ROBERT HART AND GUSTAV DETRING 633 Service.But they nonetheless condemned the Customs Service as an imperialist institution and argued that Hart served British and not Chinese interests. In contrast,Stanley Wright argued that Hart was able to build the Customs Service into a cosmopolitan bureaucracy dedicated to the modernization of China.9 He emphasized that the Service frequently acted on behalf of the Qing,including during diplomatic negotiations, and dampened the effects of imperialism.John Fairbank saw Hart as a paragon of what he called synarchy,that is,the joint rule of Western and Chinese officials of China's Treaty ports with the historical task of bringing modernity to China.10 In his contribution to this collection of essays,Richard O'Leary makes clear that Hart's Irishness makes it difficult to see him as simply British and that Hart held to multiple and overlapping identities. In examining Hart's role as a man in the middle at a time least tolerant of multiple loyalties and compromise,I seek to suggest that Hart occupied a nodal point in a network of transnational elites that emerged during the nineteenth century as commercial exchange intensified and international contacts broadened.This network tied together leading diplomats,merchants,bankers,journalists,and academics.In the West,it had bases in foreign ministries,banks, stock exchanges,periodicals,institutions of learning,and museums. In China,the Zongli Yamen (the Qing bureaucracy in charge of managing Qing relations with most foreign countries),the Customs Service itself,provincial and local governments,and Treaty Port institutions such as municipal councils were significant.But personal relations,sometimes maintained over many years and sometimes of a more ad hoc nature,were also important. What I hope to add to Fairbank's concept of synarchy,which already drew attention,in perhaps too sanguine a way,to the element of cooperation and collaboration in Sino-British relations,is first of all the suggestion that this network had a multinational character and was broadly based,even if Britain and its Foreign Office played a crucial role.Furthermore,divergent financial interests,personal animosities,and connections to home countries following radically still cannot be called definitive as it omits enclosures to the correspondence.A number of letters also appear to be missing. Wright,Hart. John Fairbank,Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (Cambridge,Mass:Harvard University Press,1964),462-8.ROBERT HART AND GUSTAV DETRING 633 Service. But they nonetheless condemned the Customs Service as an imperialist institution and argued that Hart served British and not Chinese interests. In contrast, Stanley Wright argued that Hart was able to build the Customs Service into a cosmopolitan bureaucracy dedicated to the modernization of China.9 He emphasized that the Service frequently acted on behalf of the Qing, including during diplomatic negotiations, and dampened the effects of imperialism. John Fairbank saw Hart as a paragon of what he called synarchy, that is, the joint rule of Western and Chinese officials of China’s Treaty ports with the historical task of bringing modernity to China.10 In his contribution to this collection of essays, Richard O’Leary makes clear that Hart’s Irishness makes it difficult to see him as simply British and that Hart held to multiple and overlapping identities. In examining Hart’s role as a man in the middle at a time least tolerant of multiple loyalties and compromise, I seek to suggest that Hart occupied a nodal point in a network of transnational elites that emerged during the nineteenth century as commercial exchange intensified and international contacts broadened. This network tied together leading diplomats, merchants, bankers, journalists, and academics. In the West, it had bases in foreign ministries, banks, stock exchanges, periodicals, institutions of learning, and museums. In China, the Zongli Yamen (the Qing bureaucracy in charge of managing Qing relations with most foreign countries), the Customs Service itself, provincial and local governments, and Treaty Port institutions such as municipal councils were significant. But personal relations, sometimes maintained over many years and sometimes of a more ad hoc nature, were also important. What I hope to add to Fairbank’s concept of synarchy, which already drew attention, in perhaps too sanguine a way, to the element of cooperation and collaboration in Sino-British relations, is first of all the suggestion that this network had a multinational character and was broadly based, even if Britain and its Foreign Office played a crucial role. Furthermore, divergent financial interests, personal animosities, and connections to home countries following radically still cannot be called definitive as it omits enclosures to the correspondence. A number of letters also appear to be missing. 9 Wright, Hart. 10 John Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1964), 462–8