Hennig Brand

The Alchemist in Search of the Philosopher's Stone (1771) by Joseph Wright of Derby , illustrates Hennig Brand's discovery of phosphorus

Hennig Brand (* around 1630 ; † after 1692 ) was a German pharmacist and alchemist . He is the discoverer of phosphorus .

Life

Brand was a soldier (probably even an officer) and concentrated on alchemical experiments in Hamburg and, when his wife's fortune was exhausted, on the trade in chemicals and medicines. He is also said (wrongly) to have the title of Dr. med. (he himself could not speak Latin, which was a prerequisite for the medical profession at the time).

In 1669 in Hamburg, while trying to find the Philosopher's Stone, Brand discovered phosphorus and thus the first element in modern chemical history (and the first element whose discoverer is known by name). He obtained the whitish, self-luminous substance by heating urine , which he dried to a black residue and allowed to stand for several months. The heating took place slowly at first and then at a high temperature with sand with subsequent distillation. The phosphorus precipitated in a vessel with water as a white waxy substance, although the procedure was not without danger because of the flammability of the phosphorus. Brand called it cold fire and the substance was later simply named phosphorus (from the Greek for light bearer ). The discovery was soon known in Hamburg and beyond, as Brand made money with the demonstration and the sale.

The alchemist and chemist Johannes Kunckel , who was in the service of the Elector of Saxony and taught in Wittenberg , also learned about the luminous substance through a friend and visited Brand in Hamburg. Brand had just sold his phosphorus supply at the time, but showed him the substance at a customer's. Kunckel wrote enthusiastically about this to his alchemist colleague and friend Johann Daniel Kraft in Dresden, who then turned to Brand behind Kunckel's back and in 1676 bought the process and its stock of phosphorus samples from him for 200 Reichstaler. The disappointed Kunckel then polemicized against Brand and his alleged doctorate. Brand refused to tell Kunckel of the process, but Kunckel knew that urine played a role and knew more details (e.g. he saw Brand's still) and soon found out by experimenting how to make phosphorus himself, albeit initially not in the quality of brand. When applying to the Elector of Brandenburg, Kunckel claimed to be a discoverer, suggested its use in medicine and wrote a book about phosphorus. In it he also writes that he gave up the experiments because of the danger.

Kraft praised the new material as the bearer of eternal fire (ignis perpetuus) and it was generally seen, like its discoverer, as an alchemical tool for making gold. Kraft demonstrated the phosphorus to various high princes and offered it for sale. As a result, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz became aware of Brand during a Kraft demonstration in Hanover, visited him in Hamburg in 1677 and, on behalf of the Duke of Braunschweig-Lüneburg Johann Friedrich , got Brand to come to Hanover for a fee in 1678 and 1679 to produce phosphorus and one To set up manufacture. Brand, who had a large family to look after, was poorly paid (once he broke off his stay to renegotiate) and did not stay long in Hanover. At the time, Brand was very angry about his treatment (also on the part of Kraft, who made large sums of money at the royal courts with Brand's discovery) and informed Leibniz of this. Because of Leibniz's promises, he had previously turned down a good offer from Johann Joachim Becher on behalf of the Duke of Mecklenburg. Apparently the death of the Duke of Braunschweig-Lüneburg in 1679 also prevented full payment at a later date. Sick and disappointed, he returned to Hamburg, where his traces are lost. He was still alive after Leibniz in 1692 and Leibniz still knew nothing of Brand's death in 1710 (when he published the discovery of phosphorus). Leibniz also defends Brand against the claims of Kraft and Kunckel to have a significant share in the discovery. In contrast to Brand, both had benefited very well from his invention.

The demonstration in Hanover contributed significantly to the spread of the discovery. Other chemists such as Johann Joachim Becher, who was a chemist for the Duke of Mecklenburg-Güstrow Gustaf Adolf and visited Brand in Hamburg, had meanwhile succeeded in the production, as did Robert Boyle , who learned about it but claimed to have come across it independently . Boyle's assistant Ambrose Godfrey Hanckwitz (1660–1741) became a leading manufacturer of phosphorus with a monopoly in London (and also exported to Europe). In Paris, people learned about the Brands method from Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhaus (who had it from Leibniz) (this contributed to Tschirnhaus's admission to the Academy). It was published in the communications of the Academy and in the Cours de Chymie by Nicolas Lémery (1683). However, the exact procedure was apparently not entirely clear, because the Paris Academy bought the process from an unknown person in 1737. It was published in the notices of the academy in 1737 by Jean Hellot , which made the method generally known to all European chemists. However, even Hellot had difficulties with the demonstration and it was only repeated by a few (such as Guillaume-François Rouelle ).

Brand's typical alchemical process was complicated and impractical and was abandoned when Carl Wilhelm Scheele discovered the presence of phosphorus in bones in 1769 and thus found a better method of production.

literature

• Felix Brahm: Brand, Henni (n) g . In: Franklin Kopitzsch, Dirk Brietzke (Hrsg.): Hamburgische Biographie . tape 3 . Wallstein, Göttingen 2006, ISBN 3-8353-0081-4 , p. 56-56 .
• Alphons Oppenheim:  Fire . In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB). Volume 3, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig 1876, p. 236.
• Hans Saring:  Brand, Hennig. In: New German Biography (NDB). Volume 2, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1955, ISBN 3-428-00183-4 , p. 515 f. ( Digitized version ).
• Hermann Peters: History of phosphorus according to Leibniz and its correspondence , Chemiker-Zeitung, Volume 26, 1902, pp. 1190–1198.
• Max Speter: On the history of urine phosphorus: The phosphorus recipe discovered by Boyle-Hanckwitz , Chemiker-Zeitung, Volume 53, 1929, pp. 1005-1006.
• Mary Elvira Weeks: Discovery of the Elements , published by Journal of Chemical Education, 6th edition 1956.

Web links

• Discovery of phosphorus at vanderkrogt.net (English)

Individual evidence

1. ^ Hans Saring, Hennig Brand, NDB 1955. Entry in Winfried Pötsch, Annelore Fischer, Wolfgang Müller: Lexicon of important chemists, Harri Deutsch 1989
2. ^ Weeks, Discovery of Elements, 1956, p. 110
3. ↑ The most cited date. JR Partington assumes more likely 1674/75, since the discovery only became known to other circles afterwards
4. ↑ Weeks, loc. cit. P. 111. There she describes Kunckel's procedure, who improved that of Brand in some points (e.g. adding sand).
5. ↑ The flame had to be removed after precipitation began and the vessel kept locked.
6. ↑ A phosphorescent substance in the form of barium sulfide had been known to alchemists in Europe since the beginning of the 17th century and was discovered by Vincentio Casciorolo in Bologna . Kunckel himself demonstrated a luminous substance called Balduin's phosphorus (calcium nitrate), which, like Brand  , he had elicited from the inventor - the Saxon bailiff and alchemist Christian Adolf Balduin - and whose demonstration earned him money. At that time he was hardly paid by the Elector of Saxony because he was unsuccessful in gold-making and soon after that he moved to Brandenburg with the reputation that was nurtured by the two luminous substances that were claimed for themselves.
7. ↑ But he came from Schleswig-Holstein and had good connections to Hamburg, where he had probably completed an apprenticeship as a pharmacist.
8. ↑ Weeks, loc. cit.
9. ↑ Weeks, p. 125
10. ↑ Information from Krafft, Weeks, loc. cit. Pp. 114 and 125. Krafft demonstrated phosphorus in London at the English court and before the Royal Society (September 1677) and Boyle was present.
11. ↑ Peters contributed a lot to the elucidation of the role of Brand, who at that time was sometimes considered a mythical figure
12. ↑ Speter discovered the procedure of Boyle and Hanckwitz, which was similar to that of Kunckel, in a letter from the English court doctor JH Hampel, to whom the old Hanckwitz informed Johann Friedrich Henckel, in 1735.