What John Baines Actually Means When He Talks About "The Science of Love"
If you're looking for a pop-culture self-help framework, stop now. This has nothing to do with dating advice or relationship coaching. John Baines is a Professor of Egyptology at Oxford, and when he uses the phrase "the science of love" in his work, he's referring to how ancient Egyptian texts treat love — not as a mystical abstraction, but as something systematized, observed, and documented in writing. His approach is textual and philological. He reads love poetry from ancient Egypt — the Amarna letters, tomb inscriptions, wisdom literature — and analyzes how love was linguistically and culturally constructed. The core of his argument is that Egyptians didn't have a single word for "love" the way we do. They had verbs like mr (to love, to desire), nouns, and a whole register of metaphorical language that operated differently depending on whether you were talking about romantic love, familial love, or love of the gods. The most commonly cited piece people reference is his work on Egyptian love poetry, particularly the famous correspondence between Ramesses II and Hittite Queen Puduhepa, and the personal letters found at Deir el-Medina where ordinary people wrote to each other using language that any modern reader would recognize as romantic. Baines treats these not as curiosities but as evidence of a genuine literary tradition.
One thing beginners consistently miss is that Baines is careful about translation. He argues that translators often impose Western romantic conventions onto Egyptian texts that simply didn't operate that way. The repetition of phrases like "my brother, my sister" in Amarna diplomatic correspondence isn't necessarily sentimental filler — it's a formal address structure, but Baines also notes that in private letters between spouses, those same terms carry genuinely affectionate weight. The distinction matters and most overview articles gloss over it entirely. I ran into this exact problem a while back when trying to cite a specific love poem for a paper. The standard translations all seemed to say the same emotionally charged thing, but when I went back to the hieroglyphic transliteration, the verb forms were far more formal and restrained than the English versions suggested. The workaround was to cross-reference Baines' analysis with the work of Miriam Lichtheim on ancient Egyptian literature and compare how different translators handled the same passages. It took significantly longer than just picking a translation and moving on, but the difference in the actual meaning was substantial enough that it changed my entire argument. There's a practical limitation worth noting: Baines' work is academic and dense. It's not written for casual readers. The relevant material is scattered across journal articles and book chapters rather than collected in one accessible volume. If you're approaching this for the first time, starting with his broader cultural analysis of ancient Egypt will give you more useful context than hunting down individual papers on love poetry specifically.
The counter-intuitive part most people don't expect is that Baines actually argues Egyptian love literature is more restrained and formulaic than Greek or later Mediterranean traditions. The emotional intensity readers project onto these texts often comes from the translator's choices rather than the original language itself. The poems are full of natural imagery — flowers, wine, animals — but the underlying structure is conventional in a way that resembles courtly love formulas in medieval Europe more than anything resembling modern romantic expression.
Get the Full Details
