Cui bono ! may have been the exclamation of some on reading the title of this paper. We already know, they might say, from Spitta, that Bach was considerably indebted to his predecessors; we are content to leave the study of their works to evolutionists and examiners. To any such I would make answer thus: In order fully to appreciate the works of a great composer you must know at least something of what those who preceded him accomplished; and the greater those predecessors, the greater one's admiration for the man who not only assimilated what was best in them, but who rose to higher eminence. Surely acquaintanceship with the best symphonic work of Haydn and Mozart intensifies one's appreciation of Beethoven's symphonies. To such argument it may, however, be opposed that Haydn and Mozart were geniuses; that though Beethoven surpassed them he did not cast them into oblivion, whereas Bach practically put an extinguisher on his predecessors. But for a long time Bach himself, just as much as his predecessors, was neglected, ignored by the majority of musicians. He was resuscitated in the nineteenth century by Nägeli, Wesley, Mendelssohn, and others; and various publications or reprints of early publications of the works of his predecessors (Sweelinck, Scheidt, Frescobaldi, Buxtehude) appear from time to time in Germany. The predecessors of Bach are as important in the history of the development of fugue, as Haydn and Mozart in that of the symphony.