Sages and Hail: An Inquiry into Hail Interpretation in Ming China

Abstract

Between the 15th and 17th centuries, as the Northern Hemisphere entered the Little Ice Age, the scale and frequency of hailstorms increased. In Ming Dynasty China, following the Han Dynasty’s “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” doctrine and the pre-Qin Confucian classic Zuo Zhuan’s interpretation that “when a sage rules, there is no hail,” linked these disasters to the moral conduct of the emperor. Others took a more agnostic, naturalistic approach, but in both cases, scapegoating was largely avoided. Building on existing Western scholarship on the link between witch hunts and hail, this paper will use Chinese classical interpretations, historical records of hail events from the Ming Dynasty, and the reactions of emperors and Confucian scholars as a point of reference. It aims to compare and contrast the different understandings and responses to hail disasters in Ming China and Europe.

1. Contextual Background: Pre-Modern Discourses on Hail

Based on recent scientific research, the formation and size of hailstones are influenced by factors like updrafts, humidity, and temperature within a storm. By tracking storms, scientists hope to unravel the mysteries of hail growth and prepare for future extreme weather challenges (Witze 2025). Recent findings suggest that climate change is causing a trend of “fewer small hailstones, but more large ones,” which poses significant risks to life and property (Gensini et al. 2024). It appears that this increase in large hail also occurred during certain extreme climate periods in ancient times. In Western history, hail has long been a major weather phenomenon with profound impacts on agriculture and society. As early as the Middle Ages, hail storms were seen as symbols of disaster, particularly during the Little Ice Age when Europe’s climate became colder and extreme weather, including frequent hail disasters, became more common.

Frank Oberholzner, a leading historian of early modern Europe, notes that in pre-modern Europe, hail disasters were often interpreted as “divine judgment,” a view that dominated religious discourse, especially within Protestant theology. Climate change was indeed a significant contributing factor to the peak of the witch hunts (Oberholzner 2011, pp. 138–39). Another leading historian Brian P. Levack also points out that during periods of climate deterioration, such as the cold snap in the 15th century and the early phase of the Little Ice Age in the 1560s, people blamed abnormal weather like hail, frost damage, and crop failures on witchcraft. Hail disasters and food crises further fueled the witch-hunt frenzy, creating a close link between climatic anomalies and witch hunts (Levack 2013, pp. 65, 88). Especially between 1581 and 1593, a witch hunt in the independent Catholic Diocese of Trier in Germany broke with the traditional stereotype of witches as poor old women. Rich people, nobles, and even clergy were accused of causing crop destruction through hail and frost. The hail disaster was thus transformed into a tool for political and class struggle. The people leading the hunts abandoned the stereotype of witches being exclusively female and began to use the phrase “both men and women are witches.” This new form of persecution targeted the core strata of society (Levack 2013, p. 97). Leading Climate historian Brian M. Fagan also points out that the extreme weather of the 16th-century Little Ice Age led to crop failures, plagues, and famine, plunging society into a state of panic and disorder. People blamed the harsh weather on witches “making snow and hail,” which sparked the witch hunts (Fagan 2000, p. 91). The panic periodically erupted from the 1560s onward and only gradually subsided with the rise of natural science, which replaced this scapegoating mechanism. The debate over whether witches could cause hail was fierce in 16th-century Europe. Some, like the Protestant reformer Johann Brenz (1499–1570), emphasized that hail was God’s punishment for sin or a test of faith, not the work of witches. The renowned Dutch physician Johannes Wier (1515–1588) defended the so-called witches, arguing that most of the accused were simply innocent old women deluded by the devil and lacked the actual ability to create hail. However, the famous French philosopher Jean Bodin (1530–1596) firmly believed in the reality of witchcraft and argued that witches should be punished even if they only intended to do evil (Brenz 1974; Weyer 1974; Bodin 1974). Perhaps as Frank Oberholzner points out, it wasn’t until the 18th century, with the development of natural theology and later Enlightenment thought, that Europe gradually abandoned the view that witches could cause hail (Oberholzner 2011, pp. 144–48). Witch hunts reflected a protracted struggle between natural and theological explanations well into the 18th century. A notable shift occurred after the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake, when Enlightenment thinkers like Kant began to argue for natural causes over fatalism, separating physical causation from moral attribution (Larsen 2006, pp. 365–67). In light of the foregoing studies, the European model tended to externalize blame. While acknowledging that the causes of witch hunts were overall complex—possibly including what is now termed “misogyny1”—the aforementioned research demonstrates that many persecutions were indeed directly or indirectly precipitated by hailstorms. Of course, one cannot directly equate the phenomenon of witch hunts with the occurrence of hail disasters, as witch trials were embedded in complex and regionally diverse contexts that cannot be reduced to a single interpretative framework.

The European experience naturally invites a further question: how was the problem of intensified hail disasters addressed in Ming China during the same climatic period? Both Ming China and early modern Europe faced intensified hail during the Little Ice Age. In the Chinese model, governed by the ‘Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind (天人感應, tianren ganying),’ internalized the cause, focusing on the ruler’s morality. This comparison demonstrates that the social consequence of a natural disaster is not predetermined by nature, but is constructed through specific cultural structures—particularly, in the Chinese case, the profound interpretative influence of the Canonical Studies (經學, Jingxue) tradition.2 This binding authority ensured that the interpretation of disasters remained structurally focused on the center of power, precluding the externalization of blame. The Zuo Zhuan also occupies a place within this canonical framework.3

The Zuo Zhuan (左傳) retained its status as a classic during the Ming Dynasty and held high importance; notably, the ‘Treatise on Literature’ in the History of Ming records over fourteen exegetical works interpreting the Zuo Zhuan.4 The influence of the Zuo Zhuan on the scholar-official class, particularly through the Ming civil service examination (科舉) system, cannot be underestimated. Ming historical records confirm that examiners explicitly instructed candidates that the Zuo Zhuan was indispensable for studying the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋).5 From the very founding of the dynasty, Emperor Taizu explicitly required ministers to lecture on the Zuo Zhuan, establishing it as a core component of royal instruction.6 In contrast, ancient Chinese politics placed great importance on the concept of “The Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind”. David W. Pankenier, a historian of Chinese astrology and cosmology, notes that because astrology was directly related to the security of the state, astrological activities were under strict control from the early imperial period, and possibly even earlier (Pankenier 2013, pp. 299–300). This shows the crucial significance of disaster and anomaly theories in ancient Chinese political thought. Yoshihiro Watanabe, a Japanese historian of early Chinese political thought and others point out that “classical China” was essentially formed around the state system established by Xin emperor Wang Mang (王莽, 45 B.C.–23 A.D.). However, later generations revered the Han dynasty, and the “classical China” shaped not only by this state system but also by social norms and Confucian classical doctrines was truly solidified at the White Tiger Hall Conference during the reign of Emperor Zhang of the Later Han. Disaster theories played a major role in this process. Since the Han Confucian scholar Dong Zhong-shu (董仲舒, 179–104 B.C.) proposed the theory of “The Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind,” he denied the “prophetic” nature of disasters but established a causal framework linking them to an imbalance in the ruler’s moral conduct. This made the theory an effective tool for Confucian scholars to participate in politics. Subsequently, disaster theories became not only a moral discourse to warn the emperor but could even be used to justify political revolution (Watanabe and Gu 2023, p. 6). Taiwanese scholar Fu Yang (傅揚) points out that past academic research on Han Confucian theories of disaster and anomaly has generally discussed the impact of various types of calamities on Chinese political thought. In recent years, however, the focus has primarily been on Han Confucian scholar Liu Xiang (劉向, 77–6 B.C.) (Fu 2022, pp. 144–45). Conversely, there are relatively few studies specifically on hail disasters. Ming historian Timothy Brook, for instance, re-examined the causes of the Ming Dynasty’s collapse from a climate history perspective but did not dedicate a separate chapter to hail (Brook 2023, p. 124).

This paper focuses on how Ming Dynasty emperors and Confucian scholars interpreted the relationship between hail disasters and political culture, comparing this to the hail-related witch hunts that occurred in parts of the West during the same period. It will also argue that while Ming China, influenced by traditional classical scholarship and Neo-Confucianism, still emphasized the political interpretation of hail disasters through the Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind framework, it never saw witch hunts on the scale of those in some parts of Europe. Recent scholarship on late imperial legal culture further reinforces this contrast on the Chinese side. In The Fear of Witchcraft and Witches in Imperial China, Historian of Chinese cultural and religious history Barend J. ter Haar shows that although accusations of yancai/yaomei (厭勝／魘魅) could reach the courts, Ming adjudication often moved toward skepticism, reversal of convictions, and de-escalation rather than persecution. Ter Haar foregrounds the Neo-Confucian philosopher-official Xue Xuan (薛瑄, 1389–1464) as a representative case: despite intense social and political pressure, Xue overturned unjust “witchcraft” verdicts repeatedly, becoming remembered as an exemplar of moral-legal restraint. Nor was Xue Xuan’s intervention an isolated anomaly. Ter Haar emphasizes that Ming sources preserve several comparable episodes in which officials reversed wrongful yancai/yaomei convictions under intense pressure—cases remembered precisely because they exemplified moral–legal restraint rather than punitive escalation (ter Haar 2025, pp. 154–55). This Ming pattern provides an up-to-date secondary anchor for the paper’s claim that hail disasters in Ming political culture were unlikely to be converted into large-scale, state-backed witch-hunt dynamics.

2. The Hermeneutic Tradition of “Hail” from the Pre-Qin to Early Song Dynasties

As previously mentioned, in pre-modern Europe, when faced with natural disasters like inexplicable hailstorms, some people often blamed supernatural forces, especially the devil and witchcraft. Social unrest and widespread fear meant that hail events frequently became the trigger for witch hunts.7 There are also numerous mentions within it of how witches were able to manipulate hail to cause harm (Kramer 2009, pp. 299, 383–84). The relationship between natural disasters like hailstorms and witch hunts in late medieval to early modern Europe (roughly 15th to 18th centuries) reflects the deep-seated fear and vulnerability of society when confronted with inexplicable natural phenomena. This fear didn’t just lead people to blame disasters on witchcraft; it was further intensified by theological justifications from demonology and the belief that witchcraft could be passed down through families.

Traditional Chinese culture’s understanding of natural disasters was more focused on the concept of the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind”. Natural phenomena were often seen as a response from Heaven to the moral character or political integrity of the human ruler. Therefore, when faced with calamities like hail, the Chinese approach was to seek answers through the ruler’s self-reflection, moral cultivation, and governance rather than by finding and punishing specific “evildoers.” This gave rise to a unique doctrine of monarchical responsibility, exemplified by the following passage:

There was a great fall of hail. Ji Wu-zi (季武子) asked Shen Feng (申豐), “Can hail be prevented?” He replied, “When a sage is the ruler, there is no hail. Even if there were to be, it would cause no destruction.”8

In the classical Pre-Qin text, the Zuo Zhuan, we find a perspective on hail from Shen Feng, a high official of the State of Lu, dating back at least 2550 years. When the noble named Ji Wu Zi asked if hail could be “prevented,” Shen Feng’s reply went beyond physical defense. He directly linked the occurrence of hail, and whether it caused disaster, to the moral conduct of the ruler. Shen Feng’s statement is a classic example of the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” doctrine. In traditional Chinese political thought, a ruler’s virtue (especially if they were a “sage”) and their policies were believed to be in direct dialogue with Heaven. If a ruler was virtuous and their governance was just, Heaven would send auspicious signs and prevent calamities. Even if hail occurred, the virtue of a sage ruler could neutralize its negative impact, preventing it from causing serious destruction. This perspective placed the responsibility for natural disasters squarely on the moral and political performance of the ruling class, rather than on specific individuals in society. This idea was later inherited and developed by subsequent Confucian scholars, most notably the great Western Han Confucian, Dong Zhong-shu.

Led by Dong Zhong-shu, Confucian scholars integrated the profound philosophical concepts of Yin-Yang and the Five Elements into their explanations of disasters, constructing a more complex and systematic theory of the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind”. This not only sought to explain the causes of natural phenomena on a philosophical level but also tightly linked them to the ruler’s policies, making it a crucial tool for restraining imperial power and advising the emperor. Dong Zhong-shu’s dialogue on hail is a classic exposition of his Tianren Ganying and Yin-Yang (陰陽) disaster theories. He first explained the formation of hail through the interaction of Yin and Yang energies. When “Yin energy overpowers Yang energy” (Yin energy becomes excessive and suppresses Yang), this imbalance leads to climatic anomalies. He pointed out that hail forms when “Yin energy violently rises, causing rain to condense and form hail.” He viewed meteorological phenomena such as wind, rain, clouds, fog, thunder, lightning, snow, and hail as the results of the mutual agitation of Yin and Yang energies.9 The concept of ‘Five Phases’ here refers to the five dynamic ‘phases of change’ in the transformation of qi, where a disruption in their orderly transition signifies a cosmic imbalance. Even though this explanation seems simplistic and philosophical or religious from a modern scientific perspective, it represents an ancient Chinese effort to understand natural phenomena through an internal cosmic order. This is fundamentally different from the European approach, which directly attributed hail to the external interference of demons. Furthermore, Dong Zhong-shu directly linked the normalcy of natural phenomena to the ruler’s governance. He viewed calamities like hail as a warning and condemnation from Heaven for the emperor’s policy mistakes, interpreting these disasters as events with significant political symbolism. It is important to note, however, that while the Yin-Yang and Five Phases (Yin-Yang Wuxing) theory provides the metaphysical foundation, this article focuses on its normative influence rather than cosmological intricacies. Generally speaking, this theory functioned as a cultural framework that guided political accountability throughout successive dynasties. When hail occurred, scrutiny was primarily directed upward toward the leadership’s moral conduct, rather than downward toward the common people.

Across successive generations, Confucian scholars recorded numerous historical accounts of hail disasters. These sources recorded numerous historical instances of small and medium-sized hail events, described as being “like chicken eggs” or “like goose eggs.” They also noted many occurrences of extremely large hailstones, “as big as an axe,” “as big as a horse’s head,” or even “as large as a bushel,” indicating that historically, hail disasters of astonishing scale had occurred. Furthermore, hail was no longer seen as a vague sign of a ruler’s general lack of virtue. It became linked to specific political actions, such as the emperor’s tax policies, moral failings, and the usurpation of power by high officials. Hail was also more clearly explained as a result of an imbalance between Yin and Yang energies. Overall, hail was primarily viewed as a “warning” from Heaven to the ruling class, prompting the emperor and his ministers to reflect, cultivate their virtue, and correct their mistakes. This approach, fundamentally, did not involve searching for and executing “evildoers” among the common people (F. Li et al. 1975, pp. 199–200).

However, this framework evolved significantly after the Han. Song Confucians, exemplified by the Northern Song scholar Ou-yang Xiu (歐陽修, 1007–1072), began to critically reflect on Han-era disaster theories. They gradually shifted toward a naturalistic interpretation based on the patterns of li and qi (理氣), while still emphasizing that the ruler must engage in self-reflection upon witnessing disasters. In his New Book of Tang (新唐書), Ou-yang Xiu criticized rigid correlations and argued that since ‘the Way of Heaven is distant,’ one should respond to anomalies merely with ‘fear and self-cultivation’ (恐懼脩省) rather than seeking specific correspondences, which he condemned as ‘twisted explanations to presumptuously guess the will of Heaven.’10 This historiographical shift moved the focus from specific divination to generalized moral introspection, laying the groundwork for later Neo-Confucian thinkers.

The great Neo-Confucian master Cheng Yi (程頤, 1033–1107) also held a similar view, stating: “Hail is the product of the conflict between Yin and Yang energies; it is a malevolent energy. When a sage is on the throne, there is no hail. Even if there is, it will not be a disaster. Although it is not a disaster, the malevolent energy still exists.” Cheng Yi respected the traditional Pre-Qin interpretation that “when a sage is on the throne, there is no hail” but also pointed out that even under a sage ruler, the “malevolent energy” that forms hail remains. This suggests its objective, natural existence, which does not simply dissipate at the will of the ruler (B. Zhang 1862, p. 60). By the Southern Song Dynasty, Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200), who synthesized Neo-Confucian thought, generally also regarded disasters like “thunder and hail in autumn and winter, prolonged rain damaging crops, landslides, and ground collapse” as “evidence of the flourishing of Yin and the decline of Yang.”11 Zhu Xi also accepted the practice of earlier Confucian scholars who linked hail to the political situation. In the context of the Jurchen invasion from the north and widespread fear, Confucian scholars analogized the meteorological phenomenon of Yin-Yang imbalance to a sign that “barbarians are about to invade China and ministers are about to usurp power.” Hail was thus seen as a crisis warning of both external invasion and internal power imbalance.12

In addition, in the Classified Conversations of Master Zhu (朱子語類), Zhu Xi initially found the popular saying that “hail is made by lizards” to be unreasonable. However, he did not completely dismiss the idea, instead adopting a more open-minded observational approach. Zhu Xi believed that the formation of hail could have multiple causes—both the natural condensation of qi (氣) and potentially a special circumstance involving lizards. To support the possibility of “lizards making hail,” he cited two specific examples (J. Li 1986, vol. 2, pp. 24–25).

However, he did not attribute hail to lizards entirely. He still incorporated the phenomenon of lizard-made hail into the Neo-Confucian framework of “Yin-Yang conflict.” As a Neo-Confucian scholar, Zhu Xi was not quick to dismiss popular legends and others’ experiences, but he still sought to explain them through the lens of principle (li, 理) (J. Li 1986, vol. 3, pp. 35–36). This shows that Song Dynasty Neo-Confucians, despite interpreting nature with a qi-based theory different from modern science, were moving toward a “naturalization” trend. They were trying to understand natural phenomena from the perspective of cosmic laws, which carried a more rational and “quasi-scientific” (or pseudo-scientific) meaning compared to their predecessors.

3. Official Attitudes Towards Hail in Ming Dynasty Historical Records

Even at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty, despite Emperor Taizu Zhu Yuan-zhang’s (朱元璋, 1328–1398) reputation for highly centralized and authoritarian rule, the traditional concept of the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” still played a significant role in state ideology. According to the records of the Veritable Records of the Ming (Ming Shilu 《明實錄》 1966), hail disasters were frequent and widespread, having a profound impact on the social economy and people’s livelihoods. The records from the reign of the founding emperor, Taizu’s Hongwu era, to the last emperor, Chong-zhen (崇禎), document at least 396, and potentially over 400, hail events. The size of the hailstones ranged from the relatively small “pellets,” to the common sizes of “wine cups,” “chicken eggs,” and “goose eggs.” More extreme reports mentioned sizes as large as a “fist,” “bowl,” “bushel,” or even a “plate.” The most startling description comes from the fourth year of Chongzhen (崇禎, 1631), when hail “as large as a reclining ox or a dog, and as small as a fist” fell in Datong, Xiangyuan, and other counties, suggesting the hailstones could reach an unbelievably massive size. Given this abundance of data, the choice of the Veritable Records as the primary source warrants a brief explanation. To be sure, the official History of Ming (Ming Shi 明史), compiled later by Qing dynasty scholars, also records these events in its ‘Treatise on the Five Phases (五行志).’ However, it simply cites the orthodox categorization from the Hong Fan and passes over the matter with only a single brief sentence, stating: ‘The Hong Fan (洪範) says: “Water is called wetting and descending.” If water does not wet and descend, it has lost its nature… Hail [is thus categorized here].’13 Evidently, the authors of the Ming Shi merely adopted the standard interpretation from Tang Confucian scholar Yan Shi-gu (顏師古, 581–645)’s commentary on the Book of Han (漢書), where he annotated the Hong Fan concept of ‘losing its nature’ by viewing hail simply as water that has lost its nature, without offering significant further elaboration.14 However, while this theoretical framework is undoubtedly important, it is far more critical to observe how Ming monarchs and officials actually responded to hail disasters in the immediate historical moment. This dynamic reality is preserved in the Veritable Records, making them a more necessary source for this study than the abbreviated History of Ming.”

In contrast to the Hong Fan, which simply classifies hail as water losing its nature, the Zuo Zhuan explicitly suggests that the presence of a sage ruler can prevent the disaster or at least mitigate its damage. Consequently, it is the Zuo Zhuan, alongside the significantly richer interpretations based on Li-Qi theory offered by the Song and Ming Neo-Confucians discussed in this article, that is more frequently cited and elaborated upon in political discourse.

Faced with numerous severe hail disasters, even the founding emperor Zhu Yuan-zhang, known for his authoritarian rule, did not stray from the interpretive framework of “When a sage is on the throne, there is no hail.” Emperor Taizu first mentioned that he felt “unsettled in his heart, unable to sleep peacefully at night, as if being warned.” He then heard that a great hailstorm had struck the Imperial City of Zhongdu. This was a classic instance of a spiritual premonition corresponding to a natural anomaly, in line with the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” doctrine. He cited a “divination text” (占書, zhan shu) that interpreted hail as a “sign of war” (兵象, bing xiang), or an omen of war or unrest. He also referenced similar records from the time of Emperor Xuan of Han and Shi Le, demonstrating that such interpretations of disasters were a well-established tradition in the minds of emperors. Taizu explicitly stated: “If the ruler can be fearful and cultivate virtue, then heavenly disasters can be averted. How can I not be diligent in this regard!”15. This echoed the Confucian tradition expressed by Shen Feng: “When a sage is on the throne, there is no hail; and even if there is, it will not be a disaster.” Although Zhu Yuan-zhang was known for his ruthlessness, he still needed to publicly show respect for the Mandate of Heaven and an attitude of self-reflection in his political discourse.

However, even in the severe political climate of the early Ming Dynasty, the phenomenon of hail was, on a few occasions, used as a tool for political struggle. Two historical records from the early Ming show the complex evolution of the “politicized interpretation” of hail. Certain memorials from officials deliberately linked “the faults of the Son of Heaven” to ethnic exclusion of Mongols and Semu people, providing an indirect basis for their advice to “purge” specific groups.16

What is more, the Prince of Yan, Zhu Di (朱棣, 1360–1424), even used disasters in the capital (including hail) as evidence of “heavenly condemnation” against Emperor Jian-wen (建文帝) and his “treacherous officials.” This provided legitimacy for his launch of the Jingnan Campaign (靖難) and subsequent political purges.17 After he took the throne, however, the Yong-le Emperor (永樂帝) still acknowledged the classical view, stating: “Recently, Baoding, Ansou, Chuzhou, and Lishui all had hail… Do not these calamities relate to me?”18 He emphasized that the disasters of hail were connected to the emperor himself. This demonstrates the profound and enduring influence of the Confucian tradition of interpreting disasters since the Pre-Qin period.

As we move into the mid-Ming Dynasty, perhaps due to the global entry into the Little Ice Age, severe and large-scale hail disasters occurred almost every year between the 5th and 17th years of the Hongzhi era, affecting areas across Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Beijing, Zhejiang, Sichuan, Jiangxi, and Yunnan. The same situation continued through the reigns of Emperors Wuzong, Shizong, and Shenzong, and even into the late Ming, with large-scale hail disasters appearing across the country almost every year:

“In Qing-fu County, Sichuan, a great hailstorm damaged wheat, destroyed the local academy, uprooted trees, and toppled houses, with people dying.”19

“In Peng-xi County, Sichuan, a great hailstorm with hailstones as big as goose eggs and as small as chicken eggs injured cattle, horses, and poultry, shattered civilian houses, and destroyed countless crops. On the same day, a hailstorm and great flood in Dachang County caused even greater damage.”20

“In Zhenfan Guard, Shaanxi, a great wind uprooted trees, followed by a great hailstorm that killed and injured over thirty people.”21

“In Qingdu, Ansou, and Hejian counties, hail as large as fists fell, accumulating to a depth of five inches on the ground, with people and livestock killed or injured.”22

“On the 14th day of the 5th month, it hailed in Li County. The hailstones were as big as goose eggs, damaging crops and houses, and killing a villager named Liu Hengtou and dozens of cattle and other livestock. On the 25th day of the 6th month, it hailed in Qingdu County; on the 6th day of the 7th month, it hailed in Anzhou, damaging crops. The continuous heavy rain then submerged all the autumn crops. At the time, Supervising Censor Yu Jing, who was on patrol in Zhili, also reported: ‘On the 14th day of the 5th month, it hailed in Huolu County, with hailstones as big as chicken eggs; on the 24th day of the 5th month, Fuping and Nangong counties both reported hailstorms on the same day, which injured people and damaged crops.’”23

“In Yuhe Township, Wanping County, a great hailstorm injured thousands of people and livestock.”24

“At this time, the capital experienced a series of disasters. In the sixth month, a sudden wind and rainstorm struck, with hail horizontally smashing down and heavy rain pouring. The walls and houses of officials and civilians collapsed everywhere, and people were drowned or crushed, suffering a misery that was unbearable to see or hear.”25

“In Datong and Xiangyuan counties, hail as large as a reclining ox or a dog, and as small as a fist, fell, killing a great number of people and livestock.”26

However, even when faced with numerous large-scale, nationwide hail disasters, the officials’ memorials interpreting the hail generally adhered to the tradition of “a warning from Heaven” and “when a sage is on the throne, there is no hail.” This also served as a basis for criticizing and warning the higher political echelons about current affairs. This approach did not lead to widespread social suspicion and bloody persecution; instead, it resulted in a recurring cycle of remonstrance and formal statements between officials and the emperor, and sustained criticism of entrenched political problems. Several Ming emperors, including the politically shrewd Emperor Shizong, have “Imperial Precepts” related to hail. Shizong’s formal acknowledgment of his own faults, attributing the disaster to “my person” (朕躬, zhen gong),27 reflects to some extent the powerful normative role of the Confucian Mandate of Heaven in China’s imperial society. Of course, one cannot naively assume that the emperor or the ruling elite genuinely believed in these celestial warnings or engaged in sincere repentance. Yet, even if these actions were mere political performances, the long-standing cultural norms of the Canonical Studies tradition rendered them obligatory; they were necessary superficial gestures that the ruler could not afford to omit.

Furthermore, official records most frequently show the phrase “exemption due to hail disaster”28 or “exemption due to rain and hail disaster.”29. This indicates that the court waived taxes in the affected areas. The Veritable Records of the Ming extensively document that the court’s response to hail disasters primarily included: tax reductions, distribution of relief, and dispatching officials for on-site investigation. This shows the court’s emphasis on the disaster and its efforts to understand the situation on the ground.

4. Analyses of Hail by Individual Ming Scholars: Focusing on Zhang Xuan and Li Ting-Ji

Although the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” remained the mainstream framework for interpreting disasters in the Ming Dynasty, even the great Confucian scholar Wang Yang-ming (王陽明, 1472–1529) used it. When writing to senior Grand Secretary, Yang Ting-he (楊廷和, 1459–1529), Wang mentioned: “When water submerges the capital city, it is Yin overpowering Yang, a sign that treacherous men are in high positions and war is about to break out. When hail destroys tiles and jars and kills birds and beasts, it is because the state employs treacherous men without suspicion. When thunder, lightning, and great winds topple houses and break trees, it is because treacherous men are in high positions and wise men have fled.” Wang Yang-ming used the issue of Yin and Yang to imply that the appearance of hail was due to treacherous officials being in power (Y. Wang 2010, vol. 45, p. 1844).

However, not all Confucian scholars unconditionally accepted every detail of this framework. This was likely influenced by the traditions of Neo-Confucianism from the Song and Ming dynasties. Li Ting-ji (李廷機, 1542–1616), a Confucian scholar during the reign of Emperor Shen-zong who served as Grand Secretary of the Dongge, followed the tradition of earlier scholars like Dong Zhong-shu by writing a Q&A on hail. His discussion was more open and pragmatic. He fully exposed the selection bias and causal imbalance in traditional Chinese explanations, using a “clash of theoretical pluralism” and “contradictory historical examples.” Li Ting-ji established an agnostic position, concluding that one “does not know what omen it is, but one knows it is an anomaly.” He emphasized that while the nature of disasters is difficult to define, they are sufficient to serve as a warning. Thus, hail was categorized as a “heavenly warning”: a ruler could not definitively know its meaning but must, in response to its unusual occurrence, cultivate reverence and good governance rather than obsessing over divination (T. Li 1628–1644, pp. 13–14). While he preserved the self-reflective function of the Confucian “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind,” he eliminated forced and far-fetched interpretations. He maintained the core Confucian framework of “revering Heaven and cultivating virtue” but also imbued it with a pre-modern spirit of empirical verification. However, in his actual political life, Li Ting-ji still used hail disasters as a basis for his memorials to the throne. He continued to emphasize that hail was not a random weather event but a specific manifestation of Heaven’s warning in response to the suffering of the people. He saw hail as merely the “form” of Heaven’s wrath, and he used the disaster as an opportunity to passionately criticize the political malpractices of the time. He advocated for policies such as frugality, tax reduction, and halting conscripted labor, appealing to the “benevolent heart of the sage ruler” in the hope of averting calamity and bringing about good fortune (T. Li 1628–1644, pp. 13–14).

In addition to Li Ting-ji, the late Ming Confucian scholar Zhang Xuan (張萱, 1558–1641), who focused on practical statecraft, discussed disasters in his notes, Xiyuan Wenjian Lu (西園聞見錄). He compiled texts from Zhu Yuan-zhang, Xi Shu (席書, 1461–1527), Zou De-pu (鄒德溥, 1549–1619), and the aforementioned Li Ting-ji (though Zhang Xuan incorrectly attributed it to Xu Ying-pin (徐應聘). In the excerpt from Zou De-pu, while acknowledging the broad principle of the “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind,” Zou questioned and revised the traditional view that hail was necessarily a result of the emperor’s misdeeds. He argued that interpretations of hail disasters should not be arbitrary but should be examined in light of historical experience and natural laws (X. Zhang 1940, vol. 107, pp. 4–6).

However, the text’s conclusion still cited the classical principle of “when a sage is on the throne, there is no hail,” emphasizing that while hail disasters cannot be predicted with certainty, they are still a “heavenly warning”. Within the Neo-Confucian framework, this approach held that while specific meanings from Heaven are elusive and should not be forced, all disasters must still be faced with reverence and should prompt a comprehensive moral and political self-examination. This stands in stark contrast to certain strands of early modern European discourse, which tended to externalize disaster by attributing it to demonic forces and by directing accusations toward specific social groups.

5. Conclusions

Between the 15th and 17th centuries, as the Northern Hemisphere entered the Little Ice Age, the scale and frequency of hailstorms increased. In Ming Dynasty China, following the Han Dynasty’s “Interaction Between Heaven and Mankind” doctrine and the pre-Qin Confucian classic Zuo Zhuan’s interpretation that “when a sage rules, there is no hail,” linked these disasters to the moral conduct of the emperor. This doctrine internalized the responsibility of the ruler. Combined with the qi theory from Neo-Confucianism, this tradition ensured that emperors issued self-reflection edicts every time a hailstorm occurred.

Crucially, this article does not argue that Ming China was more ‘rational’ or that its rulers were always sincere. Rather, the divergence lies in the normative power of the Canonical Studies. Operating under a binding logic analogous to a constitutional framework, this tradition mandated that the responsibility for hail disasters be absorbed ‘upward’ by the throne. This creates a distinct contrast with the tendency in parts of the West to seek causes ‘downward’ among the populace.

Within this framework, mid-to-late Ming Confucian scholars like Zhang Xuan and Li Ting-ji made critical revisions to the traditional disaster theory. Using numerous historical examples, they refuted the simplistic, linear causation of “lack of virtue must lead to hail.” They adopted a more agnostic stance to question the certainty of divination, instead transforming hail into a checklist for the ruler’s long-term self-examination and governance.