:This essay explores those in pre-modern Britain (chiefly the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) who were accused of corruption and yet denied their guilt and made defenses, disavowals, justifications, protests, vindications or at least sought to explain away, rationalize, or legitimize their behavior, both to themselves and to others. Six, sometimes overlapping, categories of rationales are identified. Focusing on the strategies and arguments used by the allegedly corrupt has both historical and philosophical value. Thinking about such cases helps both the state and its citizens to be as clear as possible about how to define integrity, and judge whether there was, or is, an intention to break, subvert, or manipulate moral codes. Thus it is not merely the legislator or the law court, but also the court of public opinion, that decides such matters; and debates about the acceptability of such defenses are an important part of a process of public debate about where society has drawn, or does now draw, ethical lines. There are degrees of corruption that need careful evaluation. Thinking about the past also raises interesting questions about whether corruption can be judged across time, culture, and space by a set of universal values. I argue that what appear to be universal values evolved over time as a result of particular cultural circumstances and contests over historical scandals. Contesting corruption allegations was an inherently political process: corruption is not just an economic issue but also a political and moral issue that demands contextualization. That process must include an understanding of national histories.

中文翻译：

---

解释前现代英国的腐败

：本文探讨了前现代英国（主要是 17 和 18 世纪）那些被指控腐败但否认有罪并进行辩护、否认、辩护、抗议、辩护或至少试图解释、合理化或使他们的行为合法化，无论是对自己还是对他人。确定了六种有时重叠的基本原理类别。关注涉嫌腐败者使用的策略和论点具有历史和哲学价值。思考此类案例有助于国家及其公民尽可能清楚地了解如何定义诚信，并判断是否存在或是否存在破坏、颠覆或操纵道德准则的意图。因此，它不仅是立法者或法庭，而且是舆论法庭，决定该等事宜；关于此类辩护的可接受性的辩论是关于社会在哪里划定或现在划定道德界限的公开辩论过程的重要组成部分。有些腐败程度需要仔细评估。对过去的思考也提出了一个有趣的问题，即是否可以通过一套普世价值来跨越时间、文化和空间来评判腐败。我认为，由于特定的文化环境和对历史丑闻的争论，看似普遍的价值观随着时间的推移而演变。对腐败指控进行抗辩本质上是一个政治过程：腐败不仅是一个经济问题，而且是一个需要背景化的政治和道德问题。这一过程必须包括对国家历史的理解。关于此类辩护的可接受性的辩论是关于社会在哪里划定或现在划定道德界限的公开辩论过程的重要组成部分。有些腐败程度需要仔细评估。对过去的思考也提出了一个有趣的问题，即是否可以通过一套普世价值来跨越时间、文化和空间来评判腐败。我认为，由于特定的文化环境和对历史丑闻的争论，看似普遍的价值观随着时间的推移而演变。对腐败指控进行抗辩本质上是一个政治过程：腐败不仅是一个经济问题，而且是一个需要背景化的政治和道德问题。这一过程必须包括对国家历史的理解。关于此类辩护的可接受性的辩论是关于社会在哪里划定或现在划定道德界限的公开辩论过程的重要组成部分。有些腐败程度需要仔细评估。对过去的思考也提出了一个有趣的问题，即是否可以通过一套普世价值来跨越时间、文化和空间来评判腐败。我认为，由于特定的文化环境和对历史丑闻的争论，看似普遍的价值观随着时间的推移而演变。对腐败指控进行抗辩本质上是一个政治过程：腐败不仅是一个经济问题，而且是一个需要背景化的政治和道德问题。这一过程必须包括对国家历史的理解。