A voluminous historian, at one time very popular, now seldom read. Born at Cassam, near Beccles, in Suffolk, about 1671. His first important work was “The Roman History, from the building of the City to the perfect settlement of the Empire by Augustus Cæsar,”—fourth edition published in 1699. In 1702 was published “A General Ecclesiastical History, from the Nativity of our blessed Saviour, to the establishment of Christianity by human laws, under the emperor Constantine the Great; containing the space of about 313 years; with so much of the Jewish and Roman history as is necessary and convenient to illustrate the work; to which is added a large Chronological Table of all the Roman and ecclesiastical affairs, included in the same period of time.” In 1707 Echard became prebendary of Lincoln, and chaplain to the bishop of that diocese, publishing in the same year the first part of his most widely known work, “The History of England, from the first entrance of Julius Cæsar and the Romans.” In 1712 Echard was installed archdeacon of Stowe, and in 1718 he published the second and third volumes of his history, bringing the work down to the Revolution. Echard published a number of other original works and translations, now forgotten. He died in 1730.

General

  “The Ecclesiastical History” of Mr. Laurence Echard is the best of its kind in the English tongue.

  King George hath given 300 libs. to Mr. Laurence Eachard, for his “History of England,” which is dedicated to king George. I suppose ’tis a most roguish, whiggish thing, much such as what Kennett writes. I have not read it. Such writers ought to be laid aside. Yet I hear that Dr. Prideaux, dean of Norwich, mightily commends this Eachard’s “Church History.” But Prideaux is a great whig himself, tho’ a good scholar. Indeed Eachard hath a good pen, but he does not look into, much less follow, original authors.

  The clearness of your method, and the perspicuity of your language, are two very great excellencies, which I admire. I am singularly pleased with the refreshing divisions of your matter, and the chronological distinction of the several parts of your history…. I neither admire many of the authors which you cite, nor your way of citing them: and I have some reason to think I am not singular in either. Many of the authors that are cited by you have so little credit in the world as to be far from giving sufficient warrant to justify your inserting things from them into an history that should give an account to posterity of past transactions. And your way of citing them is liable to very great objections.

  More distinguished as an historian than a poet.

  Laurence Echard, A.M., was a person of some estimation amongst his contemporaries, but who is little known to us.

  He was familiar with the powerful, was renowned as the chief historian of the time, and might well believe himself destined for immortality…. The fame of Echard, so imposing to his contemporaries, has long since passed away. He now neither awakens envy nor merits attention. He was, however, successful in carrying off the emoluments of literature…. But no one of Echard’s works rises above the level of a third-rate writer, or have found admirers among posterity.

  Echard’s “History,” though it gave rise to many adverse criticisms, retained its popularity until it was superseded by Tindal’s translation of Rapin. It is chiefly remarkable for the insertion of Captain Lindsey’s astonishing narrative concerning Cromwell’s interview with the devil on the morning of the battle of Worcester.