Write the critical appreciation of "Progress of Poesy."

Of Thomas Gray's two Pindaric odes, Samuel Johnson wrote:

These odes are marked by glittering accumulations of ungraceful ornaments: they strike, rather than please; the images are magnified by affectation; the language is laboured into harshness. The mind of the writer seems to work with unnatural violence. "Double, double, toil and trouble." He has a kind of strutting dignity, and is tall by walking on tiptoe. His art and his struggle are too visible, and there is too little appearance of ease and nature.

And yet Gray himself regarded "The Progress of Poesy" and "The Bard" as two of his greatest accomplishments. How are we to account for the widely varying assessments of these works?
With respect to "The Progress of Poesy" (which was written in between 1751 and 1754), any critical appreciation of the work might begin by calling attention to the highly stylized nature of the poem's diction, prosody, and classical references. Gray seems simultaneously to be engaged in a virtuosic performance of his poetic resources in literary English, and in an attempt to cram perhaps too many eighteenth-century tropes about the dominance of lyric poetry relative to other poetic genres into one poem.
Here, "poesy" rivals Nature in its power, while ruling all manner of men and women, as well as their warring passions. The spirit of poetry is "headlong" and "impetuous," rather than placid and conversational; its "magic lulls the feather'd king / With ruffled plumes, and flagging wing." Poesy is represented as being possessed of both natural and supernatural power. To the extent that the poem may be appreciated rather than simply criticized, the reader must attempt to find value in "The Progress of Poesy" as a piece that is characteristic of its creator's ambition and his remarkable capacity to make a relatively short poem into a compendium of claims for the cultural sovereignty of the tradition of lyric poetry that arose from ancient Greece.