" characters are much like the Epicurians. Keeping with the digestive theme of the Stoics, by contrast, Epicurians have fickle palates. Nietzsche describes their constitutions as "intellectual." They don't train themselves to endure the world, they manipulate the world to endure them and their "subtle irritability," akin to the way that a "type 2" character shapes the world as he sees fit. It is as if they are made of glass, carefully traversing the stairs of GS 154 (through thought), and are endangered if they so much as stumble. So much of themselves is put into their plans that, for those plans to be potentially torn asunder by the "wildness" of the environment would be as if they themselves had been shattered and fallen apart.
The "type 2" character is continually shaping himself and everything around him for his benefit alone. He is strong, taking a decidedly active role in the directions in which his world grows. His likes and dislikes are his own, regardless of their genesis, because he has fitted them so. A drive exists within him to become more than the sum of his parts, to stand out from the pack, fueled by his desire to set himself as such long after his ability to maintain dominion over his world passes. "Type 1" characters can ultimately be described as journeying through the ranks of life by assimilating into the safety of the herd. His only action is to follow; his only choice is that his choices are made for him. The weak character type fits himself into the space provided by his world, accepting whatever fate the world hands them with a cool indifference.
No matter how strong you are, there exists an ideal to aspire to, blending strengths and weakness much the way the Chinese notion of "yin and yang" blends polar opposites. The ideal "weak" character's strength would come from Stoicism - improvising his way through the world, never falling, even if he stumbles a lot. Nietzsche likens this to the "masters of musical improvisation," (GS 303) who may play a "wrong" note here and there but seem to weave it in so that it seems proper. This reminds me of something I read in an interview with the great blues philosopher (haha) B. B. King, to the effect of "if you make a mistake once, make it again so it sounds planned" - creating strength out of weakness. Nietzsche states that "...anyone who foresees more or less that fate permits him to spin a long thread does well to make Epicurean arrangements." (GS 306) He believes the ideal situation for a strong character is the "weakness" of the Epicurian. He suffers, and suffers painfully, as the world he so carefully and continuously crafts fails around him. The chance in choice is dangerous, and Nietzsche repeatedly urges those of Epicurian thought to "live dangerously!" (GS 283) This is a perfect situation for a "strong" character, though, because all his mistakes lead him to greater thought, so that his next act of "strength" can be ever stronger.
And what of that second historical (at least to us) figure I referred to before? It is Nietzsche himself. He considers himself an Epicurian (GS 154), and he alludes that he is of "strong" character as well.
Ed.note: All boldfaced book references are listed as (BOOK #aphorism). Book codes are: BGE = Beyond Good and Evil; GS = The GayScience; WP = The Will to Power.