Overall, this is a very good paper that provides a unique approach in historical climatology on quantitative precipitation reconstruction for Paris in the Little Ice Age. Morin provided a unique record to conduct such a study.  The authors provide nice descriptions of the data and methods (including the transfer functions), as well a potential drawback issues such as wind and evaporation on precipitation, comparisons with other types of data that include isotopes.  The visuals mostly look quite good.  I only have a few minor comments.

1)  Around Line 65, Section 2.1.  Did Morin also have any seasonal aspect on his observations times due to changes in daytime, sunlight, etc.?  Also, with daytime observation times, I assume potential lack of rain observations at night?  (briefly touched on Line 140 but should be expanded).  If there is any nocturnal aspect to precipitation generating controls, those would be missing in the reconstruction.

2)  Figure 3 and around Line 190.  I am pleased to see scatterplots for the calibration, but wonder with the Pearson’s Correlation used, it utilizes the more non-parametric aspects of the precipitation data.  Perhaps using Spearman’s Correlation should also be included.  The non-parametric aspects also apply elsewhere such as Figure 5.

3)  Line 19.  Precipitation and temperature are not the only important climatic elements, probably the most straightforward elements.

4)  For some of the figures, all axis titles should be capitalized (first letter) for consistency, and the font size could be increased in some of the figures (ex. Figure 9)  Figure 4 provides an ideal example.

This is a well written and detailed paper exploring the diaries and records of Louis Morin, Paris (1665-1713). The paper provides a detailed analysis, which is sound and robust, in places additional detail would enable the reader to develop a more detailed understanding of Morin and his intentions, but the analysis is good. Some minor improvements in clarity or expression may be achieved and an annotated copy of the manuscript is attached to help the authors undertake these changes. I have also flagged in a couple of places sections where I felt the arguments presented warranted reflection and were other works could be used to support arguments. 

You might consider comparing the snow series information presented to that from the Manley snow series for London, a rare comparable record for the period.