Part of a series onScience
Essence
History
Literature
Method
Philosophy

Branches
Formal
Natural
Physical
Life
Social
Interdisciplinary
Applied

Society
Education
Funding
Pseudoscience
Policy
Sociology

Outline
Portal
Categoryvt

Complex systems
Topics
EmergenceEmergence

Self-organizationCollective consciousness

Collective behaviourSocial dynamics

Collective intelligence

Collective action

Self-organized criticality

Herd mentality

Phase transition

Agent-based modelling

Synchronization

Ant colony optimization

Particle swarm optimization

Swarm behaviour

NetworksScale-free networks

Social network analysis

Small-world networks

Community identification

Centrality

Motifs

Graph Theory

Scaling

Robustness

Systems biology

Dynamic networks

Adaptive networks
Evolution and adaptationArtificial neural networks

Evolutionary computation

Genetic algorithms

Genetic programming

Artificial life

Machine learning

Evolutionary developmental biology

Artificial intelligence

Evolutionary robotics

Evolvability
Pattern formationSpatial fractals

Reaction-diffusion systems

Partial differential equations

Dissipative structures

Percolation

Cellular automata

Spatial ecology

Self-replication

Spatial evolutionary biology

Geomorphology
Systems theoryHomeostasis

Operationalization

Feedback

Self-reference

Goal-oriented

System dynamics

Sensemaking

Entropy

Cybernetics

Autopoiesis

Information theory

Computation theory

Complexity measurement
Nonlinear dynamicsTime series analysis

Ordinary differential equations

Iterative maps

Phase space

Attractors

Stability analysis

Population dynamics

Chaos

Multistability

Bifurcation

Coupled map lattices
Game theoryPrisoner's dilemma

Rational choice theory

Bounded rationality

Irrational behaviour

Evolutionary game theory
vt

Marketing operations
Key concepts
Benchmarking
Best practices
Budgeting
Business intelligence
Business process
Change management
Chief Marketing Officer (CMO)
Customer intelligence
Customer lifecycle management
Customer lifetime value
Data quality
Data warehouses
Database marketing
Demand generation
Digital asset management
Flowchart
Infrastructure
Lead generation
Marketing accountability
Marketing automation
Marketing effectiveness
Organization development
Post-merger integration
Predictive analytics
Predictive modelling
Process optimization
Return on marketing investment
Strategic planning
Systems theoryvt
Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems. A system is a cohesive conglomeration of interrelated and interdependent parts that is either natural or man-made. Every system is delineated by its spatial and temporal boundaries, surrounded and influenced by its environment, described by its structure and purpose or nature and expressed in its functioning. In terms of its effects, a system can be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior. Changing one part of the system usually affects other parts and the whole system, with predictable patterns of behavior. For systems that are self-learning and self-adapting, the positive growth and adaptation depend upon how well the system is adjusted with its environment. Some systems function mainly to support other systems by aiding in the maintenance of the other system to prevent failure. The goal of systems theory is systematically discovering a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions and elucidating principles (purpose, measure, methods, tools, etc.) that can be discerned and applied to systems at every level of nesting, and in every field for achieving optimized equifinality.[1]
General systems theory is about broadly applicable concepts and principles, as opposed to concepts and principles applicable to one domain of knowledge. It distinguishes dynamic or active systems from static or passive systems. Active systems are activity structures or components that interact in behaviours and processes. Passive systems are structures and components that are being processed. E.g. a program is passive when it is a disc file and active when it runs in memory.[2] The field is related to systems thinking and systems engineering.
Key concepts
System: An organized entity made up of interrelated and interdependent parts.
Boundaries: Barriers that define a system and distinguish it from other systems in the environment.
Homeostasis: The tendency of a system to be resilient towards external factors and maintain its key characteristics.
Adaptation: The tendency of a self-adapting system to make the internal changes needed to protect itself and keep fulfilling its purpose.
Reciprocal Transactions: Circular or cyclical interactions that systems engage in such that they influence one another.
Feedback Loop: The process by which systems self-correct based on reactions from other systems in the environment.
Throughput: Rate of energy transfer between the system and its environment during the time it is functioning.
Microsystem: The system closest to the client.
Mesosystem: Relationships among the systems in an environment.
Exosystem: A relationship between two systems that has an indirect effect on a third system.
Macrosystem: A larger system that influences clients, such as policies, administration of entitlement programs, and culture.
Chronosystem: A system composed of significant life events that can affect adaptation.
Origin of the term
The term "general systems theory" originates from Bertalanffy's general systems theory (GST). His ideas were adopted by others including Kenneth E. Boulding, William Ross Ashby and Anatol Rapoport working in mathematics, psychology, biology, game theory and social network analysis.
Sociological systems thinking started earlier, in the 19th century.  Stichweh states:[3] "... Since its beginnings the social sciences were an important part of the establishment of systems theory... the two most influential suggestions were the comprehensive sociological versions of systems theory which were proposed by Talcott Parsons since the 1950s and by Niklas Luhmann since the 1970s." References include Parsons' action theory[4] and Luhmann's social systems theory.[5]
Overview
Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diverse areas, exemplified by the work of biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, linguist Béla H. Bánáthy, sociologist Talcott Parsons, ecological systems with Howard T. Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritjof Capra, organizational theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge, interdisciplinary study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of Richard A. Swanson, and insights from educators such as Debora Hammond and Alfonso Montuori. As a transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and multiperspectival domain, the area brings together principles and concepts from ontology, philosophy of science, physics, computer science, biology and engineering as well as geography, sociology, political science, psychotherapy (within family systems therapy) and economics among others. Systems theory thus serves as a bridge for interdisciplinary dialogue between autonomous areas of study as well as within the area of systems science itself.
In this respect, with the possibility of misinterpretations, von Bertalanffy[6] believed a general theory of systems "should be an important regulative device in science", to guard against superficial analogies that "are useless in science and harmful in their practical consequences". Others remain closer to the direct systems concepts developed by the original theorists. For example, Ilya Prigogine, of the Center for Complex Quantum Systems at the University of Texas, Austin, has studied emergent properties, suggesting that they offer analogues for living systems. The theories of autopoiesis of Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana represent further developments in this field. Important names in contemporary systems science include Russell Ackoff, Ruzena Bajcsy, Béla H. Bánáthy, Gregory Bateson, Anthony Stafford Beer, Peter Checkland, Barbara Grosz, Brian Wilson, Robert L. Flood, Allenna Leonard, Radhika Nagpal, Fritjof Capra, Warren McCulloch, Kathleen Carley, Michael C. Jackson, Katia Sycara, and Edgar Morin among others.
With the modern foundations for a general theory of systems following World War I, Ervin Laszlo, in the preface for Bertalanffy's book: Perspectives on General System Theory, points out that the translation of "general system theory" from German into English has "wrought a certain amount of havoc":[7]
It (General System Theory) was criticized as pseudoscience and said to be nothing more than an admonishment to attend to things in a holistic way. Such criticisms would have lost their point had it been recognized that von Bertalanffy's general system theory is a perspective or paradigm, and that such basic conceptual frameworks play a key role in the development of exact scientific theory. .. Allgemeine Systemtheorie is not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on 'general system theory,' to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories.[8]
 "Theorie" (or "Lehre"), just as "Wissenschaft" (translated Scholarship), "has a much broader meaning in German than the closest English words 'theory' and 'science'".[7] These ideas refer to an organized body of knowledge and "any systematically presented set of concepts, whether empirically, axiomatically, or philosophically" represented, while many associate "Lehre" with theory and science in the etymology of general systems, though it also does not translate from the German very well; its "closest equivalent" translates as "teaching", but "sounds dogmatic and off the mark".[7]  While the idea of a "general systems theory" might have lost many of its root meanings in the translation, by defining a new way of thinking about science and scientific paradigms, Systems theory became a widespread term used for instance to describe the interdependence of relationships created in organizations.
A system in this frame of reference can contain regularly interacting or interrelating groups of activities. For example, in noting the influence in organizational psychology as the field evolved from "an individually oriented industrial psychology to a systems and developmentally oriented organizational psychology", some theorists recognize that organizations have complex social systems; separating the parts from the whole reduces the overall effectiveness of organizations.[9] This difference, from conventional models that center on individuals, structures, departments and units, separates in part from the whole, instead of recognizing the interdependence between groups of individuals, structures and processes that enable an organization to function. Laszlo[10] explains that the new systems view of organized complexity went "one step beyond the Newtonian view of organized simplicity" which reduced the parts from the whole, or understood the whole without relation to the parts. The relationship between organisations and their environments can be seen as the foremost source of complexity and interdependence. In most cases, the whole has properties that cannot be known from analysis of the constituent elements in isolation. Béla H. Bánáthy, who argued—along with the founders of the systems society—that "the benefit of humankind" is the purpose of science, has made significant and far-reaching contributions to the area of systems theory. For the Primer Group at ISSS, Bánáthy defines a perspective that iterates this view:[11]
The systems view is a world-view that is based on the discipline of SYSTEM INQUIRY. Central to systems inquiry is the concept of SYSTEM. In the most general sense, system means a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. The Primer Group defines system as a family of relationships among the members acting as a whole. Von Bertalanffy defined system as "elements in standing relationship."

Similar ideas are found in learning theories that developed from the same fundamental concepts, emphasising how understanding results from knowing concepts both in part and as a whole. In fact, Bertalanffy's organismic psychology paralleled the learning theory of Jean Piaget.[12] Some consider interdisciplinary perspectives critical in breaking away from industrial age models and thinking, wherein history represents history and math represents math, while the arts and sciences specialization remain separate and many treat teaching as behaviorist conditioning.[13] The contemporary work of Peter Senge[14] provides detailed discussion of the commonplace critique of educational systems grounded in conventional assumptions about learning, including the problems with fragmented knowledge and lack of holistic learning from the "machine-age thinking" that became a "model of school separated from daily life". In this way some systems theorists attempt to provide alternatives to, and evolved ideation from orthodox theories which have grounds in classical assumptions, including individuals such as Max Weber and Émile Durkheim in sociology and Frederick Winslow Taylor in scientific management.[15] The theorists sought holistic methods by developing systems concepts that could integrate with different areas.
Some may view the contradiction of reductionism in conventional theory (which has as its subject a single part) as simply an example of changing assumptions. The emphasis with systems theory shifts from parts to the organization of parts, recognizing interactions of the parts as not static and constant but dynamic processes. Some questioned the conventional closed systems with the development of open systems perspectives. The shift originated from absolute and universal authoritative principles and knowledge to relative and general conceptual and perceptual knowledge[16] and still remains in the tradition of theorists that sought to provide means to organize human life. In other words, theorists rethought the preceding history of ideas; they did not lose them. Mechanistic thinking was particularly critiqued, especially the industrial-age mechanistic metaphor for the mind from interpretations of Newtonian mechanics by Enlightenment philosophers and later psychologists that laid the foundations of modern organizational theory and management by the late 19th century.[17]
Examples of applications
System dynamics

System dynamics is an approach to understanding the nonlinear behaviour of complex systems over time using stocks, flows, internal feedback loops, and time delays.[18]
Systems biology

Systems biology is a movement that draws on several trends in bioscience research. Proponents describe systems biology as a biology-based inter-disciplinary study field that focuses on complex interactions in biological systems, claiming that it uses a new perspective (holism instead of reduction). Particularly from the year 2000 onwards, the biosciences use the term widely and in a variety of contexts. An often stated ambition of systems biology is the modelling and discovery of emergent properties which represents properties of a system whose theoretical description requires the only possible useful techniques to fall under the remit of systems biology. It is thought that Ludwig von Bertalanffy may have created the term systems biology in 1928.[19]
Systems ecology

Systems ecology is an interdisciplinary field of ecology, a subset of Earth system science, that takes a holistic approach to the study of ecological systems, especially ecosystems.[20][21][22] Systems ecology can be seen as an application of general systems theory to ecology. Central to the systems ecology approach is the idea that an ecosystem is a complex system exhibiting emergent properties. Systems ecology focuses on interactions and transactions within and between biological and ecological systems, and is especially concerned with the way the functioning of ecosystems can be influenced by human interventions. It uses and extends concepts from thermodynamics and develops other macroscopic descriptions of complex systems.
Systems engineering

Systems engineering is an interdisciplinary approach and means for enabling the realisation and deployment of successful systems. It can be viewed as the application of engineering techniques to the engineering of systems, as well as the application of a systems approach to engineering efforts.[23] Systems engineering integrates other disciplines and specialty groups into a team effort, forming a structured development process that proceeds from concept to production to operation and disposal. Systems engineering considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers, with the goal of providing a quality product that meets the user's needs.[24][25]
Systems psychology

Systems psychology is a branch of psychology that studies human behaviour and experience in complex systems. It received inspiration from systems theory and systems thinking, as well as the basics of theoretical work from Roger Barker, Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana and others. It makes an approach in psychology in which groups and individuals receive consideration as systems in homeostasis. Systems psychology "includes the domain of engineering psychology, but in addition seems more concerned with societal systems and with the study of motivational, affective, cognitive and group behavior that holds the name engineering psychology."[26] In systems psychology, "characteristics of organizational behaviour, for example individual needs, rewards, expectations, and attributes of the people interacting with the systems, considers this process in order to create an effective system".[27]
History

Whether considering the first systems of written communication with Sumerian cuneiform to Mayan numerals, or the feats of engineering with the Egyptian pyramids, systems thinking can date back to antiquity. Differentiated from Western rationalist traditions of philosophy, C. West Churchman often identified with the I Ching as a systems approach sharing a frame of reference similar to pre-Socratic philosophy and Heraclitus.[29] Von Bertalanffy traced systems concepts to the philosophy of G.W. Leibniz and Nicholas of Cusa's coincidentia oppositorum. While modern systems can seem considerably more complicated, today's systems may embed themselves in history.
Figures like James Joule and Sadi Carnot represent an important step to introduce the systems approach into the (rationalist) hard sciences of the 19th century, also known as the energy transformation. Then, the thermodynamics of this century, by Rudolf Clausius, Josiah Gibbs and others, established the system reference model as a formal scientific object.
The Society for General Systems Research specifically catalyzed systems theory as an area of study, which developed following the World Wars from the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Anatol Rapoport, Kenneth E. Boulding, William Ross Ashby, Margaret Mead, Gregory Bateson, C. West Churchman and others in the 1950s, had specifically catalyzed by collaboration in. Cognizant of advances in science that questioned classical assumptions in the organizational sciences, Bertalanffy's idea to develop a theory of systems began as early as the interwar period, publishing "An Outline for General Systems Theory" in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol 1, No. 2, by 1950. Where assumptions in Western science from Greek thought with Plato and Aristotle to Newton's Principia have historically influenced all areas from the hard to social sciences (see David Easton's seminal development of the "political system" as an analytical construct), the original theorists explored the implications of twentieth century advances in terms of systems.
People have studied subjects like complexity, self-organization, connectionism and adaptive systems in the 1940s and 1950s. In fields like cybernetics, researchers such as Norbert Wiener, William Ross Ashby, John von Neumann and Heinz von Foerster, examined complex systems mathematically. John von Neumann discovered cellular automata and self-reproducing systems, again with only pencil and paper. Aleksandr Lyapunov and Jules Henri Poincaré worked on the foundations of chaos theory without any computer at all. At the same time Howard T. Odum, known as a radiation ecologist, recognized that the study of general systems required a language that could depict energetics, thermodynamics and kinetics at any system scale. Odum developed a general system, or universal language, based on the circuit language of electronics, to fulfill this role, known as the Energy Systems Language. Between 1929-1951, Robert Maynard Hutchins at the University of Chicago had undertaken efforts to encourage innovation and interdisciplinary research in the social sciences, aided by the Ford Foundation with the interdisciplinary Division of the Social Sciences established in 1931.[30] Numerous scholars had actively engaged in these ideas before (Tectology by Alexander Bogdanov, published in 1912-1917, is a remarkable example), but in 1937, von Bertalanffy presented the general theory of systems at a conference at the University of Chicago.
The systems view was based on several fundamental ideas. First, all phenomena can be viewed as a web of relationships among elements, or a system. Second, all systems, whether electrical, biological, or social, have common patterns, behaviors, and properties that the observer can analyze and use to develop greater insight into the behavior of complex phenomena and to move closer toward a unity of the sciences. System philosophy, methodology and application are complementary to this science.[7] By 1956, theorists established the Society for General Systems Research, which they renamed the International Society for Systems Science in 1988. The Cold War affected the research project for systems theory in ways that sorely disappointed many of the seminal theorists. Some began to recognize that theories defined in association with systems theory had deviated from the initial General Systems Theory (GST) view.[31] The economist Kenneth Boulding, an early researcher in systems theory, had concerns over the manipulation of systems concepts. Boulding concluded from the effects of the Cold War that abuses of power always prove consequential and that systems theory might address such issues.[32] Since the end of the Cold War, a renewed interest in systems theory emerged, combined with efforts to strengthen an ethical[33] view on the subject.
Developments
General systems research and systems inquiry
Many early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields of science. The term goes back to Bertalanffy's book titled "General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications" from 1968.[12] He developed the "allgemeine Systemlehre" (general systems theory) first via lectures beginning in 1937 and then via publications beginning in 1946.[34]
Von Bertalanffy's objective was to bring together under one heading the organismic science he had observed in his work as a biologist. His desire was to use the word system for those principles that are common to systems in general. In GST, he writes:
...there exist models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, the nature of their component elements, and the relationships or "forces" between them. It seems legitimate to ask for a theory, not of systems of a more or less special kind, but of universal principles applying to systems in general.—Von Bertalanffy[35]

Ervin Laszlo[36] in the preface of von Bertalanffy's book Perspectives on General System Theory:[37]
Thus when von Bertalanffy spoke of Allgemeine Systemtheorie it was consistent with his view that he was proposing a new perspective, a new way of doing science. It was not directly consistent with an interpretation often put on "general system theory", to wit, that it is a (scientific) "theory of general systems." To criticize it as such is to shoot at straw men. Von Bertalanffy opened up something much broader and of much greater significance than a single theory (which, as we now know, can always be falsified and has usually an ephemeral existence): he created a new paradigm for the development of theories.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy outlines systems inquiry into three major domains: Philosophy, Science, and Technology. In his work with the Primer Group, Béla H. Bánáthy generalized the domains into four integratable domains of systemic inquiry:

These operate in a recursive relationship, he explained. Integrating Philosophy and Theory as Knowledge, and Method and Application as action, Systems Inquiry then is knowledgeable action.[38]
Cybernetics

Cybernetics is the study of the communication and control of regulatory feedback both in living and lifeless systems (organisms, organizations, machines), and in combinations of those. Its focus is how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) controls its behavior, processes information, reacts to information, and changes or can be changed to better accomplish those three primary tasks.
The terms "systems theory" and "cybernetics" have been widely used as synonyms. Some authors use the term cybernetic systems to denote a proper subset of the class of general systems, namely those systems that include feedback loops. However Gordon Pask's differences of eternal interacting actor loops (that produce finite products) makes general systems a proper subset of cybernetics. According to Jackson (2000), von Bertalanffy promoted an embryonic form of general system theory (GST) as early as the 1920s and 1930s but it was not until the early 1950s it became more widely known in scientific circles.
Threads of cybernetics began in the late 1800s that led toward the publishing of seminal works (e.g., Wiener's Cybernetics in 1948 and von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory in 1968). Cybernetics arose more from engineering fields and GST from biology. If anything it appears that although the two probably mutually influenced each other, cybernetics had the greater influence. Von Bertalanffy (1969) specifically makes the point of distinguishing between the areas in noting the influence of cybernetics: "Systems theory is frequently identified with cybernetics and control theory. This again is incorrect. Cybernetics as the theory of control mechanisms in technology and nature is founded on the concepts of information and feedback, but as part of a general theory of systems;" then reiterates: "the model is of wide application but should not be identified with 'systems theory' in general", and that "warning is necessary against its incautious expansion to fields for which its concepts are not made." (17-23). Jackson (2000) also claims von Bertalanffy was informed by Alexander Bogdanov's three volume Tectology that was published in Russia between 1912 and 1917, and was translated into German in 1928. He also states it is clear to Gorelik (1975) that the "conceptual part" of general system theory (GST) had first been put in place by Bogdanov. The similar position is held by Mattessich (1978) and Capra (1996). Ludwig von Bertalanffy never even mentioned Bogdanov in his works, which Capra (1996) finds "surprising".
Cybernetics, catastrophe theory, chaos theory and complexity theory have the common goal to explain complex systems that consist of a large number of mutually interacting and interrelated parts in terms of those interactions. Cellular automata (CA), neural networks (NN), artificial intelligence (AI), and artificial life (ALife) are related fields, but they do not try to describe general (universal) complex (singular) systems. The best context to compare the different "C"-Theories about complex systems is historical, which emphasizes different tools and methodologies, from pure mathematics in the beginning to pure computer science now. Since the beginning of chaos theory when Edward Lorenz accidentally discovered a strange attractor with his computer, computers have become an indispensable source of information. One could not imagine the study of complex systems without the use of computers today.
Complex adaptive systems

Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are special cases of complex systems. They are complex in that they are diverse and composed of multiple, interconnected elements; they are adaptive in that they have the capacity to change and learn from experience. In contrast to control systems in which negative feedback dampens and reverses disequilibria, CAS are often subject to positive feedback, which magnifies and perpetuates changes, converting local irregularities into global features. Another mechanism, Dual-phase evolution arises when connections between elements repeatedly change, shifting the system between phases of variation and selection that reshape the system. Differently from Beer Management Cybernetics, Cultural Agency Theory (CAT) provides a modelling approach to explore predefined contexts and can be adapted to reflect those contexts.
The term complex adaptive system was coined at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute (SFI), by John H. Holland, Murray Gell-Mann and others. An alternative conception of complex adaptive (and learning) systems, methodologically at the interface between natural and social science, has been presented by Kristo Ivanov in terms of hypersystems. This concept intends to offer a theoretical basis for understanding and implementing participation of "users", decisions makers, designers and affected actors, in the development or maintenance of self-learning systems.[39]
See also

List of types of systems theory
Pattern language
Autonomous agency theory
Bibliography of sociology
Dynamical systems
Emergence
Engaged theory
Glossary of systems theory
Grey box model
Meta-systems
Multidimensional systems
Open and closed systems in social science
Social rule system theory
Sociotechnical system
Sociology and complexity science
Structure–organization–process
Systemantics
System identification
Systematics – study of multi-term systems
Systemics
Systemography
Systems architecture
Systems ecology
Systems theory in anthropology
Systems theory in archaeology
Systems theory in political science
Systems science
User-in-the-loop
Viable system theory
Viable systems approach
World-systems theory

Further reading
William Ross Ashby (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall.
William Ross Ashby (1960). Design for a Brain: The Origin of Adaptive Behavior - 2nd Edition. Chapman & Hall.
Gregory Bateson (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications New York: George Braziller
Arthur Burks (1970). Essays on Cellular Automata. University of Illinois Press.
Colin Cherry (1957). On Human Communication: A Review, a Survey, and a Criticism. The MIT Press.
C. West Churchman (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Peter Checkland (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective. Wiley.
James Gleick (1997). Chaos: Making a New Science, Random House.
Hermann Haken (1983). Synergetics: An Introduction - 3rd Edition, Springer.
John H. Holland (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, The MIT Press.
Niklas Luhmann (2013). Introduction to Systems Theory, Polity.
Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Springer Science & Business Media.
James Grier Miller (1978). Living Systems. Mcgraw-Hill.
John von Neumann (1951) "The General and Logical Theory of Automata." Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior, 1-41.
John von Neumann (1956) "Probabilistic Logics and the Synthesis of Reliable Organisms from Unreliable Components." Automata Studies, 34, 43-98.
John von Neumann and Arthur Burks (editor) (1966). Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. Illinois University Press.
Talcott Parsons (1951). The Social System. The Free Press.
Ilya Prigogine (1980). From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. W H Freeman & Co.
Herbert A. Simon (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial - 3rd Edition. Vol. 136 The MIT Press.
Herbert A. Simon (1962). "The Architecture of Complexity." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 106.
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1971). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press.
René Thom (1972). Structural Stability and Morphogenesis: An Outline of a General Theory of Models. Reading, Massachusetts.
Warren Weaver (1948) "Science and Complexity." The American Scientist. 536-544.
Norbert Wiener (1965). Cybernetics, Second Edition: or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Lofti Zadeh (1962). "From Circuit Theory to System Theory." Proceedings of the IRE, 50(5), 856-865.

 at Principia Cybernetica Web
Organizations


The Hindi–Urdu controversy is an ongoing dispute—dating back to the 19th century—regarding the status of Hindi and Urdu as a single language, Hindustani (lit "of Hindustan"), or as two dialects of a single language, and the establishment of a single standard language in certain areas of North India. Although this debate was officially settled in India by a government order in 1950, declaring Hindi as the official language, some resistance remains. The present notion among some Muslims about this dispute is that Hindus abandoned the Urdu language, whereas some Hindus claim that Urdu was artificially created during Muslim rule.[2]
Hindi is a literary register of the Hindustani language, derived from the Khariboli dialect of the Hindi languages. A Persianized variant of Hindustani began to take shape during the Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526 AD) and Mughal Empire (1526–1858 AD) in South Asia.[3] Urdu, along with English, became the first official language of British India in 1850.[4][5] Urdu was being written, spoken and translated to and from English in all courts, schools, official documents, and government institutes. Although the need to have a language for Hindus developed in the 1850s, the irrevocable momentum of the Hindi language movement occurred around 1880. Urdu is a name derived from the Turkic word ordu (army) or orda. When the Turco-Persian Mughals who invaded the Indian subcontinent made camps, the colloquial Persian spoken by the soldiers, known as the "language of the camp", or "Zaban-i-Ordu", became gradually more and more Indianised, as they themselves settled and married into the local communities, until the dialect they spoke was readily intelligible to the native Hindu population.
The last few decades of the nineteenth century witnessed the eruption of the Hindi–Urdu controversy in the United Provinces (present-day Uttar Pradesh, then known as "the North-Western Provinces and Oudh"). The controversy comprised "Hindi" and "Urdu" protagonists each advocating the official use of Hindustani with the Devanagari script or with the Nastaʿlīq script, respectively. Hindi movements advocating the growth of and official status for Devanagari were established in Northern India. Babu Shiva Prasad and Madan Mohan Malaviya were notable early proponents of this movement. This, consequently, led to the development of Urdu movements defending Urdu's official status; Syed Ahmed Khan was one of its noted advocates.
In 1900, the government issued a decree granting symbolic equal status to both Hindi and Urdu, which was opposed by Muslims and received with jubilation by Hindus. Hindi and Urdu started to diverge linguistically, with Hindi drawing on Sanskrit as the primary source for formal and academic vocabulary, often with a conscious attempt to purge the language of Persian-derived equivalents. Deploring this Hindu-Muslim divide, Gandhi proposed re-merging the standards, using either Devanagari or Urdu script, under the traditional generic term Hindustani. Bolstered by the support of the Indian National Congress and various leaders involved in the Indian Independence Movement, Hindi, in the Devanagari script, along with English, replaced Urdu as the official language of India during the institution of the Indian constitution in 1950.
Background
The main cause of this divide may be attributed to the aspirations of both communities (Hindu and Muslim) to spread their cultural views, which became open contention during Indian independence. Muslims have mostly looked towards their Muslim Ummah for cultural inspiration whereas Hindus generally get inspiration from the ancient cultures such as that of the Vedic. During the rule of Muslims in the subcontinent, often having been Turkic and Afghan, a number of people who converted to Islam readily adopted aspects of the culture of the Turko-Afghan conquerors and rulers brought with them. Persian at that time was considered a prestigious and important language in many parts of Islamic world like Central Asia, which they thus brought with them. The founders of Islamic rule in India were from different ethnic backgrounds viz. Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, etc. and all of them used Persian as their lingua franca and court language. In general, from its earliest days foreign Muslim culture was imported and patronised in the subcontinent by Turks and Afghans, laying the firm basis for what would, eventually, develop further under the Mughals.[6] Hindus considered these things as an alien culture. With the passage of time things like Sanskrit language, Dhoti, Ayurveda etc. came to be associated with Hindus, and Arabic, Persian, Chaghatai, Yunani medicine with Muslims.[7] There also came to be differences in the cuisine and culture of two communities.
As the Muslim rule spread in the northern subcontinent, Hindustani interacted with various vernaculars and introduced Persian and Arabic words into local languages and absorbed local vocabulary, and over a period of time developed into a distinct spoken language. Urdu in the Persian script became the language of the courts of Muslim rulers during the eighteenth century. It developed from the Khariboli dialect of the Delhi area with an infusion of words from Arabic and Persian. The modern vocabulary is derived from Persian, Arabic and Sanskrit, together with Prakrit.[8]  Hindi also developed from Khariboli, albeit with the assimilation of words from local languages and Sanskrit, and a smaller component of Arabic and Persian words.
Several factors contributed to the increasing divergence of Hindi and Urdu. The Muslim rulers chose to write Hindustani in Perso-Arabic script instead of Devanagari script. In time, Hindustani written in Perso-Arabic script also became a literary language with an increasing body of literature written in the 18th and 19th century. A division developed gradually between Hindus who chose to write Hindustani in Devanagari script and Muslims and some Hindus who chose to write the same in Urdu script. The development of Hindi movements in the late nineteenth century further contributed to this divergence.[9]
Sumit Sarkar notes that in the 18th and the bulk of the 19th century, "Urdu had been the language of polite culture over a big part of north India, for Hindus quite as much as Muslims". For the decade of 1881-90, Sarkar gives figures which showed that the circulation of Urdu newspapers was twice that of Hindi newspapers and there were 55% more Urdu books as Hindi books. He gives the example of the author Premchand who wrote mainly in Urdu till 1915, until he found it difficult to publish in the language.[10]

Professor Paul R. Brass notes in his book, Language, Religion and Politics in North India, The Hindi-Urdu controversy by its very bitterness demonstrates how little the objective similarities between language groups matter when people attach subjective significance to their languages. Willingness to communicate through the same language is quite a different thing from the mere ability to communicate.[9]

Controversy
British language policy

In 1837, the British East India company replaced Persian with local vernacular in various provinces as the official language of government offices and of the lower courts. However, in the northern regions of the Indian subcontinent, Urdu in Urdu script was chosen as the replacement for Persian, rather than Hindi in the Devanagari script.[9][11] This was done despite the fact that the great majority of people in the northern plains of India were Hindu with an affinity for Hindi and for the Devanagri script. Why exactly this decision was taken is unclear.
The most immediate reason for the controversy is believed to be the contradictory language policy in North India in the 1860s. Although the then government encouraged both Hindi and Urdu as a medium of education in school, it discouraged Hindi or Nagari script for official purposes. This policy gave rise to conflict between students educated in Hindi or Urdu for the competition of government jobs, which eventually took on a communal form.[12]
Hindi and Urdu movements

In 1867, some Hindus in the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh during the British Raj in India began to demand that Hindi be made an official language in place of Urdu.[13]  Babu Shiva Prasad of Banares was one of the early proponents of the Nagari script. In a Memorandum on court characters written in 1868, he accused the early Muslim rulers of India for forcing them to learn Persian. In 1897, Madan Mohan Malaviya published a collection of documents and statements titled Court character and primary education in North Western Provinces and Oudh, in which, he made a compelling case for Hindi.[12][14]
Several Hindi movements were formed in the late 19th and early 20th century; notable among them were Nagari Pracharini Sabha formed in Banaras in 1893, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan in Allahabad in 1910, Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha in 1918 and Rashtra Bhasha Prachar Samiti in 1926.[14] The movement was encouraged in 1881 when Hindi in Devanagari script replaced Urdu in Persian script as the official language in neighboring Bihar. They submitted 118 memorials signed by 67,000 people to the Education Commission in several cities.[9][14] The proponents of Hindi argued that the majority of people spoke Hindi and therefore introduction of Nagari script would provide better education and improve prospects for holding Government positions. They also argued that Urdu script made court documents illegible, encouraged forgery and promoted the use of complex Arabic and Persian words.
Organisations such as Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu were formed for the advocacy of Urdu.[9] Advocates of Urdu argued that Hindi scripts could not be written faster, and lacked standardisation and vocabulary. They also argued that the Urdu language originated in India, asserted that Urdu could also be spoken fluently by most of the people and disputed the assertion that official status of language and script is essential for the spread of education.
Communal violence broke out as the issue was taken up by firebrands. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had once stated, "I look to both Hindus and Muslims with the same eyes & consider them as two eyes of a bride. By the word nation I only mean Hindus and Muslims and nothing else.  We Hindus and Muslims live together under the same soil under the same government. Our interest and problems are common and therefore I consider the two factions as one nation."  Speaking to Mr. Shakespeare, the governor of Banaras, after the language controversy heated up, he said "I am now convinced that the Hindus and Muslims could never become one nation as their religion and way of life was quite distinct from one another."
In the last three decades of the 19th century the controversy flared up several times in North-Western provinces and Oudh. The Hunter commission, appointed by the Government of India to review the progress of education, was used by the advocates of both Hindi and Urdu for their respective causes.
Gandhi's idea of Hindustani
Hindi and Urdu continued to diverge both linguistically and culturally. Linguistically, Hindi continued drawing words from Sanskrit, and Urdu from Persian, Arabic and Chagatai. Culturally Urdu came to be identified with Muslims and Hindi with Hindus.  This wide divergence in the 1920s was deplored by Gandhi who exhorted the re-merging of both Hindi and Urdu naming it Hindustani written in both Nagari and Persian scripts.[9]  Though he failed in his attempt to bring together Hindi and Urdu under the Hindustani banner, he popularised Hindustani in other non-Hindustani speaking areas.[14]
Muslim nationalism
It has been argued that the Hindi–Urdu controversy sowed the seeds for Muslim nationalism in India. Some also argued that Syed Ahmad had expressed separatist views long before the controversy developed.[9]
Linguistic purism
Because of linguistic purism and its orientation towards the pre-Islamic past, Hindi and especially its standard literary form has removed many Persian, Arabic and Turkic loanwords and replaced them with borrowings from Sanskrit (that is, from its own ancestral form). Conversely, Urdu retains the Perso-Arabic words that were introduced into the Khariboli dialect during Muslim rule and in formal settings employs far more Perso-Arabic words than in vernacular Khariboli.
Hindi to Urdu
In April 1900, the colonial Government of the North-Western Provinces issued an order granting equal official status to both Nagari and Perso-Arabic scripts.[15] This decree evoked protests from Urdu supporters and joy from Hindi supporters. However, the order was more symbolic in that it did not provision exclusive use of Nagari script. Perso-Arabic remained dominant in North-Western provinces and Oudh as the preferred writing system until independence.[12]
C. Rajagopalachari, chief minister of Madras Presidency introduced Hindi as a compulsory language in secondary school education though he later relented and opposed the introduction of Hindi during the Madras anti-Hindi agitation of 1965.[16] Bal Gangadhar Tilak supported Devanagari script as the essential part of nationalist movement. The language policy of Congress and the independence movement paved its status as an alternative official language of independent India. Hindi was supported by religious and political leaders, social reformers, writers and intellectuals during independence movement securing that status. Hindi, along with English, was recognised as the official language of India during the institution of the Indian constitution in 1950.[14]
See also
Urdu movement
Hindi in Pakistan
Linguistic purism
History of Hindustani
Persian and Urdu

, from Dawn
Newspaper

 ROBERT D. KING


Charles Frederick Beyer (an anglicised form of his original German name Carl Friedrich Beyer) (14 May 1813 – 2 June 1876) was a celebrated German-British locomotive designer and builder, and co-founder of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. He was the co-founder and head engineer of Beyer, Peacock and Company in Gorton, Manchester.[1] A philanthropist and deeply religious, he founded three parish churches (and associated schools) in Gorton, was a governor of Manchester Grammar School, and remains the single biggest donor to what is today the University of Manchester.[2] He is buried in the graveyard of Llantysilio church, Llantysilio, Llangollen, Denbighshire North Wales. Llantysilio church is within the grounds of his former 700 acre Llantysilio Hall estate. His mansion house, built 1872–1874, is nearby.
Early life and career
Germany
Beyer was from humble beginnings, the son of a weaver. Born in Plauen, Saxony, he was expected to follow in his father's footsteps and become a hand weaver's apprentice. He was taught to draw by a student architect convalescing in the district. His mother dreamed of him being an architect and she paid him to teach mathematics and drawing.[3] Some of his pinned-up drawings were noticed by an "eminent medical gentleman", a "Mr Von Sechendorf" (who was visiting another family member),[3] and a place was procured for him at Dresden Polytechnic, an institute of technical education (it was said that his parents were poor and had no money to send their son to college, but were afraid of giving offence to the civil servant). Beyer supplemented a meagre state scholarship by doing odd jobs (a philanthropic lady was in the habit of giving Sunday dinner to the student with the highest marks that week. Beyer relied on the meal, and consequently made sure that he out-performed everyone else).
Upon completing his studies at the Dresden Academy, Beyer took a job in a machine works at Chemnitz, and he obtained a state grant from the Saxon Government to visit the United Kingdom to report on weaving machine technology. He visited Manchester, the world's first industrial city. It was the cotton mills that drove the local economy.The Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the world's first steam hauled purpose built passenger railway had just opened and people were now able to travel faster than horses for the first time. He returned to Dresden to file his report on the latest developments in cotton mill technology, and was rewarded by the Saxon government.
England
Despite two offers to manage Saxony cotton mills, Beyer was determined to return to Manchester. In 1834, aged 21 and speaking little English, he returned to Manchester, accompanied by his teacher, Professor Schubert, who introduced him to S.Behrens and Co, a well-known merchant in the city. While they could not help him, they obtained an interview for him with Sharp, Roberts & Co, (Atlas Works) where he impressed Thomas Sharp. However, Sharp risked alienating his workers by employing a German immigrant with a poor command of English; Sharp explained the situation to Beyer and offered him a sovereign to cover his travelling costs. Beyer refused the money exclaiming: "It is work I want", and insisting he was prepared to work for very little money. Impressed by Beyer's attitude, Sharp took the risk and employed him as a low-paid draughtsman, working under the guidance of head engineer Richard Roberts.
In 1852, when admitted to the Institution of Civil Engineers his address was stated as 60, Cecil Street, Manchester. His proposer was Richard Roberts, seconded by Robert Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
The 1861 census states that Beyer lived at 9 Hyde Road Manchester age 47, engineer employing of 800 men birth Saxony, Eliza Seddon, 55, widow born Wales, housekeeper, born Manchester, Catherine Ellis, 50, widow, cook, Mary Jones, 23, house servant, born Wales, Ann Hughes, 23, house servant, born Wales. His neighbour at 11, Hyde road was Charles Sacré, 29, Civil engineer,
In 1868, the UK Poll Book states that in the Parish of Llantysilio, he stated his address as Stanley Grove. Oxford Street, Manchester. (now site of Manchester Royal Infirmary ,teaching hospital ) .He voted for Sir Watkin Wynn
The 1871 census states that Beyer lived at 1 Stanley Grove, Oxford St, (now Oxford Road), Manchester. He was 57 years old at the time and he states that his occupation is "Mechanical engineer. Employer of the firm Beyer, Peacock and Co., Locomotive builders, about 1500 men and is owner of about 700 acres of land in the parish of Llantysilio, (Llantysilio Hall), N Wales". Suzannah Williams, 54, housekeeper born Gwyddelwyn, N Wales (near Llantysilio), Elizabeth Hughes, 44, housemaid, born Chorlton on Medlock, Catherine Evans, 25, waitress, born Llangollen, Winifred Roberts, 22, kitchen maid, born Llanfor.
His neighbour at 5 Stanley Grove then 19 years old, and from Frankfurt, Germany: Arthur Schuster, destined to become the first Beyer Professor of Applied Mathematics. He was Professor of Physics (1888–1907) when Owens College became the Victoria University of Manchester (Est 1904). In the First World War Schuster was accused of spying when he had possession of a radio that could receive signals from Paris and Berlin (he sued his accusers and gave the money to charity).
Another neighbour, at 4 Stanley Grove, was Salomon L Behrens, aged 83, the founder of S. Behrens & Co., who 37 years previously, introduced Beyer to Richard Roberts in 1834 (see below).
Friedrich Engels also lived in the neighbourhood 1840–1870; 25 and 58 Dover street and 6 Thorncliffe Grove (Now Thorncliffe House, a University of Manchester hall of residence; (Karl Marx was a frequent visitor to Engels in Manchester). Engels wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 following his study into the conditions faced by Victorian workers in the cotton mills of Manchester.[4] Beyer had just become the head engineer at Atlas Works at the time.[1]
Sharp, Roberts and Co

The company manufactured cotton mill machinery and had just started building locomotives for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Roberts was a prolific inventor despite being self-taught, with no university education or training. His genius was constrained by his inability to clearly state his ideas on paper; he said of his draughtsman:
"There is a man who can tell every word I say, but cannot put my ideas upon paper; and here is another (Mr. Beyer) who scarcely knows English, but who can not only understand but also put into shape all that I mean."
Beyer's technical training in Dresden, coupled with his natural aptitude for drawing and design, made him a perfect partner for Roberts.
The latter's skills in designing cotton mill machinery did not translate into success in locomotive design, but he put his faith in Beyer and let him take over design and production of the company's new locomotives. Beyer designed the locomotives that made Sharp, Roberts & Co famous as locomotive builders. Roberts retired from the firm in 1843, and Beyer became chief engineer.
In 1842 Beyer designed a tender which became the standard for British railways. featuring outside frames. On 3 October 1846, one of his 0-6-0 "luggage" engines hauled a train of 101 wagons weighing 597 tons from Longsight in Manchester to Crewe, 29 miles at an average speed of 13.7mph. This was a world record at the time. In 1847, a similar locomotive, ran 3,004 miles on the London and Birmingham railway with a coke consumption of only 0.214lb per ton per mile.The next best locomotive burned 0.38lb per mile, another record.[1] By 1849, Beyer had helped produce over 600 locomotives.
In 1844 the King of Saxony visited the Atlas; Beyer showed him the works, and soon the Saxony government was ordering locomotives from the company. Beyer's main design features were placing the boiler line at a higher level which made for smoother running. He was the first to give the boiler freedom to expand. The shape and appearance of British railway locomotives owed more to Beyer, than any other designer.[1]
On 5 November 1852 Beyer was naturalised in England.[5] The following year (1853), despite being at the height of his chosen profession, vice-President of the IMechE and a friend of George Stephenson, Robert Stephenson, Sir Daniel Gooch, John Ramsbottom and others,[3] he left the company. This move may have resulted after he was overlooked for a partnership (Mr C P Stewart was appointed a partner),[5] or possibly because of his unrequited love for one of the Sharp nieces; nonetheless he spent six months touring Europe and contemplating study at Oxford or Cambridge.[3]
Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Beyer was a co-founder of this institution. Grace's Guide states:
"At the opening of the present headquarters in Birdcage Walk in 1899 a commemorative pamphlet was issued to members stating that the meeting took place in a house in Cecil Street, Manchester at the house of a Charles Beyer, the manager of Sharp Brothers locomotive works. Although Beyer was very much involved in the formation of the IMechE, it is more likely that the meeting was no more than a conversation among friends."[6]
Alternatively, the idea was discussed informally at Bromsgrove at the house of James McConnell, after viewing locomotive trials at the Lickey Incline. Charles Beyer, Richard Peacock, George Selby, Archibald Slate and Edward Humphreys were present. Bromsgrove may be the more likely candidate for the initial discussion, not least because of McConnell was also a driving force in the early years.[7] A meeting took place at the Queens Hotel in Birmingham to consider the idea further on 7 October and a committee appointed with McDonnell at its head to see the idea to its inaugration.[8]
Whether the informal gathering with George Stephenson and friends at Beyer's house on Cecil Street, or the meeting at Bromsgrove, was the first point at which the idea was raised, by the autumn 1846 these discussions did lead to the formal founding at the Queen Hotel at Curzon Street, Birmingham on 27 January 1847. Beyer proposed Stephenson as President; Beyer was elected Vice-President.[6]
Beyer was also a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and, from 24 January 1854, a member of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society.[9] John Dalton, James Prescott Joule, William Fairbairn, Henry Roscoe and Joseph Whitworth were contemporary members.
Beyer, Peacock and Company

Richard Peacock resigned from his position as chief engineer of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway's locomotive works in Gorton in 1854. Confident in his ability to secure orders to build locomotives, Beyer's resignation presented Peacock with a partnership opportunity. However, this was not a limited company and all partners were liable for debts should the business fail; in a mid-Victorian economic climate of boom and bust, it was a risky venture. Beyer could raise £9,524 (nearly £900,000 in 2015) and Peacock £5,500 but still required a loan from Charles Geach (founder of the Midland Bank, and first treasurer of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers). Unfortunately, Geach died in November 1854, the loan was recalled and the whole project nearly died. To the rescue came Thomas Brassey who persuaded Henry Robertson to provide a £4,000 loan in return for being the third (sleeping) partner.[1]
Beyer and the Great Western Railway
Robertson's investment would be the start of a long friendship between Beyer and Robertson (Beyer became the godfather of Robertson's daughter Annie born in 1854). The civil engineer was responsible for the lines of the Northern division of the Great Western Railway (Brunel was the South) and a friend of Sir Daniel Gooch, its chief locomotive superintendent. He could therefore procure orders for the GWR. The first order was for ten Beyer, Peacock express 2-2-2 tender express engines of standard (rather than broad) gauge – the first standard gauge locomotives ordered by the GWR (Swindon were still building broad gauge engines). The locomotives were to be built to Gooch's own design which saved time in the drawing room. Joseph Armstrong was Gooch's successor as chief mechanical engineer at Swindon locomotive works and knew Beyer's engines. He was chief locomotive superintendent when Shrewsbury and Chester Railway ordered Beyer-designed Sharp, Stewart locomotives. Ten years later, when the GWR needed a new 0-6-0 goods engine, he allowed Beyer to design the locomotives himself. The GWR "Beyer Goods" locomotive proved to be an outstanding performer and some were still running 80 years later. Beyer's godson Sir Henry Beyer Robertson, born in 1864 would (many years after Beyer's death) become a director of the Great Western Railway, continuing the "family's" connection with the GWR.[1]
Gorton Foundry
A 12-acre site was chosen in Gorton village, two miles from the centre of Manchester, on the opposite side of the Manchester Lincoln and Sheffield Railway line to Peacock's previous works. Beyer designed the works, planning them so well for possible expansion that, during its 112-year history, no buildings needed to be demolished to make way for new or extended buildings – in stark contrast to Beyer's previous Atlas works in central Manchester where land was expensive with no room to expand. Beyer also established a foundry, designed and manufactured the machine tools needed to build the locomotives, and stayed at Gorton Foundry and supervised the design and production of the locomotives. Peacock meanwhile dealt with the business side, often travelling the continent to secure orders.[1]
Beyer and elegant design
Charles Beyer took great pride in the look of his locomotives, often spending hours with his pencil drawing a dainty curve and taking pride in the aesthetic appearance of his work. One particular 2-2-2 locomotive "D. Luiz" was exhibited at the 1862 International Exhibition. This locomotive was built for the South Eastern Railway of Portugal.[10] It was similar to the locomotives then being delivered to the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway. It was awarded a medal, noted for its beauty of form, and did much to promote the company.[1]
Beyer chose German-trained engineers rather than British because there were no engineering schools in UK at that time that were comparable to those in Germany. There were several German immigrants on the staff. The company became one of the most famous locomotive builders in the world noted for its precision engineering, quality of workmanship, beauty and longevity. It made all three partners very rich men.[1]
London's underground railway
Beyer appointed and worked closely with Hermann Ludwig Lange (1837–92), in 1861. A native of his home town, Plauen, Saxony (now Germany), Langer trained as an engineer in Germany, became chief draughtsman in 1865, and chief engineer after Beyer's death. Langer was heavily involved in the development of the world's first successful condensing locomotives for the Metropolitan Railway. The Metropolitan initially ordered 18 tank locomotives, of which a key feature was condensing equipment which prevented most of the steam from escaping while trains were in tunnels, and have been described as "beautiful little engines, painted green and distinguished particularly by their enormous external cylinders."[11] The design proved so successful that eventually 120 were built to provide traction on the Metropolitan, the District Railway (in 1871) and all other 'cut and cover' underground lines.[11] This 4-4-0 tank engine can therefore be considered as the pioneer motive power on London's first underground railway;[12] ultimately, 148 were built between 1864 and 1886 for various railways, and most kept running until electrification in 1905. Metropolitan Railway No 23 which entered service in 1866 was not withdrawn until 1948 after 82 years.[1] It is now an exhibit in the London Transport Museum in Covent Garden.
Philanthropy

Aged 50, on 13 June 1863 Beyer wrote in his diary;
Have Mercy Upon Me, O Lord, and grant that the Goods Thou hast entrusted to my keeping may bear fruit to thy Honour and Glory, through Jesus Christ.[1]
Beyer was a bachelor and had no children. A rich man, he began to spend his wealth on building schools and churches. Education was his main priority. He supported the Ragged School as well as church day and Sunday schools, scholarships for Manchester Grammar School (where he was governor) and at University level with Owens College (effectively creating a pathway by which a child from a poor background – such as Beyer's – could graduate with a University degree in engineering, previously mainly restricted to those who could afford such an education).[13]
Church of England
He was also a major donor to the Church of England.[1] In 1865 Beyer provided most of the cost for the construction of St Mark's Parish Church, West Gorton, as well as bearing the full cost of building the associated day school[14] (in 1880 this church formed a football team which became Gorton AFC, then Ardwick AFC[15] and finally Manchester City Football Club).[14] In 1871 he bore the whole cost of rebuilding the old parish church of St Thomas in Gorton, subsequently renamed St James Parish Church.[1] He was an original member of Gorton Conservative Association, now St James Conservative Club, Gorton Lane.[14]
Less than two weeks before his death, Beyer added a codicil to his will to provide money to build a third parish church and its associated rectory and he specified that it should be called All Saints'.[13]
All Saints' was destroyed by fire in 1964 and subsequently demolished; a new church was built on the old site in 1975 and renamed Emmanuel Church. In 1968, St Mark's and All Saints' churches were united into one parish; St Mark's was demolished in 1974, leaving the two churches today represented by Emmanuel Church and All Saints' Primary School.
Beyer also did major improvements to Llantysilio parish church, and left money in his will to augment the stipend of the vicar.[13]
Beyer and the Owens Extension College Movement
Owens College had been founded in 1851, funded from the will of a rich local textile merchant, John Owens. It was founded in response to the non-admission of non-conformists to Cambridge and Oxford but had several problems in the 1860s. First, it was not a university, but a college affiliated to the University of London. Students had to satisfy London examiners and London controlled the syllabus. Manchester wanted its own University, where northerners could study and receive degrees locally. Second, to become an independent university, the college had to expand. While the Quay Street premises (rented at a nominal amount) were becoming overcrowded, Owens had expressly stated that none of his money should go to the construction of buildings. His will made it difficult to raise public funds; only local people could attend, women were forbidden entry, and the lower age limit competed with grammar schools and would affect the quality of teaching.
Beyer suggested a public appeal to create a new college on a different site that would allow the Owens College to expand. The Owens Extension College Movement began in 1867 with appeals directed particularly at rich mill-owners and the textile trade. The wealthy and charismatic mill-owner, Thomas Ashton, a fine public speaker, was chosen to lead the campaign, with support from chemist and Owens College Professor Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe. Both Ashton and Roscoe had trained at Heidelberg University (Roscoe had been taught by Professor Robert Bunsen). Manchester wanted to follow the German university model, with an emphasis on research rather than the dogmatic teachings of ancient universities (e.g.: Oxford and Cambridge). Study tours were organised to mainly German Universities including Heidelberg and Berlin, and also to new polytechnics like the Dresden Academy, where Beyer had trained.
Beyer served on the Canvassing and Financial committee, and on the Buildings Committee, where he discussed proposals with architect Alfred Waterhouse. A site on Oxford Road in central Manchester was selected and work on the Owens Extension College started in 1870. Then by amalgamating the two colleges by Act of parliament (John Owens' will conditions were over-ruled; women could, in theory, be admitted, and the lower age limit was increased to 16), the new Owens College was born on 1 September 1871.

The new college building opened in 1873. The move to Oxford Road also allowed the Manchester Royal School of Medicine and Surgery to move to the site in 1874; amalgamating this with Owens College raised its profile in its quest to become an independent university. However, the College encountered a financial crisis in 1876. Many benefactors had died and income had fallen dramatically. When Beyer died in 1876, his will (written in 1872) bequeathed £114,000 (equivalent to £10million in 2013) to the college and secured its future. Beyer had been the largest single donor when alive and the largest single benefactor in the history of the University of Manchester.[2] The funds were eventually appropriated to build the Beyer building in 1888, and fund professorships in Engineering and Mathematics. The college was now destined to become the Victoria University of Manchester, a university with a strong German heritage, connections with Heidelberg and following its methods of teaching through experiment. It would become one of the world's leading science research Universities.[2][3][13][16][17]

Today's University of Manchester was formed by the amalgamation of the Victoria University of Manchester and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) in 2004.[18] UMIST's history dated from 1824 when John Dalton (father of atomic theory) and others formed the Manchester Mechanics' Institute. Beyer had been a member since 1847 and a life member from 1850; while focused mainly on Owens College, he had therefore been a supporter of both institutions.[16]
Beyer and Owens College department of engineering

Beyer's first contact with Owens college was in 1860 when he was introduction to Professor Greenwood.[3] In parallel with the campaign to turn Owens College into a university, Beyer was keen to establish a suitable engineering school such as those in Germany; he had attended such an institution, and knew there was no similar facility to train new engineers in Britain. Moreover, he wanted to establish an engineering department within the college rather than as a separate entity outside the university, as in Germany.
When a chair was advertised at a salary of £250 per annum the selection committee was unsatisfied with the quality of the applicants. It was recorded that Beyer decided to double the salary: "Mr Beyer…. most generously offered to supplement the salary by the sum of £250 for 5yrs…." When the post was re-advertised, they were able to appoint Professor Osborne Reynolds (not to be confused with Professor John Henry Reynolds of the Manchester Technical School) on 26 March 1868. The first professor of engineering in the north of England, Reynolds did much to engage local engineering firms in applied science with mutual benefit, giving the college a worldwide reputation before retiring in 1905.[16][19]
Charles Beyer was also a donor to the Sir Henry Roscoe's chemistry department.[19]
Personal life
Beyer became a UK citizen in 1852 and was based in Manchester ever since emigrating there in 1834 at the age of 21.[1] Of his personal life, Ernest F. Lang wrote:[20]
"Mr Beyer remained all his life a bachelor. Whilst with his old firm he had fallen in love with Miss Sharp, a daughter of one of the partners, but she, although strongly attracted towards Mr Beyer, gave preference to another suitor. This was his first and only romance. Gorton Foundry was destined to become and remain his chief preoccupation in life."[20]
The Last Will and Testament of Charles Frederick Beyer
(Extracts)
" I bequeath to my Nephew Franz Hermann Beyer, son of my late Brother Ernst Beyer the Legacy or sum of £15,000 " (£1,500,000)*
" To my Nephew Carl Frederick Beyer another son of my said late Brother Ernst the legacy or sum of £5,000." (£500,000)*
" I bequeath to my Sister Johanna Christiana Weber Widow the Legacy or sum of £10,000 (£1,000,000)* for her own use and benefit ... bequeath to my housekeeper Susan Williams the legacy of £500 (£50,000)*in addition to any wages owing to her and also a suit of mourning"
" And to my gardener Edward Hart the legacy of £500 (£50,000)* in addition to any wages owing to him and also a suit of mourning"
" To each of my other domestic servants who shall have been in my service for two years prior to and shall be in my service at the time of my decease and to Rees Jones of Llantysilio in the County of Denbigh if he shall be in my employ at the time of my decease the legacy of £100 a piece (£10,000)* in addition to any wages owing to them and also a suit of mourning."
" I bequeath to each of the following persons, assistants at the Gorton Foundry. that is to say Thomas Molyneaux the legacy of £1,000 (£100,000) and to each of them Hermon Jaeger and Charles Holt the legacy or sum of £500 (£50,000)* a piece."

" I bequeath the sum of £3,000 (£300.000)* to my said Trustees upon trust either to pay over the same to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England or at their discretion to lay out and invest the same in their own names in or upon such securities or investments as they are by law authorised to lay out and invest the same and to stand possessed of the securities or investments for the time being in or upon which the same shall be laid out or invested with power from time to time to alter vary or transpose such securities or investments upon trust to pay the interest dividends or annual income to arise therefore unto the Vicar or incumbent for the time being of the Parish Church of Llantysilio in the County of Denbigh in augmentation of income of such a vicar or incumbent for ever."'
" I devise all that my messuage or mansion house known as Llantysilio Hall in the County of Denbigh with the lands.... .. to the use of my Godson Henry Beyer Robertson"" To the use of my god daughter Annie Robertson, daughter of the said Henry Robertson for her life without impeachment of waste for her sole and separate use independently of any husband with whom she shall intermarry and of his debts control and engagements and from and after the decease of the said Annie Robertson"
" Upon trust for and i bequeath the same accordingly to and for the purposes and benefit of Owens College in Manchester to be applied in such manner as the governing body for the time being shall think expedient in or towards the foundation and endowment of professorships in science, one at least shall be a professorship in Engineering in the said college." (£10,000,000)*
" pay and apply the ultimate residue of the same moneys to and for the purposes and benefits of Owens college in Manchester aforesaid in or towards the foundation or endowment of professorships therein as they my said trustees and the governing body for the time being of the said college shall think expedient."
" In witness thereof, I the said testator Charles Frederick Beyer have to this, my last will and testament contained on 10 sheets of paper subscribed by my hand this 19th day March 1872."
C F Beyer.
Codicil
Dated 13 May (the eve of his 63rd birthday, and less than three weeks before he died).

'" Whereas since the date of my said Will, I have built the mansion house in which i am now residing at Llantysilio and made many additions to and improvements in and upon my estate and have furnished and fitted up my said mansion house."
" Now it is my will that the person or persons for the time being entitled to my said estate shall have and take the full benefit and enjoyment of my said mansion house and all additions and improvements to my estate in the County of Denbigh and the use of all the household furniture, effects of domestic use and all the plated articles, pictures and works of ornament which shall be in my said mansion house at the time of my death as heir looms according to the limitations of my said will relating to my said estate."
" And I bequeath the same to the trustees named in my said will accordingly to be held by them upon for and subject to the uses, trusts and provisions expressed and declared in and by my said Will."
" And whereas i have conveyed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England a certain piece of land at Gorton as and for the site of a church to be called All Saints Church and a parsonage house to the said church and it is my intention to build such church and house upon the said land."
"Now in case I shall not carry such my intention into effect in my lifetime I bequeath to my trustees named in my said Will the sum of £10,000 (£1,000,000)* in case I shall not have commenced to build and in case i shall commenced but not completed building such a sum as with the money expended in my lifetime on the said object shall make up the sum of £10,000 to be by them applied in building or competing the erection of the said church and house in such manner as my said trustees shall think fit and if the whole of the said sum of £10,000 (£1,000,000)* shall not be required for the purpose of building the said church and house then to pay the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England the balance of the said sum £10,000 to be applied in or towards providing an endowment for the said church and I direct that the said legacy shall be paid out of my personal estate as can legally applied to charitable purposes in the same manner and the like priority of payment as is directed by my said Will with respect to the charitable legacies and bequests thereby given or bequeathed in all other respects."
" I confirm my said Will in witness which I have hereinto set my hand, this 13th day May 1876."
C F Beyer
(Courtesy Denbighshire Archives)
*denotes approximate value today measured by wage inflation.
Llantysilio Hall

Beyer purchased the 700-acre Llantysilio Hall estate, at the head of the Vale of Llangollen, Denbighshire,North Wales, in 1867, and built a new 25-bedroom mansion house on the property (1872–1874), then demolishing the old house of the Thomas Jones family. The architect was Samuel Pountney Smith of Shrewsbury (architect of Palé Hall, station buildings on Henry Robertson's railways and the nearby Chainbridge hotel).
The hall, situated near the Horseshoe falls on the River Dee at the head of the Llangollen Canal, was lavishly decorated.[21] For example, the larger, south-facing, drawing room has a Carrara marble chimneypiece with giallo antico columns and three cameos in the frieze, of
Queen Victoria,
Elizabeth Dean Robertson, Henry Robertson's wife, and
Helena Faucit, celebrated Shakespearean actress (Beyer's nearest neighbour, at Bryntysilio Hall ,wife of Sir Theodore Martin, author of the official biography of Prince Albert, Life of the Prince Consort).
The smaller drawing room, with interconnecting door has a similar chimneypiece depicting
Kaiser Wilhelm, (First German Emperor),
Otto von Bismarck, (Chancellor German Empire), and
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder. (Victorious general of Franco-Prussion war, which led to the formation of the German Empire.
These pieces were probably made c. 1874, some three years after the start of the German Empire.
Charles Beyer died at Llantysilio Hall on 2 June 1876.[22] He was buried at Llantysilio church, in the grounds of his Llantysilio Hall estate.
References and sources

Sources

What was the first locomotive designed by Charles Frederick Beyer?


Amanda Billing (born 12 April 1976 in New Zealand) is a New Zealand actress best known for her role as Doctor Sarah Potts on New Zealand soap opera Shortland Street.
Biography
Billing grew up in Masterton, and spent her university years in Christchurch. After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts with 1st Class Honours in Geography from the University of Canterbury, she trained at the Christchurch College of Education and became a high school teacher.
Billing was involved in drama throughout her teaching years and has acted in a few amateur stage productions including Cloud Nine and The Country Wife. She has worked at several schools throughout Auckland teaching Geography, English and Social Studies, most recently at Rangitoto College.
Awards

·Nominated - "Best Mum to run over her kid" (2005)
Career
Television
Shortland Street - 'Sarah Potts' - Core Cast 2004–2014 South Pacific Pictures
Find me a Maori bride - (Crystal Leslie) Main Cast (2015–present)
Newsworthy - (Herself) - Guest Cast (2015)
 - Rose's mother (2015)
The Brokenwood Mysteries - Brenda White (2016)
Power Rangers Ninja Steel - Principal Hastings (2017-2018)b
Theatre
Boys Will Be Boys - 'Astrid' - 2016 - Silo Theatre (dir. Sophie Roberts)
The Book of Everything - 'Mother' - 2016 - Silo Theatre (dir. Sophie Roberts)
Cabaret - 'Sally Bowles' - 2010 - Auckland Theatre Company (dir. Michael Hurst)
Threepenny Opera - 'Polly Peachum' - 2008 - Silo Theatre and The Large Group (dir. Michael Hurst)
Cloud Nine - 'Edward' (Act I), 'Victoria' (Act II) - 2004 - Silo Theatre (dir. Edwin Wright)
As You Like It - 'Rosalind' - 2003/4 - Legacy Theatre Co. (dir. Tim Flavell)
Home Ground - 'Margaret' - 2003 - Auckland Performing Arts Centre (dir. Carla Martel)
The Country Wife - 'The Country Wife' - 2003 - Silo Theatre (dir. Heath Jones)
Dust Pilgrim - Multiple Characters - 2018 - Red Leap Theatre (dir. Julie Nolan)
Voice Work
George FM - various - 2002-2003
Other
Auckland based singer (lyric Soprano), dancer
Involvement with Trash to Fashion 2003

 on IMDb