Mozart’s rhythms, again, are much more various than Haydn’s. The characteristic figures of his themes are apt to be strongly contrasted, whereas Haydn’s generally bear a family resemblance to one another. Take, for example, the themes of the first movement of Mozart’s String Quintet in G-minor. The first is a simple series of eighth-notes: [Music: score] [Illustration] The second is more resilient and individual: [Music: score] [Illustration] The third, or conclusion-passage, is of a most strongly marked character: [Illustration] [Music: score] Not only do these figures contrast well as they appear successively, but Mozart knows how to combine them in a very intricate web. When the third one enters in the 'cello, the second violin and viola toss back and forth the first, the second viola plays a slow sustaining part in quarter and half-notes, and the first violin has a racing counterpoint in sixteenth-notes. All this means life, variety, interest. And as for the question of diversity in phrase-structure, it is only necessary to compare the Minuet of Mozart’s G-minor Symphony, with its odd three-measure phrases and its wide climactic stretches of melody, with the square-cut Minuet of Haydn’s Surprise Symphony, to gain a vivid idea of the younger composer’s superiority in rhythmic life. In the general construction of his works, moreover, Mozart is more skillful than Haydn. Haydn’s transitions from theme to theme are frequently conventional to a degree--passages of scales or arpeggios unrelated to the thematic material, and therefore mechanical in effect. Mozart, whose melodic fecundity was limitless, is much more apt to write new, subsidiary melodies for his transitions; and though such passages lacked the fine economy of Beethoven’s carefully wrought transitions, founded on the themes themselves, yet they were far more vital than Haydn’s empty formulas. When it came to the working out of the themes, in the “development section” of the sonata, Mozart again had Haydn at a disadvantage, owing to his greater contrapuntal technique, the result of early study, and to the superior native logic of his mind. Haydn’s development sections are apt to sound perfunctory; worked out more by rule of thumb than by spontaneous fancy, they hold together imperfectly, and seem fragmentary and artificial. Mozart’s are more fluent, more sequacious, and more inevitable. Mozart is thus in all respects a more subtle artist than Haydn.