本文以明代（1368-1644）本草書為中心，從「生命—事件」這一視角切入，追尋個別本草書的實際製作過程，重繪知識生產、實踐的具體語境與情況，以說明參與書籍生命歷史之不同人、物的動機和策略。本文發現在藥理之外，明代本草書還介入了特定政治事件和學術潮流的思想辯論，發生的原因在於醫學本身便是社會言說共識的資源之一。本文主體雖為兩部本草典籍——明初周藩定王朱橚及其著作《救荒本草》；晚明海虞繆希雍及其著作《神農本草經疏》——但同時兼顧由此中心輻射出的一系列文本——正史、方志、文集、碑刻、族譜、圖畫、戲曲，通過研析不同類型史料與本草書正、副文本之間的互文與差異，從中發現不同參與者儘管受到社會、政治等網絡與結構之限制，但都試圖藉本草書彰顯自我之能動性。

This dissertation examines two Materia Medica (bencao) texts in the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) with a focus on their bibliographical information and the historical events surrounding their compilations. By tracing the actual production process of individual Materia Medica texts and reconsidering the specific historical context in which this knowledge was generated, this dissertation illustrates the motivations and strategies of different actors in the production of these books. It contends that the Materia Medica texts compiled in the Ming dynasty were not merely a contribution to the study of pharmacology, they were also attempts to intervene in major political events and intellectual debates. This intervention was made possible because medical knowledge had become part of a shared discourse in the Ming dynasty. Although the main focus of this dissertation lies in two Materia Medica texts—Jiuhuang bencao (Materia Medica of Famine Relief) compiled by the Ming Prince Zhu Su and Shennong bencao jing shu (An Annotation of Shennong’s Classic of Materia Medica) composed by the late Ming scholar Miao Xiyong—it also takes into account other materials that are related to these compilations, for instance, official histories, local gazetteers, anthologies, inscriptions, genealogies, illustrations, and operas. By analyzing the intertextuality and variations between these historical sources and the two books in question, and by examining the relationship between the main texts and the paratexts of these compilations, this dissertation argues that those who participated in the compilation of these texts were seeking to use their editorial work as an illustration of their individual agencies even though they were restricted by their social networks and political structures.