The history of intentional menstrual suppression is often assumed to begin in the 1960s, with the advent of effective oral contraception. This article, however, demonstrates that in the Roman Imperial period, despite widespread belief in the importance of menstruation for maintaining female reproductive health, there was already a diverse marketplace for menstrual suppression techniques. By reading sources against the grain and engaging in critical speculation, this study investigates the available methods, who may have sought them and why, and how their use might reinforce or challenge gendered norms and power dynamics. This study focuses primarily on three sets of sources: Galen's medical treatises on bloodletting, the pharmacological compendia of Pliny the Elder and Dioscorides, and body amulets to regulate vaginal blood flow. It proposes that individuals engaged with these technologies not only to normalise excessive periods, but also to delay, minimise or eliminate menstruation for convenience.

This article suggests a new reading for Oribasius’ Libri ad Eunapium 3.13.4. Based on evidence from both Greek and Syriac sources, it argues that the variant contained in Oribasius’ Synopsis ad Eustathium should be adopted as the correct reading of the original.

The work Πϵρὶ ἁπλῶν φαρμάκων or De simplicibus (Simp., also known as Πϵρὶ ϵὐποριστῶν) is ascribed in the MSS to Dioscorides. This ascription, first found in Oribasius (fourth century AD), was accepted by the most recent editor of the work, Max Wellmann, and is enshrined in LSJ, but has often been questioned. This article aims to disprove Dioscoridean authorship on the grounds of two characteristics of Simp.: first, its use of alphabetical organization; second, its unsatisfactory treatment of material that is better handled in Dioscorides’ De materia medica (MM). The use of alphabetical ordering in Simp. is inconsistent and frequently disrupted; furthermore, in the preface to MM, Dioscorides explicitly rejected alphabetization as a means of organizing lists of medications. Internal evidence shows that the author of Simp. made ineffectual attempts to conceal the alphabetical ordering of his material, possibly in response to Dioscorides’ criticism of that method. In its treatment of material that is paralleled in MM, Simp. sometimes lacks clarity or omits important details or makes errors, failings that would be highly unlikely if Dioscorides himself were its author.

This article discusses the text of the work On Simples attributed to Dioscorides. It argues that in fifteen places the transmitted text is faulty, and it proposes emendations. It also studies certain types of insertions made in the text by its most recent editor, Max Wellmann, and concludes that they are unnecessary. Finally, it discusses two points where On Simples sheds light on Dioscorides’ De materia medica.