All of these etchers whom we have to consider are, however, independent of Rembrandt and his influence. The Rembrandt school has been expressly excluded from the present monograph. For, interesting as some of those artists are, the first thought suggested by their work is that it recalls Rembrandt: the second thought, that it is not Rembrandt. It is their relation to their master that interests us rather than any intrinsic excellence of their own. Only the independent masters, therefore, are exhibited here; and from these groups of etchers several of the greatest names in Dutch art are absent. Frans Hals, Jan Steen, Vermeer of Delft, Hobbema, De Hooch--none of these, so far as we know, has left a single plate. Adriaen Brouwer etched a few; but they afford only the slightest indications of his genius. And Albert Cuyp, who is the author of half a dozen small etchings, showed in this line but little of his skill, and did not apparently pursue it farther. Yet the quantity of etched plates produced during this period in Holland is immense, and most of the best work was published within the same two or three decades. To take a single year, 1652, Potter’s studies of horses, a set of cattle by Berchem, several plates by Du Jardin, one of the finest pieces of Ostade, _La Fileuse_, appeared in it; while the year following saw the publication of Adriaen van de Velde’s largest etching, and Ruisdael’s _Three Oaks_ had been issued but three years earlier. Rembrandt’s _Tobit Blind_ is dated 1651, and the _Three Crosses_ 1653. This great fecundity has been necessarily a source of some embarrassment to the writer; and though a number of minor men have been omitted, several etchers have been included, whom for the sake of completeness it was necessary to give some account of, but whom it is hard to make interesting, and about whom enthusiasm is impossible. II Treating, as it does, of so considerable a number of masters, the present monograph aims at indicating, as far as space would allow, something of the relations between them, and at tracing the interdependence of the various schools. To have taken the etchers separately and considered their work apart, would have meant the compilation of a tediously crowded catalogue. But when once the masters are approached from the historical side, it is impossible to treat them simply as etchers. It is as painters that they influenced and were influenced. Consequently some account has had to be taken of them as painters. And since some who produced little, and that little not very remarkable, in etching, are yet of great significance as artists, it has been impossible to treat each man simply on his merits as an etcher. Hence, for instance, much more space has been devoted to Ruisdael than the quality or the amount of his work on copper strictly merits.