John Hunter and Joanna Baillie: Veterinary Science, Animal Rights, and the Pathology of Cruelty

In Slagle’s “John Hunter and Joanna Baillie: Veterinary Science, Animal Rights, and the Pathology of Cruelty” he appears to be making the argument that there was a “conflicting contribution of John Hunter to veterinary science and of Joanna Baillie and others to animal protection” (626), the conflict arising because Hunter and Baillie were close relatives. Slagle proceeds to examine how living with a man (Hunter) that had a “fascination for animals and nature” (628) which led him “to perform investigations on animals both dead and alive” (629), had a major impact on Baillie. Slagle states that while the “focus of most of Baillie’s 27 plays is the human passions – especially passions out of control – cruelty included” (631), this thematic material stemmed from the fact that “for her, violence, and/or cruelty, manifested itself in human conduct – in relationships with other human beings and with animals as well” (631). This observation of passions and her living for a time with Hunter led Baillie to create a pamphlet that “addressed a general concern for the treatment of animals and was aimed at the young audience she hoped would change future attitudes based on abuse” (631). Slagle concludes on to note that Baillie’s plays revealed “the pathology of cruelty” (636) in human nature.

However, Slagle fails to bring up several very key points in the relationship between Hunter and Baillie, preferring to spend unnecessary time describing Hunter’s personal life. While detailed depictions of the state of his laboratory and experiments are helpful in understanding his relationship with the animals he operated on, and though he “gave the world some of the greatest discoveries in physiology and pathology - their methods were nonetheless cruel,” (633) the sheer amount of superfluous information is not needed to have the reader understand what Hunter’s stance on the issue of morality and experimental ethics was. Because of this additional onslaught of information, Slagle later in the article falls flat in describing Baillie’s contributions to the animal rights issue. He briefly mentions her article and her plays, but fails to bring up how Baillie’s notes on the emotional similarities between animals and humans parallels Hunter’s work of on the scientific similarities between animals and human beings.

Furthermore, Slagle shifts the focus away from Baillie and towards other authors and intellectuals of the time by the beginning of page 632. She receives more attention at the end, 633-636, but this dearth of information in article that is supposedly geared towards discussing Baillie’s contributions to her pet cause is a real weak point of Slagle’s argument, and sweeps under the rug perhaps the most interesting and important point of Baillie’s relationship with her uncle. Slagle brings up that “While Baillie’s plea was for the human treatment of animals, she did not mention its conflict with science,” (635) which, considering the stance of other animal rights activists of the time on the state of animal treatment within the scientific community, creates a dichotomy that Slagle should have further explored in an effort to provide explanation on Baillie’s affections for her uncle and respect for his work with her desire to protect animals. Unfortunately, Slagle doesn’t offer much information about Baillie’s loyalties to her family and to her cause, which further weakens his article.

In context of the article’s argument, we have a few questions regarding the other works for this week:

1. How does Hogarth’s “Four Stages of Cruelty” relate to the ideas presented in the article, particularly the idea that Baillie was also interested in the “pathology of cruelty” (636)?
2. How would some writers from the reading from the book (Locke and Barbauld in particular) feel about Baillie’s attempt to reach out to children to stop cruelty towards animals and in general?
3. Would you even consider this article to be an ‘argument,’ rather than simply a presentation of various interesting facts about scientific and humanitarian efforts at the time?