Global Traffic 2008
DOI: 10.1057/9780230611818_12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

“Mysteries of Commerce”1: Influence, Licensing, Censorship, and the Literature of Long-Distance Travel

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In his account, Fletcher portrayed Russia as a vicious cycle of tyranny and oppression that ultimately served only to favour the Emperor's treasury and to damage the poor, leaving the commons suffering under multiple layers of injustice. Berry, Pipes, Schmidt, Lindsay and Day have argued cogently that the suppression of the account was due to the complaints of the Muscovy Company, who claimed that Fletcher's text was so offensive to the Russians that it would discredit the Company in Russia and adversely effect the success of the Muscovy trade (Berry 150–4, Fletcher 18–19, Fletcher xxiv–xxvi, Lindsay 312–27, Day 221–43). There were further reasons why Fletcher's text may have been deemed controversial, in particular its consideration of tyranny in government and resistance to a tyrant, the injustices of monopolies and a harsh critique of popery – all politically charged points of discussion in the late Elizabethan regime (Stout, Strange and Wonderfull 153–63).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In his account, Fletcher portrayed Russia as a vicious cycle of tyranny and oppression that ultimately served only to favour the Emperor's treasury and to damage the poor, leaving the commons suffering under multiple layers of injustice. Berry, Pipes, Schmidt, Lindsay and Day have argued cogently that the suppression of the account was due to the complaints of the Muscovy Company, who claimed that Fletcher's text was so offensive to the Russians that it would discredit the Company in Russia and adversely effect the success of the Muscovy trade (Berry 150–4, Fletcher 18–19, Fletcher xxiv–xxvi, Lindsay 312–27, Day 221–43). There were further reasons why Fletcher's text may have been deemed controversial, in particular its consideration of tyranny in government and resistance to a tyrant, the injustices of monopolies and a harsh critique of popery – all politically charged points of discussion in the late Elizabethan regime (Stout, Strange and Wonderfull 153–63).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%