 Bridge 's view of " Ode to a Nightingale " was taken up by H. W. Garrod in his 1926 analysis of Keats 's poems . Like Albert Gerard would argue later in 1944 , Garrod believed that the problem within Keats 's poem was his emphasis on the rhythm and the language instead of the main ideas of the poem . When describing the fourth stanza of the poem , Maurice Ridley , in 1933 , claimed , " And so comes the stanza , with that remarkable piece of imagination at the end which feels the light as blown by the breezes , one of those characteristic sudden flashes with which Keats fires the most ordinary material . " He later declared of the seventh stanza : " And now for the great stanza in which the imagination is fanned to yet whiter heat , the stanza that would , I suppose , by common consent be taken , along with Kubla Khan , as offering us the distilled sorceries of ' Romanticism ' " . He concluded on the stanza that " I do not believe that any reader who has watched Keats at work on the more exquisitely finished of the stanzas in The Eve of St. Agnes , and seen this craftsman slowly elaborating and refining , will ever believe that this perfect stanza was achieved with the easy fluency with which , in the draft we have , it was obviously written down . " In 1936 , F. R. Leavis wrote , " One remembers the poem both as recording , and as being for the reader , an indulgence . " Following Leavis , Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren , in a 1938 essay , saw the poem as " a very rich poem . It contains some complications which we must not gloss over if we are to appreciate the depth and significance of the issues engaged . " Brooks would later argue in The Well @-@ Wrought Urn ( 1947 ) that the poem was thematically unified while contradicting many of the negative criticisms lodged against the poem . 
 Bridge <a href='null_genetive' title='1'><mark>'s</mark></a>view of " Ode to a Nightingale " was taken up by H. W. Garrod in his 1926 analysis of Keats <a href='null_genetive' title='2'><mark>'s</mark></a>poems . Like Albert Gerard would argue later in 1944 , Garrod believed that the problem within Keats <a href='null_genetive' title='3'><mark>'s</mark></a>poem was his emphasis on the rhythm and the language instead of the main ideas of the poem . When describing the fourth stanza of the poem , Maurice Ridley , in 1933 , claimed , " And so <a href='uninflect' title='4'><mark>comes</mark></a> the stanza , with that remarkable piece of imagination at the end which <a href='uninflect' title='5'><mark>feels</mark></a> the light as blown by the breezes , one of those characteristic sudden flashes with which Keats <a href='uninflect' title='6'><mark>fires</mark></a> the most ordinary material . " He later declared of the seventh stanza : " And now for the great stanza in which the imagination is fanned to yet whiter heat , the stanza <a href='null_relcl' title='7'><mark>that</mark></a>would , I suppose , by common consent be taken , along with Kubla Khan , as offering us the distilled sorceries of ' Romanticism ' " . He concluded on the stanza that " I do not believe that any reader <a href='null_relcl' title='8'><mark>who</mark></a><a href='been_done' title='9'><mark>has</mark></a> watched Keats at work on the more exquisitely finished of the stanzas in The Eve of St. Agnes , and seen this craftsman slowly elaborating and refining , will ever believe that this perfect stanza was achieved with the easy fluency with which , in the draft we have , it was obviously written down . " In 1936 , F. R. Leavis wrote , " One <a href='uninflect' title='10'><mark>remembers</mark></a> the poem both as recording , and as being for the reader , an indulgence . " Following Leavis , Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren , in a 1938 essay , saw the poem as " a very rich poem . It <a href='uninflect' title='11'><mark>contains</mark></a> some complications which we must not gloss over if we are to appreciate the depth and significance of the issues engaged . " Brooks would later argue in The Well @-@ Wrought Urn ( 1947 ) that the poem was thematically unified while contradicting many of the negative criticisms lodged against the poem . 
Bridge  view of " Ode to a Nightingale " was taken up by H. W. Garrod in his 1926 analysis of Keats  poems . Like Albert Gerard would argue later in 1944 , Garrod believed that the problem within Keats  poem was his emphasis on the rhythm and the language instead of the main ideas of the poem . When describing the fourth stanza of da poem , Maurice Ridley , in 1933 , claimed , " And soo cum tdastanza , with that remarkable piece of imagination at the end which feel thdaight as blown by the breezes , one of those characteristic sudden flashes with which Keats fire the most ordinary material . " He later declared of the seventh stanza : " And now for the great stanza in which the imagination is fanned to yet whiter heat , thedaanza would , I suppose , by common consent be taken , along witt Kubla Khan , as offering us the distilled sorceries of ' Romanticism ' " . He concluded on the stanza dat " I do not believe that any reader done watched Keats at wrk on the more exquisitely finished of the stanzas in The da of St. Agnes , and seen dis craftsman slowly elaborating and refining , will eva believe that tdisbumpin stanza was achieved with the easy fluency with which , in the ddat we have , it was obviously written dwn . " In 1936 , F. R. Leavis wrote , " One remember the poem both as recording , and as being fa the redar , an indulgence . " Following Leavis , Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren , in a 1938 hw , saw the poem as " a very rich poem . It contain some complications which we must not gloss over if we are to appreciate the depth and significance of the issues engaged . " Brooks would later argue in The Well @-@ Wrought Urn ( 1947 ) tdatthe poem was thematically unified while contradicting many of the negative criticisms lodged against the poeda