William Cowper, the English poet, well-known for composing hymns, deviated from his usual topic and presented Nose versus Eyes, an interesting and uncommon subject on a courtroom drama of a dispute between the Nose and the Eyes about the ownership of the spectacles.
The title makes no bones about the disagreement between the Nose and the Eyes by using the word ‘versus’ and directly involves the readers in the context of the poem. The poet sarcastically refers to the contest as ‘strange’ but makes it sound very obvious about the position of the spectacles.
All the formalities of the courtroom were fulfilled with quite precision. The Tongue, which is used for speaking, was assigned the job of the lawyer so that he could defend his client wisely with valid arguments. The Tongue did his job perfectly with the help of intelligent reasoning in favour of the Nose for being the legitimate owner of the spectacles. He went to the extent of saying that in absence of a Nose, there was no way one could wear the spectacles.
Here, the poet brought the surprise element of the poem by making the same lawyer change side and represent the other disputant, the Eyes. But the learned judge, the all-powerful Ear, even after being very attentive and prudent, could not make head or tail of the arguments in favour of the Eyes. So, he had to come to a decision to give the official order in favour of the Nose, in a serious tone without having any hesitation in mind.
He also pronounced a verdict for the Eyes to keep themselves shut whenever the spectacles are worn. The poem is a satire on the judicial system and the poet made his comments very obvious by using expressions like ‘a wig full of learning’. He has personified various sensory organs, which are very essential in a courtroom, to bring out how the futility of the judiciary can lead to major harm. For creating humour, he has used the language and the background of a courtroom which also has made the poem an interesting read.
Like an allegory, where a story or poem is used to reveal a hidden meaning, this poem also can be interpreted to have a moral. All the imaginary characters point out to the moral values needed for the judiciary. The same lawyer speaks in favour of both the rivals and the deliberate attempt to present vague arguments for the second client add to the element of humour but it also hints at the justice that is denied. The deliberate use of words to protect the dignity of the judge, who actually does not do justice, is the poet’s way of pointing finger at misuse of such an important service.
The first reaction of the reader will be having a good laugh while reading the poem. But the deeper meaning of the need for morality in the judicial system definitely makes the poem thought-provoking.
