W.N. Hodgson
This is the tale of Four Stout Men
Who mounted their stark steeds there and then
And rode to Heilly o’er moor & fen,
Clanrobert, Cuchulain and Curgenven
(Not to mention Gaukrodger)–remarkable men.
And the number of things they didn’t discuss
From Aristotle’s De Partibus
To Marie Corelli and even wuss
Dalhousie, Defoe and Decius Mus
(Not omitting S.M. Grubb) astonishes us.
They feasted like men of Homeric mould
And drank as much as their guts would hold
And sang good songs like the men of old,
Bunyan and Barnum and Charles the Bold
(Not forgetting Barabbas) those hearts of gold.
Then into the saddles the four did vault.
And their spirits soared like the E in alt.
If their horses bolted it wasn’t their fault,
Genghis, and Grettir and Edwin Gault
(And of course John Silver, the excellent salt.)
And as they carolled a man of sin
Exploded a horrible culverin
But in spite of the state those four were in,
Disraeli and Daniel and Gunga Din
(Together with Micawber) survived the din.
© by owner. provided at no charge for educational purposes
Analysis (AI Assisted)
This poem presents a whimsical, almost absurd adventure, weaving together an eclectic cast of characters from various historical, literary, and mythological backgrounds. The “Four Stout Men” embark on a journey that blends heroic tradition with playful irreverence. The poem’s humor arises from the way it effortlessly combines the grandiosity of epic adventure with casual references to seemingly random figures, from ancient heroes to fictional characters and historical figures. This mix allows the poem to have an air of absurdity and fun, all while reflecting on the human inclination to both idolize and trivialize heroism.
At the outset, the four protagonists—Clanrobert, Cuchulain, Curgenven, and Gaukrodger—are introduced with a sense of noble purpose. They are described as “remarkable men,” yet their names immediately indicate that the poem is setting itself up to play with expectations. Cuchulain, a figure from Irish mythology, is steeped in heroism, but the other names—Curgenven, Clanrobert, and Gaukrodger—feel slightly more obscure, lending a tone of comic incongruity. The repetition of their “stark steeds” and their bold journey over “moor & fen” anchors the poem in the traditional framework of heroic epic poetry, while their lack of discussion about high-minded topics like Aristotle or literature (like “Marie Corelli” or “Defoe”) introduces the absurdity of their characterization.
The poem’s tone is lighthearted and almost farcical. The things they don’t discuss are as notable as the things they might have. Each name listed feels like a playful aside, like a catalogue of characters the poem might have involved but chose not to, underscoring how grand ideas, intellectual topics, and important matters are dismissed in favor of simpler, more earthly pursuits. This turns the traditional heroic journey on its head, elevating the trivial to an absurdly important level.
The middle of the poem introduces their revelry, which evokes the spirit of Homer’s heroes who “feasted like men of Homeric mould,” drank to excess, and sang “good songs,” all while continuing the litany of unlikely and slightly out-of-place references. Mentioning figures like “Bunyan and Barnum” alongside historical or literary heavyweights like “Charles the Bold” and “Barabbas” only adds to the absurdity of the feast. The combination of Bible figures, historical icons, and mythical figures further builds a world where the noble and the mundane collide. The men’s “hearts of gold” are referred to, but the phrase itself carries a sarcastic weight, almost as if the “goodness” of these men is too exaggerated to be taken seriously.
The poem’s humor deepens with the depiction of the four riders, who “vault” into their saddles, their spirits soaring. Yet again, the absurdity lies in how their exploits are framed. The horses “bolt,” but the blame is humorously shifted away from the riders, linking them to famous figures like “Genghis” and “Grettir” and “John Silver”—a pirate, a Viking, a warrior, and a literary character, all grouped together as if their actions were inevitable. The use of the word “alt” further contributes to the fun, suggesting that their feats are both lofty and comic.
The climax of the poem is an explosion caused by “a man of sin,” a moment of danger and drama, but the survival of the four men amidst this chaotic event reads like the punchline to the entire absurd tale. Their continued survival, despite the madness around them, seems in part due to their bizarre, almost cartoonish resilience. They survive the “din,” a word that evokes both noise and chaos, and their ability to do so mirrors the poem’s whimsical approach to heroism. The final line, listing characters like “Disraeli,” “Gunga Din,” “Micawber,” and others, makes it clear that the poem’s scope is not just mythic but crosses into history, literature, and social consciousness in an exaggerated, tongue-in-cheek manner.
Overall, the poem’s structure and content mock the traditional epic by offering a version of heroism that is both inflated and deflated at the same time. The “Four Stout Men” embody a mixture of foolishness and strength, typical of epic heroes but without the seriousness usually afforded them. The humor lies in the randomness of the names dropped and the way the narrative embraces chaos while refusing to acknowledge it in a serious way. In this way, the poem asks us to reflect on the absurdity of the heroic ideal, making us laugh at the spectacle while reminding us that heroism is often nothing more than a collection of farcical actions strung together by unlikely individuals.