Cultura.

International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

Scholarly Study of H ong (Rainbow) in the Ming and

Qing Dynasties
Hongjun LIU
School of History
Nanjing University
22 Hankou Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
cnliuhj@[Link]

Abstract: This paper focuses on how Chinese intellectuals discussed and researched
rainbows in late Ming and early Qing Dynasty. Many of them considered the rainbow
as a phenomenon that occurred under certain conditions of sunshine and raindrops,
which could be described with terms related to qi (≊) of yin/yang (䱪/䱩). Some of
them had the knowledge of duplicating rainbows by “spraying water opposite to the
sun”. There were also popular conceptions that rainbow was a sign of salaciousness
and rainbow could siphon water, both of which had a long history in Chinese context.
Scholars also discussed other phenomena similar to rainbow such as solar halo, lunar
halo, parhelion and parselene. Those discussions were not held in wider society, yet
they were the sign of how Chinese intellectuals rationalized their research into natural
philosophy.
Keywords: rainbow, late Ming and early Qing, natural history, natural philosophy

According to Yan Chaoyin in Qinghongfu Ც㲯䎁 (Ode to Rainbows in

the Sun), rainbows are described as, “Born in qi, lingering in air, it is
looming, gracefully and dimly. Bright up and down, the entire be
integrated in the mist.” (Yan, 1983-: 349) Rainbows are imbued with a
sense of beauty by poets. Nevertheless, in some contexts rainbows are
deemed an omen of good or bad luck, and as a result, they are considered
taboo. For instance, in the Shijing 䈍㔅 (The Book of Songs) it is written,
“Once a rainbow comes in East, nobody dares to violate the taboo to
point at it.” Anthropological studies of religion reveal that the rainbow is
considered taboo among many different nations and cultures. When
Christian missionaries introduced western natural science to China during
the transitional period between the Ming and Qing dynasties, ideas about
the rainbow influenced Chinese scholars. This essay will use various
articles to analyze the discussion about the rainbow, including Gezhicao Ṳ
㠪㥿 (Rules of Astronomy) by Xiong Mingyu and Tianjing huowen ཟ㔅
ᡌ䰤 (Inquiries of Celestial Phenomena) by You Yi, etc. The aim of the
essay is to gain a better understanding of scholarly discussion of the

© 2022 Hongjun LIU - [Link] - The online edition of this

publication is available open access. Except where otherwise noted, content can be used under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). For details go to 87
[Link]
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

rainbow in the Ming and Qing dynasties, while looking into the sources
of these perceptions.

I. WHAT IS THE RAINBOW?

According to modern science, the rainbow is a natural phenomenon

that is caused by the refraction and reflection of sunlight through droplets
in the air. Yet, intellectuals during the Ming and Qing dynasties had no
idea of any concepts of geometrical optics like refraction and reflection.
Consequently, the way Chinese scholars perceived the rainbow was based
mainly on vague terms, being drawn from traditional Chinese concepts
and merging western natural philosophy that originated from Jesuits.
Influenced by western knowledge, scholars such as Xiong Mingyu and
Fang Yizhi, considered the rainbow as a natural phenomenon that
occurred under certain conditions of sunshine and raindrops. Xiong
Mingyu oberserved in Gezhicao, “The sun is on one end, opposed to the
rain. However, man observe qi in between, the shadow of sunshine
through rain came into eyes. Consequently, the rainbow switches from
west at dawn to east at dusk.” (Xiong, 2014: 219-220) From the point of
formation, the description of rainbows matches the scientific explanation
and accounts for the location of the rainbow being in the west at dawn
but in the east at dusk. The primary reason for this is that people are
usually able to see a rainbow only when they have their back to the sun.
As such, when the sun is in the east, only those facing west can see the
rainbow, and vice versa. The rainbow and the sun are always in the
opposite position.
There also exists texts about the formation of the rainbow in Tianjing
huowen, and Gujin shiyi ਚԀ䠀⯇ (Explanations for the Miracles of Then
and Now) by Fang Zhonglü. As described in Tianjing huowen, the rainbow
is formed through the mapping process of sunshine on clouds, that is, a
cloud layer diagonally opposite the sun blocks the light. Thus, the qi of
the sun drops while the heat gravitated by the qi of the sun spins upwards
from the ground. The heat and qi of the sun meet each other in cumulus
clouds, and the rainbow appears when sunshine passes into the cloud (You,
1983-: 632). You Yi’s discussion is comparatively vague. For example,
some expressions like “ᰛ≊сම” (roughly paraphrased as “qi of the sun
is dropping”), have no counterpart in modern concepts. It is believed that
rainbows are generated by qi of water when exposed to the sun at a point

88
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

where the relative position of the rainbow and the sun is opposite. In other
words, where the sun is in the east, the rainbow must be in the west; and
where the sun is above, the rainbow will be below, as described in Gujin
shiyi. Fang Zhonglü also mentioned that the rainbow is an annular shape.
The reason people see a semi-circle one was that the other part is hidden
underground (Fang, 1995: 654), which is in line with scientific fact.
Actually, seen from the sky, the rainbow is a round circle. However, it is
difficult for people to have a full view of it when standing on the ground.
Another intriguing suggestion is that the rainbow can be man-made. As
depicted in Gezhicao, if the sun is in the east, water is sprayed towards the
west side of a person, and as a result droplet are red and green when
observed from between (Xiong, 2014: 220). The record of man-made
rainbows is quite interesting because such a simple experiment can easily
be replicated. The fact that odd phenomenon in nature can be reproduced
suggested the possibility of scientific research method. Xu Guangtai
argued that Gezhicao must have been influenced by the Jesuit, Alfonso
Vagnoni (1566–1640), in Kongji gezhi グ䱻Ṳ㠪 (The Principles of Four
Elements in Space), because there were several depictions of “spraying
water opposite to the sun” (Vagnoni, 1995: 714). The experiment of
“spraying water” can also be found in ancient literature. Fang Yizhi
mentioned, in Wuli xiaozhi ⢟⨼ቅ䇼 (Notes on the Principle of Things),
that there were some descriptions about the man-made rainbow
experiment as early as in Piya (บ䳻), by Lu Dian of the Song dynasty. “Lu
Dian sprayed water towards the sun for a rainbow.” (Fang, 1983-: 782)
According to Piya, if one sprays water facing the sun, a rainbow may
appear (Lu, 2008: 203). Qixiu leigao й‫㊱ؤ‬ふ (A Literary Sketch of
Historical Absences in Seven Items) by Lang Ying, cited from Piya, “Thus,
previous sages thought of the cloud too thin to block sunshine and the
rainbow came into being from the mapping process of the sun on clouds.
Now, water is sprayed to the sun and seen aside, the rainbow is created.”
(Lang, 2001: 29) The initial part of this paragraph relates to the fact that
the ancients found a rainbow can be seen when the sun light passes
through raindrops, the source of which is Kong Yingda’s notes and
commentaries in Liji: Yueling (⽲䇦gᴾԚ The Book of Rites: Rules of
the Moon) (Dai, 1999: 482). Yet, the end section provides accurate details
about how a rainbow can be observed by spraying water opposite to the
sun. Also worth mentioning, is that an even earlier record of man-made

89
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

rainbows is found in Xuanzhenzi (⦺ⵕᆆ), by Zhang Zhihe in the Tang

dynasty. It is recorded that, “The phenomenon of rainbows can be seen
when water is sprayed opposite to the sun.” (Zhang, 1985: 44)
Under most circumstances, scholars in the Ming and Qing dynasties
preferred to describe the rainbow with terms related to the qi of yin/yang
(䱪/䱩). As cited from the previous definitions in Qixiu leigao, by Lang
Ying, the rainbow is the integrated the qi of yin/yang (Lang, 2001: 29). In
Xie Zhaozhe’s, Wuzazu ӊᵸ㓺 (Essays of Five Sections), the rainbow is
also considered the qi of yin/yang with a tangible exterior and an intangible
interior, the existing span of which is very short (Xie, 2001: 12). Although
there was one perception that rainbows are generated by sunshine through
raindrops in Gezhicao, Xiong Mingyu still agreed with the idea that the
formation of rainbows is caused by “the movement of yang qi” in Sima
Qian’s, Records of the Historian (ਨ䇦) (Xiong, 2014: 221). As a result, based
on the qi of yin/yang and physical observations, the two different
explanations for the formation of rainbows coexisted in the same book.
From the view of modern scientific knowledge, the discussion on the
mechanism underlying the formation of rainbows was too ambiguous to
be taken seriously, and far from a result of scientific research.

II. RAINBOWS: SALACIOUS QI AND SIPHONING ABILITY?

Generally speaking, scholars of the Ming and Qing dynasties held two
views on the characteristics of rainbows: the first was that they were the
sign of salaciousness, that is, the salacious qi existing in the universe; the
second was that rainbows could drink water and alcohol like animals. The
former could be a superstitious concept left behind by ancestors due to a
lack of an accurate explanation for the rainbow, while the latter originated
from exaggerated gossip and hearsay. Other differences between the two
theories can still be observed if a thorough investigation is made on the
details and their sources.
The conception of considering the rainbow as a sign of salaciousness
developed in a system that does not actively look for an explanation for
natural phenomenon. Probably dating back to the Eastern Han dynasty,
Zheng Xuan provided an explanation for a sentence from the Book of Songs:
Didong (䈍㔅g㵹㵶), which can be rendered as “once a rainbow comes
in the east, nobody dares to violate the taboo to point at it.” As Zheng

90
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

Xuan notes, “The rainbow is a taboo for people so that nobody dares to
point at it, the situation of which is quite similar to that of a woman of
easy virtue eloping with fancy man no one is emboldened to look at.”
(Mao 1999: 204) Zheng Xuan compared the rainbow to a lady eloping
with a man, as a result of which the idea of “rainbows symbolizing
salaciousness” became one of the moral creeds of Confucianism for
criticizing female elopement. The Shijizhuan (䈍䳼Ֆ) by the Song dynasty
scholar Zhu Xi added, “The rainbow is formed when bright sunshine
comes out of clouds after rain. Its essence implies sexual intercourse
because the sun represents yang while the rain stands for yin. Yang from the
sun and yin from the rain should not have integrated with each other but
turned out to be mixed, so the rainbow is defined as salaciousness.” (Zhu,
2011: 42) What Zhu Xi intended to do was to provide further proof that
the rainbow was the outcome of an improper intercourse between yin and
yang. Though the notes Zheng Xuan and Zhu Xi made on the rainbow
were not scientifically accurate, they succeeded in promoting the
popularity of the “rainbows representing salaciousness”, due to their
influence in academia.
This perception still prevailed even during the Ming and Qing dynasties.
Furthermore, Wuli xiaozhi, which simply approaches natural phenomena
by researching objects, could not escape the impact. It is mentioned in
Wuli xiaozhi that a wizard or alchemist made medical philter from
Hongchong (a kind of red worm) discovered in the East China Sea. The
legend about making philter from Hongchong acts as the counterpart to
the conception of the rainbow as a symbol of salaciousness (Fang, 1983:
782-783). However, Fang Yizhi did not impose any doubt on this idea.
Nevertheless, some intellectuals were skeptical towards the notion of
“rainbows representing salaciousness”. Gezhicao by Xiong Mingyu
disputed the notes made by Zhu Xi and other scholars. Xiong Mingyu
argued, the definition about the rainbow being the symbol of salacious qi
in Shi-ji Zhuan by Zhu Xi is false (Xiong, 2014: 242). In addition, Wang
Fuzhi criticized Zhu Xi in Zhangzi zhengmeng zhu ᕖᆆ↙㫏⌞ (Notes and
Commentaries of Zhengmeng), as Wang believed that rainbows were only
natural phenomena, without a tangible material carrier caused by the
penetration of sunshine through drizzle instead of salacious qi (Wang,
1988: 327). Among all the critics, the most powerful strike was from Lang
Ying. He pointed out in Qixiu leigao, that the definition of “rainbows
representing salaciousness” originated from Huainanzi (␤঍ᆆ), with the

91
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

quotation, “I think Zhu Xi’s conception about the rainbow is derived from
the fairy tale in Huainanzi. Zhu directly cited the story without any double
verification (Liu, 1989: 528). Although it was true as what it was depicted
about rainbows in Huainanzi, no rainbow can be generated without the
sun and drizzle. Therefore, what is required to form rainbows is the
mapping of the sunshine through raindrops. Now, rainbows, if seen from
the side, can be generated by spraying water in the sun. If this kind of
artificial rainbow is also considered as salaciousness, it is quite probably a
false recognition.” (Lang, 2001: 58)
Anecdotes about the ability of rainbows to take food were widely
spread through folklore. For example, Xie Zhaozhe remarked in Wuzazu,
that during the Western Han dynasty, a rainbow descended to the ground
to drink water from a well, and finally the well turned out to be waterless;
a partial rainbow intruded the imperial palace for water and a gentleman
appeared with the transformation of the gradually weakening rainbow.
Additionally, in the Tang dynasty, a rainbow came for food and drink at a
banquet. Speaking of those tales, Xie Zhaozhe did not hold an explicit
attitude. On the one hand, he said that rainbows were qi of yin/yang
without a material carrier, meaning it would be strange to hear of “the
capability of rainbows to take food and water”. On the other, he never
refused to acknowledge the rationality of these seemingly absurd stories
(Xie, 2001: 12).
Erya (ቊ䳻) and Shuowen jiezi (䈪ᮽ䀙ᆍ) may be the origin of “the
rainbow’s ability to take food and drink”. The reason for this conclusion
is because the glosses and explanations for “Hong” (㲯 the rainbow) and
its character formation, as well as the etymology in the two masterpieces,
are all written as “Hong”, which is a kind of insect. The scholars of later
generations often cited this definition of “Hong” when talking about the
rainbow.
Shen Kuo, a scholar of great influence in the Song dynasty, used an
anecdote about “the rainbow’s power to siphon”, which heavily influenced
the spread of this belief about rainbows. As put in Mengxi bitan Ờⓠㅊ
䈾 (Dream Pool Essays), during years of the throne of Emperor
Shenzong in the Northern Song dynasty (A.D. 1069-1085), Shen Kuo was
assigned as an envoy to Khitan. Just at the end of rain, he and his
colleagues saw a rainbow in front of their camp. Both ends of the rainbow
reached down into the creek, creating a picture of which seemed like
siphoning water. Thus, orders were given to check the situation at the two

92
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

sides of the creek, only to find that the rainbow could only be seen when
the observer was standing in the west facing east, and not vice versa. After
a while, the rainbow started moving eastwards and vanished over the
mountain (Shen, 2015: 203). What Shen Kuo stated in the book was very
detailed, as outlined previously. Owing to the rules of how rainbows are
formed, people can see it only when located between the sun and the
rainbow. Furthermore, the rainbow will also move with the sun. Shen
Kuo’s record of his experience actually introduced a mistaken recognition.
That is to say, the rainbow possessed a biological characteristic that
enabled it to drink water from creeks or travel across mountains. Shen
Kuo’s story, as told through the quotation by Lu Dian (2008: 204), may
also have had an effect on Zhu Xi. Zhu Xi admitted that he believed not
only that the rainbow was the phenomenon of light and shadow after sun
light travelled through drizzle, but also saw it as a tangible entity that could
consume food and water (Zhu, 1986: 24).
Most academics in Ming and Qing dynasties held suspicious attitudes
towards the hypothesis that rainbows could siphon water. Lang Ying
considered it misinformation that previous ancestors relayed from one to
another about this hypothesis, that is, a creature was mistaken as the
rainbow due to it looking like the rainbow (Lang, 2001: 29). Xiong Mingyu
also denounced this hypothesis in Gezhicao, by arguing that the rainbow
could not feed or drink for lack of a mouth and belly. Instead, he offered
an alternative explanation that the phenomenon was essentially generated
as vapor ascended, which looked like rainbow siphoning water (Xiong,
2014: 242).
A rhetorical question in Inquiries of Celestial Phenomena by You Yi
revealed the logic in the statement of “rainbows siphoning water”. You Yi
asked, “㵹㵶ᱥੜᱥ㲡? 㤛ᱥ㲡θྸ↚ཝⲺ㲡θྸ֋㜳൞ⷢ䰪࠰⧦ᡌ
⎾ཧ? 㤛㲯ਠᱥӇ䵔ж㊱Ⲻ㠠❬⧦䊗θѰ֋৾㜳੮≪侤䞈?” (“Are
rainbows really a kind of worm? If so, how could such a huge worm
appear or disappear all of a sudden? Supposing that it is only a natural
phenomenon, why can it suck water or drink?”). He believed that the
rainbow was just a phenomenon caused by sunshine shedding over clouds
rather than a living being, like a worm. The rumor about rainbows
siphoning water can be explained as sun light evaporates heat from the
ground, as opposed to the rainbow drinking and eating. That is why water
and wine can ascend along the parabolic curve of the rainbow (You, 1983-:
632). In Wuli xiaozhi, by Fang Yizhi, there is an individual chapter about

93
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

rainbows, but there is no discussion about whether the rainbow can drink
water or not, because he rejected such hypotheses. Wang Fuzhi agreed
with Fang’s idea by saying, “Those who state rainbows can drink water
from the well are those who have never been enlightened.” (Wang, 1988:
12: 327)

III. PHENOMENA OR COLORS SIMILAR TO RAINBOWS

The rainbow, solar halo, lunar halo and “double images of both the
moon and the sun” are all atmospheric optical phenomena. The difference
between them is that the rainbow can usually be seen only when the
observer turns their back to the sun, while it is required to face the sun or
the moon to see solar and lunar halos. According to modern optical
knowledge, the rainbow is generated after sunlight has experienced
refraction, reflection and another refraction through raindrops in the air,
while halos are formed through light refracting through ice crystals in
cloud layers.
During the Ming and Qing dynasties, scholars paid attention to this kind
of phenomenon and tried to make sense of it, but their suggestions are
too ambiguous for modern thought. As stated in Gezhicao, it is believed
that solar and lunar halos and comet flares are formed because qi arose to
the sky. All of them are qi of the ground attracted by the sun and the
moon in essence, but qi of halos are below rather than above the sun and
the moon. Xiong Mingyu listed some examples to argue that the
formation mechanism of halos was similar to how visually impaired
people see annular shadows when staring at lamplights (Xiong, 2014: 201,
267). In Wuli xiaozhi, it is also recorded that Fang Kongzhao, the father of
Fang Yizhi, discussed with friends the argument of “halos similar to
rainbows”. Fang Kongzhao thought that halos should be annular, and
semi-circle halos like rainbows are due to being half unseen (Fang, 1983-:
782).
The description of double images of both the sun and the moon is
actually parhelion and paraselene. Similar to halos, parhelion and
paraselene are double images of the sun and the moon caused by
refraction and reflection of light through ice crystals in cloud layers. In
Gezhicao, Xiong Mingyu argued that double images of the sun and the
moon did not prove the birth of another sun or moon. If there was really
another sun or moon, it would be visible and recorded in every country,

94
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

which was not consistent with the truth. He believed that this kind of
phenomenon was similar to water reflection and was generated by “oddly
formed qi” (Xiong, 2014: 230-231). Also, You Yi made a comparatively
rational judgement on the same thing in Inquiries of Celestial Phenomena. He
held the opinion that if the sun was facing a bulk of thin cloud, sunbeams
would penetrate it, but where there was black thick cloud, sunshine could
not travel through it and had to be thrown back on the thin cloud. As a
consequence, dual-images of the sun occurred. Under such circumstances,
a third image would be produced if another cloud came along (You, 1983-,
632-633). Though Xiong Mingyu and You Yi used observation to
interpret the double-image situation, the terms they used were not explicit
enough to be considered scientifically accurate.
Due to the colorful visual effect of optical phenomena in atmosphere,
including the rainbow, scholars of the Ming and Qing dynasties also took
the formation of colors into consideration when discussing rainbow
phenomenon. You Yi cited “the integration of water and fire” as the
explanation for green and red colors of rainbows in Inquiries of Celestial
Phenomena. In his opinion, rainbows should have been colorless and the
green is from the qi of water while the red is caused by the qi of fire. With
the fusion of water and fire, the color of the rainbow varies through the
combination of red and green (You, 1983-: 632). Fang Zhonglü offered a
similar explanation for its color in Gujin shiyi (Fang, 1995: 654-655).
According to Inquiries of Celestial Phenomena, in the discussion of tiers of
colors about rainbows, the form of rainbows is an arc with a yellow layer
exterior, green middle and red interior (You, 1983-: 632). Based on
modern knowledge, this kind of statement is incorrect because the visual
effect of rainbows is usually red, yellow and green or purple from outside
to inside, which is opposite to what You Yi recorded.
Xiong Mingyu wrote in Gezhicao that the color of sky is beyond the Five
Elements. The sky-blue is not the true color of the sky and the color
people see is only visual illusion (Xiong, 2014: 191-192). This kind of
conception probably results from Jesuit influence. Alfonso Vagnoni
distinguished two ways of forming colors in the Principles of Four Elements
in Space, namely, realistic color and illusionary color. Realistic color is born
from the fusion of cold, heat, dry and damp, which could not be seen in
objects made of pure elements, but resulting from a “hodgepodge”
mixture. Illusionary colors are generated by the beam reflected from
objects, which is easy to come and go (Vagnoni, 1995: 713). Fang Yizhi

95
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

drew the conclusion in Wuli xiaozhi that convex lenses, like convex
gemstones, will make a beam converge into one strip, and a prism, like
prism-shaped gemstones, make it disperse into five colors. For example,
the luminous stone of Mt Emei is a hexagonal prism with six facets, and
a crystal paperweight that is a triple prism with three facets, can disperse a
sunbeam into five colors. When sunshine goes through a waterfall or water
is sprayed between walls, five colors will be visible. In nature, the five-color
phenomena, share the same principle of the prism splitting the beam into
five colors (Fang, 1983-: 911).
Therefore, the statement in Wuli xiaozhi is considered by researchers of
scientific history to be important historical material about optics. To some
degree, Fang’s understanding of the formation of five-color phenomena
aligns with the spectrum principle of sunlight. It is a pity that he did not
investigate the spectral phenomenon of prisms based on his findings, or
further explore the principle behind it. From our point of view, there is a
huge gap between understanding how light splits and making valuable
scientific findings. Supposing mathematical methods were adopted to
describe the refraction of a beam (that is, to measure incident and reflex
angles), imagination is still required to conclude that natural sunlight is
composed of various colors of light, the principle of which Isaac
Newton’s dispersion experiment with prisms is based on.

CONCLUSION

This article has conducted a thorough investigation into texts about

rainbows written by scholars of the Ming-Qing dynasties. However, this
discussion did not enter into wider society. According to statistics, the
narrative attribution of disasters to rainbows is seldom seen in works of
natural philosophy. Only in Gujin shiyi, Fang Zhonglü threw doubt over
this kind of conception (Fang, 1995: 655). How do popular books that
reflect common wisdom describe rainbows?
In Tianzhongji ཟ ѣ 䇦 (A Reference Book of Tianzhong), Chen
Yaowen cited the record from Jinshu ᲁҜ (The Book of Jin Dynasty).
Rainbows pervaded all over the sky in the fifth year of Jianxing (ᔰު)
during the Jin dynasty, which was the same year that Liu Cong assassinated
Emperor Min (Chen, 1983-: 965: 146). Geomancy about rainbows can also
be applied to military combat. Chen Yuanlong wrote in Gezhi jingyuan Ṳ

96
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

㠪䮒৕ (Probe into Essences of Everything for Knowledge), that when

sieging a city, if there was a rainbow siphoning water from the south, then
troops should follow the direction of the rainbow to achieve victory (Chen,
1983-: 1031: 53). Owing to the fact that authors of natural history books
usually do not distinguish the content, this kind of work can be considered
an “encyclopedia” of folklore on the rainbow. In the late Ming dynasty,
the popular reference books aimed at the masses were mostly published
by booksellers for profit. These kinds of books usually recorded
catastrophes and ghost stories about phenomenon such as rainbows, halos,
and parhelion, which were presented as a fortunetelling picture with
comments.
Like the reference book of natural history, the statements about
rainbows in popular encyclopedias books is also chaotic. The texts are not
logically rigorous enough to record reliable stories. For instance, in Xinke
Tianxia Simin Bianlan Santai Wanyong Zhengzong (᯦ࡱཟс഑≇‫׵‬㿾пਦ
н⭞↙ᇍ), there are paradoxes in the divination of the solar halo. To be
specific, the solar halo not only forecasts the drought, but also prophesizes
heavy rain (Yu, 2011: 215, 216). Authors of daily reference books select
absurd and weird stories that are popular due to their sensationalism,
which appeals to wider audiences. Compared with the scholarly reference
book of natural science, household books for civilians recording
anecdotes about rainbows were broadcast more widely.
Another significant source of natural knowledge is official histories.
Among them, meteorological phenomena like wind, rain, snow, and hail,
are recorded in both Wuxingzhi ӊ㺂ᘍ (Records of Five Elements) and
Tianwenzhi ཟᮽᘍ (Records of Astronomy). No text about rainbows is
included in Records of Five Elements, however records on halos and fogbows
are printed in Records of Astronomy. Accurate dates when solar halos and
fogbows occurred were recorded in History of the Yuan dynasty: Records of
Astronomy, in which fogbows, solar halos and eclipses are all categorized in
the same section (Song, 1976: 1002-1004). In History of the Ming Dynasty:
Records of Astronomy, a section called “anomaly celestial phenomena by
halos” documented the precise year and outlined a description of solar
halos, fogbows and solar prominence (Zhang, 1974: 413-416). But authors
of official histories did not extend any theories on the implication of these
phenomena.
In conclusion, the scholarly work of the Ming and Qing dynasties did

97
Hongjun LIU / Scholarly Study of Hong (Rainbow) in the Ming and Qing Dynasties

not address or comment on rainbows thoroughly enough to be considered

accurate. They usually mixed rational speculation with ridiculous concepts
in the same discourse, resulting in skepticism towards their anecdotes and
legends.
Notes

Proofread by Daniel Canaris, Sun Yat-Sen University.

References

Chen, YL. 1983-, Gezhi jingyuan Ṳ㠪䮒৕, Reprint of Wenyuange siku quanshu ᮽ⑀
䰷഑ᓉ‫ޞ‬Ҝ, Vol. 1031, Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, Taiwan.
Chen, YW. 1983-, Tianzhongji ཟѣ䇦, Reprint of Wenyuange siku quanshu, Vol. 965,
Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, Taiwan.
Dai, S (ed.). 1999, Liji zhengyi ⽲䇦↙ѿ, in Li, XQ (ed.), Shisan jing zhushu ॷп㔅
⌞⯅ (Commentary and Subcommentary on the Thirty Classics), Peking
University Press, Beijing.
Fang, YZ. 1983-, Wuli xiaozhi ⢟⨼ቅ䇼 (Notes on the Principles of Things),
Reprint of Wenyuange siku quanshu, Vol. 867. Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan.
Fang, Zl. 1995, Gujin shiyi ਚԀ䠀⯇ (Explanations for the Miracles of Then and
Now), Siku quanshu cunmu congshu ഑ᓉ‫ޞ‬ҜᆎⴤёҜ (Collection of Listed
Titles of the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries), Sector Zi ᆆ䜞, Vol.
99, Qilu shushe, Jinan.
Lang, Y. 2001, Qixiuleigao й‫㊱ؤ‬ふ (A Literary Sketch of Historical Absences in
Seven Items), Shanghai shudian chubanshe, Shanghai.
Liu, WD. 1989, Huainan honglie jijie ␤঍呵⛾䳼䀙, Punctuated by Feng, Y & Qiao,
H, Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.
Lu, D. 2008, Piya บ 䳻 , Punctuated by Wang, MH, Zhejiang University Press,
Hangzhou.
Mao, H (ed.). 1999, Maoshi zhengyi ∑䈍↙ѿ, in Li, XQ (ed.), Shisan jing zhushu, Peking
University Press, Beijing.
Shen, K. 2015, Mengxi bitan Ờⓠㅊ䈾 (Dream Pool Essays), Punctuated by Jin, LN,
Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.
Song, L et al. (ed.). 1976, History of the Yuan Dynasty ‫ݹ‬ਨ, Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.
Vagnone, A. 1995, Kongji Gezhi グ䱻Ṳ㠪 (The Principles of Four Elements in
Space), Siku quanshu cunmu congshu, Sector Zi ᆆ䜞, Vol. 93, Qilu shushe, Jinan.
Wang, FZ. 1988, Zhangzi zhengmeng zhu ᕖᆆ↙㫏⌞ (Notes and Commentaries of
Zhengmeng), in Chuanshan quanshu 㡯 ኧ ‫ ޞ‬Ҝ , Vol. 12, Yuelushushe,
Changsha.

98
 Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 19(1)/2022: 87-99

Xie, ZZ. 2001, Wuzazu ӊ ᵸ 㓺 (Essays of Five Sections), Shanghai shudian

chubanshe, Shanghai.
Xiong, MY. 2014, Hanyutong jiaoshi: gezhicao ࠳ᆽ䙐ṗ䠀φṲ㠪㥿, Punctuated by Xu
GT, Shanghai Jiaotong University Press, Shanghai.
Yan, CY. 1983- ‘Qinghong fu Ც㲯䎁’, in Dong, H (ed.), Qinding quantang wen 䫜ᇐ‫ޞ‬
୆ ᮽ , Reprint of Wenyuange siku quanshu, Vol. 1637, Taiwan shangwu
yinshuguan, Taiwan.
You, Y. 1983-, Tianjing huowen ཟ㔅ᡌ䰤 (Inquiries of Celestial Phenomena), Reprint
of Wenyuange siku quanshu, Vol. 793, Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, Taiwan.
Yu, XD (ed.). 2011, Xinke Tianxia Simin Bianlan santai wanyong zhengzong ᯦ࡱཟс഑
≇‫׵‬㿾пਦн⭞↙ᇍ, in Mindai tongsu riyong leishu jikan ᱄ԙ䙐‫؍‬ᰛ⭞㊱Ҝ
䳼ࡀ, Vol. 6, Xinan shifan daxue chuban she, Chongqing.
Zhang, TY et al. (ed.). 1974, History of the Ming Dynasty ᱄ਨ, Zhonghua shuju,
Beijing.
Zhang, ZH. 1985, Xuanzhenzi ⦺ⵕᆆ, Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.
Zhu, X. 1986, Zhuzi yulei ᵧᆆ䈣㊱, Punctuated by Wang, XX, Zhonghua shuju,
Beijing.
Zhu, X. 2011, Shijizhuan 䈍䳼Ֆ, Punctuated by Zhao CZ, Zhonghua shuju, Beijing.

99